Matrix Games Forums

http://www.warbirdforum.com/sakai.htm

Nice interview of Saburo Sakai best air ace of Japan that actually survived from the WW2 alive.

I think he say quite nice things about flaws of ME109 design for BoB.

Interesting

kind of a chin hitting the floor when he talks about Genda (but, got to wonder about his views, the George was a good plane, and after the war, during testing, it was found to be much better then was thought, the George and Frank, when flown with US gas, were both very good planes)

dislike his point of view on range, range is worthless, if you have to fly the way he did, to get 12 hours out of his Zero, in combat, I would of liked to of seen some Zero's flying from Paris to London, at 120 mph, and see how long that would of lasted

(funny also, how they disliked the 109 (Mike) and the Tony, but that was because they tried to fly them like Zeroes, the ones who learned to fly it like a western aircraft, loved them)

some of his facts though, I think needs to be rethought, the West didn't learn about Nanking after the war, in fact, they knew about it before the war started

but, interesting read

Nice interview. I find it interesting how he nearly falls in love with the Mustang.

The Pacific War covered a massive area of the globe, with many pockets of long flights and no contact. An obviously different theater, apples and oranges, but him having that comfort of more fuel than most planes raised some confidence in him at least.

I talked to a pilot at an aviation museum who flies an A6M3 with its original engine and mentioned how stiff the plane gets at speeds over 250, and how it starts shuddering.

well, that is why the crashed Zero up north, was so important, once they were able to put it back together and test it, they found it's main weakness, it didn't handle worth a dang, at simi high speeds, middle war main rule of combat with a Zero, if you not pushing 300 knots, don't engage, at 300 knots or above, the Zero couldn't follow a standard aileron turn (it also couldn't dive worth a darn)

plus, you got to remember, most of the rules, that the Allies learned, and the Germans taught, the JP disregarded, low and slow was sure death, the JP went out of there way to fly that way, early Zeroes could loop at 119 knots, most western planes were starting to stall at that speed

all the talk about the P-40 and P-39 being bad planes compared to the Zero, only works, if the pilot tried to fly like the Zero did

http://www.microsoft.com/games/combatfs ... sakai.aspx

Another interview of Sakai this one if more detailed about air combats. There is very interesting point of view about radio and how it is totally useless in dogfight.

Saburo Sakai: There was nothing to communicate. We flew from practice. From the movement of the leader's head, we were able to understand what he was thinking. Once you're in a dogfight, you don't think, "Who's flying way over there?" You can never tell. You never can tell who is who in a big dogfight. If you're above a fight and announce that an enemy is behind you, then everyone in the fight will look back! You can never tell. There's nothing to talk about in a dogfight.

Another interesting point:

Saburo Sakai: It's true that I didn't receive any award. The squadron commander knew about my achievements, but nobody else knew. It was quite regrettable. Entertainers were awarded medals and so on, but I didn't receive anything. In Germany it was very different. Pilots were awarded medals regularly during World War II but the Japanese Army and Navy - nothing.

(Saburo Sakai shot down 64 allied planes during the WW2 and 40 of those kills could have been confirmed to happen from allied casualty records after the war.)

or so he says

to be honest, I never liked him, or his stories (read his stories, they don't add up, or make sense)

he took a 50 cal to the head, because he thought a TBF was a Wildcat, pilots in P-39 were very dumb, it was easy to let one get on his tail, and then to climb to 40,000 ft, where his plane was then the better plane, and he could turn the table on the P-39 pilot, in 44, he was able to get into a fight with massive numbers of Hellcats, and got a way, since all of the Hellcat pilots were dumb, and all would get onto his tail and fire at the same spot, it was easy to tell when they were going to fire, so he just wasn't in that spot, he thought it was fun, and they were doing a good job, it wasn't until he landed and the awe he seen in his ground crews eyes, that he know something was wrong, almost all of the group had been shot down by those lousy Hellcats

and from his book, he was promoted and was given awards, so something is wrong

(of course, a lot of this could be translation issues)

funny, point of view on the radio, his point is good, other then the fact, that is not what the radio is for, or when it comes into play (remember the stat, it is something like 85% of all fighter pilots shot down, never knew they were in combat, most pilots shot down, were surprised, most JP pilots were surprised, since they didn't have a radio) but I agree with his dogfight statement

(had to stay over and work 12 hours today, so I am grouchy

I've read his book too. There were some clarifications years later, which is why some things don't add up. He mentioned shooting down a B-29 at the end of the war, when it fact it was a B-32.

