Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Tanaka -> Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/20/2004 9:05:03 AM)

On the Type 96 Carrier Fighter "Claude"

That was the most incredible fighter of its day, by far. When the Zero was rolled out, we put two equal pilots in a Type 96 and a Zero and had them dogfight. The Type 96 won quite quickly. Then we had them switch planes. The Type 96 won again. Everybody thought the Zero was a failure at that point. But they liked the Zero's range. If the Type 96 had had the range of the Zero, we might have kept using that even up to Pearl Harbor and beyond. ......(Saburo Sakai)

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


Was it really such a piece of junk? One of the greatest of japan's aces didnt think so. It seems to be modeled that way in UV and WITP???


Anyone disagaree with Saburo??? ....I wouldn't [:)]



MadDawg -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/20/2004 9:21:13 AM)

Interesting tanka, thanks for the info. The only think I can think of is that maybe the pilots were used to flying the Claudes, but as the Zero was new they were not up to speed in it yet....?

Dawg



JohnK -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/20/2004 9:31:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

On the Type 96 Carrier Fighter "Claude"

That was the most incredible fighter of its day, by far. When the Zero was rolled out, we put two equal pilots in a Type 96 and a Zero and had them dogfight.


The answer is that "dogfighting" had very little to do with air combat success in World War II. It was a dumb move to get in a dogfight in general.

A smart move was to dive on a formation and shoot down someone that doesn't see you and keep diving and blow through the whole thing and avoid a swirling mess of airplanes.......that was how 90% of the aircraft in WWII were shot down, and that was how the US crushed Japanese airpower.

A serious weakness of the Japanese was an overfocus on individual dogfighting and a lack of coordination and discipline.

In a reversal of cultural stereotypes, it was the Americans who had more disciplined formations and emphasized cooperation among wingmen.



freeboy -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/20/2004 4:08:01 PM)

In this we do see that bigger, faster planes could bounce their Jap foes, so much so that the numerical superiority after 42 combined with these plane strength...[X(]
Bug Tanaka asks a valid ?, does the claud suck? if not are plane speeds too much a factor?
I remember the post talking about fighter leader qualities making a huge difference, maybe now would be a good time to reveal what the equation for air combat is? or not///
good question T..



Delphinium -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/20/2004 4:33:32 PM)

I remember reading that the Japanese test pilots assessing planes put a massive premium on manoeverability over most other factors. That's why they liked the "air brakes" or mini-flaps that allowed low speed turns. As other posters have noted, the reality is get in fast shoot and bug out, If you can't be caught, you're still alive.



Apollo11 -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/20/2004 4:45:29 PM)

Hi all,

The speed is the king in air combat WWII.


Faster aircraft can climb better, get quicker into favorable position, choose when to attack then do fast dive attack (i.e. "boom and zoom" tactics) and, at the end, extend (i.e. bug out)

Those are all well proven historic facts.


But, it can also be argued that more maneuverable plane can always move itself out of harms way by superior maneuver if pilot is experienced enough (thus negating opportunity for shoot for faster aircraft).

Since this is only defensive tactics it is clear that even in such cases faster aircraft is better (i.e. it can be endangered unless stupidly entering maneuverable dogfight).


We have to remember that even in late 1930's most air forces had majority of their aircraft still very resembling what we had in WWI.

Those were all mostly two winged cloth covered aircraft that had maneuverability in mind - WWI was all about dogfighting at low speeds.

When full metal aircraft started to appear it was very very very hard to "erase" all past and this why Japanese thought Zero was inferior to Claude.

Also pleas note that this was not Japanese deficiency alone - similar examples can be found in German/British/US air forces as well...


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S. [Edit]
Sorry for historic rant but I couldn't resist... [;)]



m10bob -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/20/2004 4:50:24 PM)

As I recall,Mr Sakai had nothing bad to say about the Claude(which he flew in China),and he described it as a very nimble plane.
When the pilots were first told they were getting the new "Zero",they disliked it immediately because it had an enclosed canopy cockpit,(which they felt was cowardly!).In this same veign,for years afterward,the Navy pilots refused to wear parachutes,(even though they were available-Bushido was very much the practiced norm early in the war,and Sakai(in his book "Samurai"",later said this was a mistake which cost Japan too many good pilots..



Reichenberg -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/20/2004 4:55:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Delphinium

....get in fast shoot and bug out......

But is this "get in fast, shoot and bug out"-tactic, as you call it, always the best way????

I would say yes on the typical "sweep"-mission. On a CAP mission against bombers or fighter bombers probably too. But how is the situation at an "escort"-mission where your main goal as a fighter pilot is to distract the enemy CAP fighters from the bombers (and survive ;) ). I would assume in the last role the Claude would look best - relativly to its performance on CAP and sweep.

But as a short legged airplane......

