Japanese opinion on Bf-109 in comparison with their planes.

[Dili]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... sKZScFwXqA

[RangerJoe]

That was interesting, thank you.

I remember reading that when the Allied pilots first came upon the Tony that they thought that it was a Japanese model of the ME-109 but not as good. But by that time, the ME-109 had seen improvements.

[Rusty1961]

I like how the German pilot engaged in "hit and run" tactics that upset the staged Japanese scenarios.

Good times.

[jdsrae]

Interesting, thanks.
One of the books that’s been on my bedside table for a few years now is Spitfire vs Bf109, but I’ve only read the Pacific chapter so far!
It compares the Spitfire vs Zeros and Oscars/Tojos.

[fcooke]

It's funny Allied pilots confused any Japanese plane for a 109. I don't think the 109 resembled any Japanese fighter. I am more prone to believe there was some cultural bias there - 'they cannot possible have built a high performance fighter' or 'their eyesight is poor', or 'where did those Zeros come from? No fighter can reach Manila from Taiwan'. But I enjoyed the piece, I thought very well done.

[Sardaukar]

Japanese pilots were obsessed about maneuverability.

P-47 did teach them and also Germans some hard lessons about what matters at high altitude.

[Platoonist]

In many respects early war Japanese fighters seem to be the ultimate expression of the World War One fighter plane concept. Simple, nimble and maneuverable, but fragile and lacking firepower.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

It's funny Allied pilots confused any Japanese plane for a 109. I don't think the 109 resembled any Japanese fighter. I am more prone to believe there was some cultural bias there - 'they cannot possible have built a high performance fighter' or 'their eyesight is poor', or 'where did those Zeros come from? No fighter can reach Manila from Taiwan'. But I enjoyed the piece, I thought very well done.

Really? The Tony is close to the 109. 600 mph closing speed can account for the confusion.

Also, what became of this 109?

[Platoonist]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


Also, what became of this 109?

Possibly, it was disassembled to study the material and structure. More likely it was scrapped at some point.

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Japanese pilots were obsessed about maneuverability.

P-47 did teach them and also Germans some hard lessons about what matters at high altitude.

+1

Or equally appropriate- that 'energy' usage matters most in terms of dive attack climb maneuver. Many people do not actually realize that the P47 had a very respectable kill to loss ratio and numerous ACEs in the European Theatre. This was not especially attributable to the planes hardiness but rather good pilots and good tactics.

--

I also watched this Youtube video. I found it good. What is particularly interesting is that it is another example where the Imperial Army (insert Imperial Navy as well) crafted their analysis to 'suit the audience' as opposed to a full and realistic assessment against all tactics; the German fighter test pilot results noted above. It seems all Military's are equally susceptible to 'crafting the message' to suit the needs of the audience.

Equally Recommended: "Drachinifel" and his 5 minute guide to Warships series has an episode : A6M Fighter - Zero or Hero.

I would also recommend it although it is much much longer than 5 minutes. I cannot vouch for the expertise of all the research provided however it seems very good and I accept it at face value.

Among other insights:

(i) The A6M was not hopelessly outclassed by mid late war. Certainly pilot capability had significant impact.

(ii) The IJN were not exclusively trained only in the dog fight mentality and were aware and practiced at some level hit and run tactics

Anyway more food for thought.

[Macclan5]

sorry double post

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

It's funny Allied pilots confused any Japanese plane for a 109. I don't think the 109 resembled any Japanese fighter. I am more prone to believe there was some cultural bias there - 'they cannot possible have built a high performance fighter' or 'their eyesight is poor', or 'where did those Zeros come from? No fighter can reach Manila from Taiwan'. But I enjoyed the piece, I thought very well done.

Interwar Allied intelligence reports on the Japanese efforts in aircraft development were hilariously biased and simply just bad intelligence.

Japanese designs were dismissed as knock-off versions of contemporary European designs, despite little (if any) similarity between the designs.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Surprised they didn't test it against Ki-43 Hayabusa

I am not surprised they skipped Navy planes


Also, they tested the E7 version; the last version of the "Battle of Britain" BF-109 ; it was a bit outdated in mid-41

[Jorge_Stanbury]

My best guess why they didn't pit it against KI-43: they didn't want to come to the conclusion that Ki-43, their newest service fighter, was going to come 2nd against BF-109 in every aspect except maneuverability

For testing maneuverability and for face-saving, it was better to pit it against old Ki-27

[fcooke]

WW2 Japan - Army airforce per above - 'you must play by the rules'. IJN - we'll wargame it out but if we don't like the results we get a do over - think the pre-Midway wargames. And we will make plans so operationally complex that we will try to fool the enemy rather than concentrate our forces - Midway, some of the battles around the Canal and the Philippine Sea. And we like to try and use diversions that end up costing us. Ryujo at the Canal, Ozawa at Philippine Sea - though he was supposed to try to drawn attn to his fleet he was not supposed to get completely slaughtered. And then the IJA approach - just charge the enemy even if you are out numbered and have inferior equipment - superior Japanese spirit will carry the day!

[RangerJoe]

It was tested against the Tojo and the Nick, both newer than the Oscar.

[sstevens06]

Well made & informative video. Thanks Dili.