As for the those naval Avengers, he initially thought those were Wildcats and later mistook them for Dauntlesses.

I think Sakai tried to be as accurate as he could, provided he was on one side of the fight and it was easy to misidentify something or even miscount. Whether he took advantage of that is anyone's speculation.

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

or so he says

to be honest, I never liked him, or his stories (read his stories, they don't add up, or make sense)

he took a 50 cal to the head, because he thought a TBF was a Wildcat, pilots in P-39 were very dumb, it was easy to let one get on his tail, and then to climb to 40,000 ft, where his plane was then the better plane, and he could turn the table on the P-39 pilot, in 44, he was able to get into a fight with massive numbers of Hellcats, and got a way, since all of the Hellcat pilots were dumb, and all would get onto his tail and fire at the same spot, it was easy to tell when they were going to fire, so he just wasn't in that spot, he thought it was fun, and they were doing a good job, it wasn't until he landed and the awe he seen in his ground crews eyes, that he know something was wrong, almost all of the group had been shot down by those lousy Hellcats

and from his book, he was promoted and was given awards, so something is wrong

(of course, a lot of this could be translation issues)

funny, point of view on the radio, his point is good, other then the fact, that is not what the radio is for, or when it comes into play (remember the stat, it is something like 85% of all fighter pilots shot down, never knew they were in combat, most pilots shot down, were surprised, most JP pilots were surprised, since they didn't have a radio) but I agree with his dogfight statement

(had to stay over and work 12 hours today, so I am grouchy

I don't read his interviews in the expectations of him being right about everything as I understand that he has lived his life on the time when education was not as broad as today and you had no chance for same level of information seeking from different side’s archives as today.

I read his thoughts in the way of seeing his point of view and because he is exceptional character that survived in the war where all odds were against him, not many of other Japanese air aces survived alive than Saburo Sakai. That makes his point of view more interesting. I’m interested about characters that survived when odds were against him.

In games I also enjoy more playing sides that historically lost WW2 as that way I can get a feeling that I can really make every bit of my strategy count against all odds. It just me.

He didn't shoot down a B-32 either. His unit's combat with four B-32s on 17 August 1945 damaged two (numbers 543 and 539), both of which returned safely to base.

543 had incurred the heaviest damage, but even so it was superficial and simple to repair and she flew again soon after. Because of lack of spares 539 was cannibalised and she sat beside the runway at Yontan until the end of the war.

Info from William Wolf's book Consolidated B-32 Dominator.

Interesting; this I did not know. Imagine how many other planes were thought to be shot down. But it's no mystery that some kills were exaggerated by pilots, anyways.

I was reading Flying Tigers by Daniel Ford and he tries to make the case that both sides were very optimistic in their kill numbers; differing from actual. The book was a little controversial; I had a veteran who flew the P-40 (not with the Flying Tigers) who was hesitant in signing his name in it.

Jackerson
I understand and agree, but my point is, either though translation errors, or mistakes, his stories don't ring true, too many mistakes, that a "real" pilot wouldn't make (don't forget, one of the other "greats" claimed to of landed his Oscar on the wing of a B-24 during a fight, in which he shot down (I think his claims were 3 B-24's and 2 P-38s)

and too many people take his book as Gospel

(for what it is worth, I don't care for Johnnie Johnson either, he might be a Ace and a Hero, but he is a fool, and from most accounts, one of the bigger liers of the war (the idea about the RAF pulling the Ground Crews away from Squadron control, and making them just ground crew and not squadron members is based on HARD feelings for Johnson, they don't mention him by name, be he is implied, but too many times, OFFICERS landed with there gun tape clean, making claims for kills, and they were awarded, since they were Officers and Gentlemen, while NCO pilot claims were denied, as there was no wittinesses, everybody, makes mistakes in combat, claims and all, but this is one of the guys, who made a living based on what he claimed to do)