Uwe



Chaplain -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/20/2004 6:31:11 PM)

As several have pointed out, speed and armament is what mattered in WW2 aerial combat. The Claude was widely praised as the most acrobatic aircraft of the entire war - and perhaps the least useful. It mounted two (count 'em, two) .30 cal (not .50 cal or 20mm, bot .30 cal) guns, which is exactly the same armament as the Sopwith Camel. (You know, the one Snoopy flew.) It had ZERO armor, and it did not have self-sealing fuel tanks. It was essentially a kite with an engine and two BB guns.

American pilots were amazed by its aerial performance. I read of at least 2 instances where US fighter groups of 4 aircraft (P-38 once, P-40E the other time) bounced a single Claude, and could not shoot it down because they couldn't hit it. These were American aces, BTW, not rookies. The Claude could turn too quickly and was the only aircraft actually able to perform a double Immelman.

But so what? They couldn't shoot down any US planes (especially the F4U's later in the war), and they were completely helpless against a bomber formation.

So ... yes, the Claude was a cute acrobatic aircraft. It was fine for fighting other Claudes, or even a Zero which suffered from the same deficiencies to a lesser degree. But it was a poor fighter aircraft.



Xargun -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/20/2004 6:37:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaplain

American pilots were amazed by its aerial performance. I read of at least 2 instances where US fighter groups of 4 aircraft (P-38 once, P-40E the other time) bounced a single Claude, and could not shoot it down because they couldn't hit it. These were American aces, BTW, not rookies. The Claude could turn too quickly and was the only aircraft actually able to perform a double Immelman.



Gonna show my flying incompetence, but what is a doule immelman ?

Xargun



kaleun -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/20/2004 6:38:13 PM)

quote:

Also pleas note that this was not Japanese deficiency alone - similar examples can be found in German/British/US air forces as well...


The Defiant of Battle of Britain fame comes to mind...



UncleBuck -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/20/2004 7:19:03 PM)

Well even on an Escort mission the Speed is king rule still applies. You are in a position with the faster plane to be able to intercept the enemy formation. If you are close escorting Bombers, even a one or two minute delay of the pursuing enemy planes will allow the bombers to gain enough separation to bomb un-hindered. Even much disciplined flyers find it difficult to stay focused on bombers when they see a flight of enemy fighters lining up above them to get a good bounce. You are gonna turn to get out of the way, which reduces your airspeed, which gives the bombers more separation. Remember as well that the diving planes will have a huge amount of energy built up from the dive and can regain their altitude and the initiative. This can be repeated ad nauseum. Three most important rules in combat are 1. See them first 2. Speed is Life 3. Altitude is speed. If you control 2 and 3 you can negate some of number 1. If you have all 3 you should be un- beatable.
UB



crsutton -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/20/2004 7:36:22 PM)

You have to understand where Sakai is coming from to grasp this statement. All prewar fighter pilots were trained to fight the last war. That is: they all (every nationality) favored dogfighting tactics and planes with good maneuver capabilities. The concepts of energy tactics-(boom and zoom) were known but not popular and not very well understood as that generation of aircraft (zoomers) had yet to be created.

In fact, Japanese fighter pilots had an inordinate amount of input into Japanese fighter design And their desire for acrobatic planes served to actually set back the production of modern Japanese fighters. Although by later standards the zero was a turn and burn dogfighter, when it was introduced it actually was not favored by Japanese pilots because it was not as manueverable as the pre-war nates and claudes. To a generation of pilots that held acrobatic flying skill as the highest test of a true fighter pilot, the zero was a dissapointment. Why? because for its time the zero was fast, and faster fighters by virtue of their speed do not turn as well. (unless of course they slow down-in itself a critical mistake) Turning ability was the holy grail of all fighters in the pre war era, and a fighter that was fast but not manueverable was blasphemy.

Now go back and reread Sakai's statment. They tested the two planes in a "dogfight". Well that is exactly how any pre war trained pilot would have addressed the issue. And in a dogfight the claude naturally would outshine the zero

But the correct solution to the test would have been for the pilot flying the zero to use energy tatics. There is no way the claude would have defeated a competent pilot in a zero who was versed in boom and zoom tactics. But of course, in 1940 you would not expect pilots to understand that. With energy tactics, the faster plane dictates the combat parameters and should win. That is why by 1943, dogfighting as a tactic was totally obsolete and all aircraft designers (including the Japanese) were placing their design emphasis on speed, durability and armament over maneuverablilty.

Simply put, that was Sakai's opinion. And, he was wrong. Events proved that. The claude was a great fighter for its day, but its day was over by 1941. Im sure that once Japanese pilots learned about the capabilities of the zero-very few looked back and wished for the good ole claude.



JohnK -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/20/2004 7:49:21 PM)

Another issue is the difference between 1 on 1 combat and combat between 16 and 16 or 24 and 24.

If I had to duel a guy one on one starting from equal conditions, and was offered a Wildcat or Zero and the other guy gets the plane I didn't choose, I'd take the Zero.

If I was commanding a squadron of 24 planes against 24 planes with equally skilled pilots, I'd take the Wildcats, and beat the snot out of the Zeros. Firepower and durability matters more with greater numbers.

