ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
Nik: Generally speaking, you fight by employing the advantages your machine relative to its opponents and try to minimize its disadvantages. I can't disagree with you that early IJNAF pilots were trained to use energy to their advantage however most of that advantage came from their turning and climbing ability. The Zero was a low energy machine when compared to allied types due to its lightweight. The Zero was well known for not being able to convert energy into speed as well as, say, a P-40
Correct, the Heavier allied types (P40, F4F...even F2A) were all superior divers by vitue of their heavier weight. However being 'better' in discussions such as this thread tends to get translated (or converted) from "better" into "cant" which is where the discrepancy begins IMO. Lundstrom's references are full of descriptions of Zeros employing the bounce, utilizing altitude, speed as as well as agility to get the jump on their opponents. This most often expressed itself while the Zeros were escorting their charges and they were very effective at it.
As far as deflection shooting goes, <snip>
Sorry to snip ya.....just saving eye strain [;)] Its ironic. It appears that the issue Japanese ariel gunnery has some contradiction and controversy similar to that experienced with their air reconnesance arm. Some sources (Lundstrom/Piette) indicate that there were critics (including Japanese) who felt it was atrotious yet there were examples and opinions that indicated the opposite. It may be that if we focus on "training" that, as Lundstrom indicated the USN had an advantagae in emphasising the DS during gunnery practice while in the Japanese training program, less emphasis was placed 'but' this was made up for with operational and combat experience. (such as in China)
This sniplet from Sunburst would seem to support that theory as implied also in Lunstrom vol I:
"The coherence of the Shotai formation and the impressive gunnery runs acheived by the navy pilots who maintained it in the midst of the most violent aerial acrobatics are testimony that in the years immediately prior to the Pacific War, the navy's fighter squadrons were composed of highly disciplined aviators and enjoyed high unit cohesion. Their
co-ordinated hit and run tactics [My italics] took them away from their
natural inclination for dogfighting, [my italics] in which the pilots clung tenaciously, if unimaginatively to the tail of an enemy aircraft. Indeed so familiar with each other's combat tactics were the flyers in a three-man shotai that some navy pilots claimed to have developed almost a sixth sense.
Peattie,
Sunburst
One other thing i read up on though while checking the above source was that the Navy did indeed as already metioned, not have enough pilots to fill all units at war's start and that in the Japanese own opinion, a good number of them were not sufficiently trained....the best went to the carrier groups, the land based naval units had to make due with what was left. This may also explain some of the inconsistancies....though groups like Tainen were also among the best formations that they posessed.
Again, we come down to trying to intrepet what the Japanese meant when they said "insufficiently trained" My mind is that given the expectations they had prewar...that veteran Japanese avaitors would consider even an exp "70" pilot "insufficiently" seasoned/trained when comparing them to themselves or their peers.
Getting back to the deflection shooting issue. Lundstrom states that the Japanese navy taught it's pilots deflection shooting but that they did not utilize it to it's best advantage as much as the USN did. He indicates that this lack of utilzation was at least partially if not primarily due to the technical nature of the Zero in comparison to the F4F. The Zero lacked sufficient visibility over the nose to support full deflection shots while the Wildcat did. (A japanese pilot trying a full deflection shot in a Zero would essentially be firing nearly blind, tracking the enemy by memory....a feat i'm sure only the very best Japanese pilots could acomplish)
Beyond that he indicates that the Zero was (ironically) not as well suited for the hit and run tactics employed though improvements were introduced in the form of the A6M3 and 5 variants which improved high speed control. The last point of course as i mentioned before....the 2x 7.7 2x 20mm armament proved to be not as kind to these same tactics as the 4x50 / 6x50 in the Wildcat.