(go into detail on Foch during WWI, he is another "fancy" Hero, he would fly two missions during the day with his Squadron, they would get into a big fight each time, and nothing, he would get ticked off, go off on his own, and return with a large kill claim, he didn't get kills when the squadron was around, but he was the best pilot the Allies had, by himself, and he hated the pilots with less kills then he had, who were more famous)

for Ford and Shores, no hassle on there detail works, hassle is, it is HARD to base what this or that guy did, based on enemy records, plus there is based on what could be found (IE you claim you shot down a plane over the Mt, did you find the crash site in those Mts, a lot of planes went down in the Jungle, or the Sea, no way to confirm the claim, did they overclaim ? sure, but they also lost a lot of kills they claimed and couldn't get confirmed, and that is not counting, planes that didn't make it home, that left the combat zone damaged (most Nations, won't admit those as losses, after a bad mission, there are a lot of pilot errors made flying home, shame on him)

in the end, it is still good

one that is interesting, a pilot from JG 26 during the BoB, his Rotte was flying and he seen a group of Canes below him, now this guy, radioed his men, and told them to stay in place and watch this, he rolled over, dove down, pulled up behind them, and knocked down all 4 planes

he made 4 claims, and had 3 witnesses, and was awarded the kills, oddly, even the RAF admit that something odd happened that day, with 4 Canes being shot down at the same time, same place (as his claims)

so, some times, even the stories that are HARD to believe, really did happen

The vast majority of air combat's in WWII (and WWI for that matter) were inconclusive. Pilots from every air force wildly exaggerated claims, though many times it was just adrenalin and confusion and not simply lying through their teeth. But, there was a heck of a lot of that, too.

Good site about WW2 Air Aces stories:

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/aces.htm

I might be biased in this but:

Jorma Sarvanto and six kills in five minutes.
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/sarvan/sarvan.htm

This case is pretty well documented aces story as pieces of downed planes where recovered and prisoners captured who flew some of downed planes.

Held off waiting on posting this for a few days, expecting someone else to chip in, but sadly nobody else has.

Kind of ironic that someone, recently dead ( Gunther Rall ), who fought for the Nazi side ( ie for warmongering, oppression and extermination of others ) gets several residents of democracies queing up to point out the good side of the guy.

Meanwhile someone verbally p*sses on the grave of a no less deceased Allied pilot ( Johnnie Johnson ) , someone who willingly fought for the freedom and democracy we enjoy here, and it goes perhaps, unnoticed. Certainly unchallenged.

[/i]ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

(for what it is worth, I don't care for Johnnie Johnson either, he might be a Ace and a Hero, but he is a fool, and from most accounts, one of the bigger liers of the war (the idea about the RAF pulling the Ground Crews away from Squadron control, and making them just ground crew and not squadron members is based on HARD feelings for Johnson, they don't mention him by name, be he is implied, but too many times, OFFICERS landed with there gun tape clean, making claims for kills, and they were awarded, since they were Officers and Gentlemen, while NCO pilot claims were denied, as there was no wittinesses, everybody, makes mistakes in combat, claims and all, but this is one of the guys, who made a living based on what he claimed to do)

1. The idea of splitting the groundcrew into Serving Echelons was an idea from at least 1940. Nothing to do with poor old J.E.J. who was a Pilot Officer in hospital back then. This was widespread by 1944 in several theatres and indeed after the war for some time. Hardly a rash or foolish idea. A necessity for the quick re-deployment of fighter units.

2. Many of J.E.J.'s contacts were confirmed by gun camera. He flew with large numbers of Allied witnesses. He was the son of a Police Officer and not a "Toff". Stuff you think you've read that is implied about other pilots is not proof that J.E.J. lied about anything.

3. He flew at the sharp end of the war until the end and was a renowned leader of men. He was a hero. He is therefore entitled to make a living out of talking about what he did. Same as Rall. Same as many other pilots.