Something to keep in mind when you hear about the various reports of SU-27s or whatever kicking the butts of F-15s...consider the conditions of the setup, and how they may be rigged.



mdiehl -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/20/2004 7:55:33 PM)

Speed generally wins the fight in gun combat. A pilot that flies his a/c to that strength and is mindful to not allow his airspeed to drop too much controls the fight. A pilot in a slower, more maneuverable aircraft can only hope that his enemy will make a mistake that brings his enemy into the flight envelope where his a/c can be effective. The pilot in the slower, more maneuverable a/c can't bug out.

In general, this gives the pilot in the faster a/c an extraordinary advantage. It's also a big morale and confidence booster to know that as long as you stay in the right flight envelope you're in a much better a.c. Sure, an enemy pilot who is the most extreme expert can foil your hit and run attacks by maneuvering out. So what? You've effectively rendered him ineffective by keeping him solely on the defensive, and he can only escape if you let him leave, or you run out of fuel or bullets.

If you decide to leave you can, in general, disengage when you want to and there isn't a thing the guy in the slow plane can do to stop you.

In gun combat.

The Claude would have been a magnificent aircraft in WW1. By 1941 it was meat. Too slow. Not enough firepower. Fragile as a ripe dandelion head.



crsutton -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/20/2004 8:01:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnK

Firepower and durability matters more with greater numbers.



quote:

Firepower and durability matters more with greater numbers.



And radios. I have beat this horse to death in the UV forum in the past. Wildcats had radios, zeros generally did not.

A modern fighter without a radio is sort of like an infantryman with a wooden rifle.



freeboy -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/20/2004 8:28:20 PM)

no radio? that is something we need to discuss with the war cabinate at once!!!



Drongo -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/20/2004 8:46:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
A modern fighter without a radio is sort of like an infantryman with a wooden rifle.


A bit harsh. Maybe a deaf infantryman with a real rifle.



rogueusmc -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/21/2004 2:15:55 AM)

Most of the Zeros lacked radios by choice...they were taken out because they couldn't trust them.



CynicAl -> Quibbles n' bits (7/21/2004 3:56:57 AM)

"Anyone disagaree with Saburo??? ....I wouldn't"

I'd like to add my voice to the chorus of Yes's here. The A5M is interesting in that it was one of the few monoplane fighters of the mid-to-late 1930's which did not clearly outclass contemporary biplane fighters (ie the Grumman F3F). I believe this to be an earlier manifestation of the influence of Japanese fighter pilots on Japanese fighter design, as mentioned above by crsutton in reference to the design of the A6M - in the A5M, Mitsubishi replicated biplane-class performance to the maximum extent possible with a monoplane design. British test pilots evaluating the Brewster Buffalo rated it very highly as an aerobatic plane - but unlike the Japanese, they did not mistake that quality for combat utility.

"Most of the Zeros lacked radios by choice...they were taken out because they couldn't trust them."

My understanding is that the only Zeroes to operate without radios were those deployed to land bases in the South Pacific, where the harsh climate and lack of maintenance facilities combined with shoddy manufacturing to render the radios unserviceable the majority of the time. CV-based squadrons, on the other hand, enjoyed much greater maintenance support - with generally more down time between periods of high-intensity operations.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/21/2004 6:02:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

On the Type 96 Carrier Fighter "Claude"

That was the most incredible fighter of its day, by far. When the Zero was rolled out, we put two equal pilots in a Type 96 and a Zero and had them dogfight. The Type 96 won quite quickly. Then we had them switch planes. The Type 96 won again. Everybody thought the Zero was a failure at that point. But they liked the Zero's range. If the Type 96 had had the range of the Zero, we might have kept using that even up to Pearl Harbor and beyond. ......(Saburo Sakai)

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


Was it really such a piece of junk? One of the greatest of japan's aces didnt think so. It seems to be modeled that way in UV and WITP???


Anyone disagaree with Saburo??? ....I wouldn't [:)]

Problem is that by this line of reasoning a Folker Tri-Plane would have been better yet.
"Tail-chasing" was a popular sport among fighter-jocks in the 30's, and manueverability
was the name of the game. The Germans upset the applecart when they sent the Me-109
to Spain and proved that with superior speed and firepower you could own the skies
against slower more manueverable A/C. In WWII, while manueverability was always
a nice bonus, "speed kills" was more the rule.



freeboy -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/21/2004 7:50:54 PM)

absolutely true... and two 30 cal guns ? no radio? claudes are good for scouting and maby if you could load some bombs on them asw



freeboy -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/21/2004 7:51:22 PM)

of course to scout they would need upgrade to radio lol



DrewMatrix -> RE: Someone who thought the Claude was a great airplane.... (7/21/2004 8:32:55 PM)

Bergerud, in "Fire in the Sky" has a nice discussion on the difference between the Japanese view of fighting (or the means of fighting they were stuck with), basically a Flying Circus gaggle of planes each looking to duel with an enemy fighter, and the USN view, which was coordinated air combat between one group of planes hitting the anemy gaggle as a coherent whole.

Actually Bergerud regards the radio as even more important than high speed to get in and out.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875