I said I didn't like him, I have read a lot of "other" pilots views on the man

the changing of the ground crews, was seen as one of the bigger mistakes the RAF made

you may want to do more reading, about the squadron members, there was a lot of discord between the NCO and Officer pilots in most squadrons, the only ones that really seemed to work, was in BC, the Class system in the RAF was a major source of morale and other troubles with in FC

nobody said Rall was a lier, just that he was a Nazi Murder and about time he passed on, nobody said Johnny needed to go

plus I think you are reading into what I am saying, I like Sailor, I like Tuck, Braham, Townsend, I dislike Bader and Johnson, I admire what they did (but I am sure, Bader couldn't of done what he did, if he was a "nice" guy)

Read the post.

You can like or dislike who you want.

Want on earth did Johnson have to do with splitting away the ground crews ? It was a decision made before his time. Why did that make Johnson a fool ?

You know I read a lot about the RAF. Again with the message on NCO pilots vs Officer Pilots, why pick on Johnson again. Why is he different from Tuck, Brabham, Townsend and Malan ?

Nobody said Rall was a Nazi murderer, they said he "vowed allegence" to one. You like reading a lot into what others have not said.

You said Johnson was a fool and a liar, but gave no evidence, apart from three statements that were irrelevent to his case.

1) Splitting of groundcrews

2) General bad feeling between Officers and NCO.

3) Hints of false claims, but no evidence.

they don't mention him by name, be he is implied, but too many times

Who ? Where ?

Finally

plus I think you are reading into what I am saying, I like Sailor, I like Tuck, Braham, Townsend, I dislike Bader and Johnson, I admire what they did (but I am sure, Bader couldn't of done what he did, if he was a "nice" guy)

Am I mistaken on your view on Johnson then. If so who said this ?

for what it is worth, I don't care for Johnnie Johnson either, he might be a Ace and a Hero, but he is a fool, and from most accounts, one of the bigger liers of the war

Please read the previous posts, including what you said yourself, before considering how to word your public apology to the memory of this hero.

'Hero' is not a thing but a relationship between people. If you do not make someone a hero, then hero they are not.
 
To make someone a hero or even admire them when you don't agree with what they did or the cause they did it for is quite irrational in my view. That doesn't mean that you cannot acknowledge they might have been brave, skillful, or whatever, it's a question of the value you give to such qualities. When the courage and skill involves killing people, what is there to admire or venerate if you don't believe it was worthwhile? Would you admire someone who was particularly skillful at torturing? I'd hope not, even if you agreed with the cause for which they tortured.
 
Is it not also irrational that most people formally deplore war and aggression yet within their number are to be found those who admire, respect or elevate to 'hero' those who fought or fight for war mongering regimes? 'They just fought for their countries and did their duty.' they might say. In which case, such people do not deplore war at all in any real sense and they perpetuate the ideology which allows warmongers to prosecute aggressive wars.
 
If it remains acceptable, even admirable, to uncritically follow and obey your country's leaders, the last century has demonstrated, far beyond what is rationally necessary, what will happen every time countries deprived of markets and resources or at risk of having to share theirs with rising economies, will do to protect or advance their interests. Yet this is not what we are taught.
 
From where I stand, the only heroes are those brave enough to stand against their country's nationalism, those skillful enough to look behind the propagandas of all sides, victors and losers, to analyse th root of the problem, then formulate an independent way forward for ordinary people, that we might not be put to bestialise one another again.
 

I wouldn't apologize to him, if he were alive

I think you need to find out more about this man, before you get all defensive about his Glory and Honor

most writers will not "name" him as the man they are talking about, but they imply that he is the one the "stories" are about

I also based my statements on things he has said and wrote

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I wouldn't apologize to him, if he were alive

I think you need to find out more about this man, before you get all defensive about his Glory and Honor

most writers will not "name" him as the man they are talking about, but they imply that he is the one the "stories" are about

I also based my statements on things he has said and wrote

What a complete cop out.

As the person who publicly called this guy a "fool, and.......... one of the bigger liers of the war "

You are the one who needs to qualify this statement. That's the way things work. If you chose make outrageous claims on a public forum then you should be prepared to explain the basis for them.

This is not some drunken brag in a bar.

I think you need to find out more about this man, before you get all defensive about his Glory and Honor

Tell me exactly where I can read this then. If you can.