Poor virgin Corsair and F6F Hellcat simply could not have won against chads Ki-84 and N1K2 Shiden-Kai as frequently as...

Agreed. Given America inexhaustible resources, better technology, better factories and with time on its side, it should have theoretically have been much better in every field of arms during the war, including the damn torpedoes. The japs with their limited resources and time managed to make a plane that's more maneuverable, with better climb rate and outran the mustang when equipped with its engine. Wtf murica.

>How the fuck did the Americans with their superior factories and available technology managed to not create an usurpassable fighter?

Same reason the Air Force has higher performance aircraft than the Navy. Hellcat and Corsair had to be designed around carrier operations so there was always going to be added weight and expense over contemporary land-based fighters that didn't need folding wings, heavier landing gear, arrestor hooks, or a fuselage designed to give maximum visibility for takeoff and landing.

The Ki-84 was an impressive aircraft for Japan, but it was still limited by poor engine technology and lack of resources. It was probably better than the F6F as an aircraft, probably not better than the F4U. Didn't really matter because Japan didn't have large numbers of experienced pilots by the time it was really available.

*Blocks ur path*

Attached: Bearcat_-_Fly_Navy_Day_2016_(27564576372).jpg (1200x800, 83K)

Are you talking about a jap plane with an american engine? I don't think that comparison really holds up. Japs had lighter planes with a different wing design. Mustang wings were made with greater lift in mind but that also increased drag. The number 1 purpose of the Mustang was to keep up (fuel wise) with the B-17s and cover them

That came after the war

>damn torpedoes

British pioneered oxygen-enriched torpedoes, yet the Japanese made better use of the idea. Caucasian laziness and complacency must really be a thing.

They were delivered as early as May of '45.

If OP wants to talk about some fantatstic hypothetical where Kates and Georges are in abundant numbers and have skilled pilots to the fly them, then they get to fight Bearcats and Tigercats.

Attached: F7F-3P_Tigercat.jpg (1546x1546, 479K)

The Japanese invented a cheap and effective radar antenna, but they didn't even realize 'Yagi' was a Japanese name when they checked Brit service manuals captured at Singapore. They had to beat that info out of a technician.

The American torpedoes were basically a scandal.

Kylie please go back to the Hagoromo.

That's because BuOrd were Soviet-levels of "nyet, rifle is fine tovarisci".

True for the Zero, but a Ki-100 and a N1K2 could take on any allied plane if flown by a halfway skilled pilot.

But then you would also have Reppus, Shindens ans Kikkas as enemies.

>The Japanese invented a cheap and effective radar antenna

Sauce

Around the time of the civil war the US torpoedo was a closely guarded secret, a very intricate one. They tried to keep them so secret for so long that they were hardly tested at all. Then when war rolls around it turns out the fucking things don't even work and everyone already has torpedoes anyway.

Did someone forget about the war in Europe?

...

And German torpedoes in 1939 weren't? They failed to detonate when they got a shot off on the ship Churchill was on FFS

The Reppu was worse than even the F4U-4, the Shinden wouldn't have been produced because they couldn't get the Ha-43 to stop overheating without detuning it hard, and the Kikka was slower than the F8F and would've gotten memed on hard. But if the war went to that point the P-80A would've been shipped to Japan and would've been dabbing on the Japs at 500+ mph

How about Shusui? Tachikawa Ki 94?
The Japanese development would also have marched on.

Not with the submarine blockade and a food shortage in 1946 that would have had millions starving, if not for American aid during the occupation.

dont forget the crazy prop-jet .

Attached: ryan_fireball.jpg (452x188, 36K)

The Shusui was a meme and would not have done much just like the Me-163 never did. Aircraft like that simply have too much approach speed, too low of an ammo capacity and flying time to make an impact unless you build tens of thousands. The Ki-94 (at least the second prototype) had some promise but was not viable for Japan's position for the same reason the Ki-84 had a minimal impact, the engine required way too much maintenance and had engine overheating issues, especially at low speed when airflow was minimal. Japanese development WOULD have marched on but they were outmatched production and R&D wise, once the P-80A entered service (probably by Jan 1946 at the latest), Japan would have been fucked simply because they did not have a anything that could compete with the F8F/P-47N/P-51H/F4U-4 much less jet aircraft

The torpedoes worked fine for the most part, it was the fuzes and depth control that were garbage. Mostly the fuzes.

How would German fighters hold their ground against the Japanese ones hypothetically?

The Long Lance was an amazing torpedo but it wasn't flawless. At Leyte Gulf at least two Japanese ships were destroyed by their own torpedoes. The Mk 14/15 was trash but at least you didn't have to dump them into the sea to get rid of them if attacked from the air.

Yeah american planes were shit
A ficking la5 is better than 2 mustangs

> hurr land based fighters have better performance than naval fighters.

N1K2 and Ki-100 don't have impressive performances when compared to other late-war land based fighters like P-51H, P-47M, and Tempest.

Japanese pilots themselves attested that the P-51D was a tougher opponent than the F6F and F4U, because it wasn't weighed down by the heavy frame and other carrier-operation bits.

Overall superior because German engine tech was better. The engine was the single most important part of WW2 fighters and Japan could not make good engines due to lack of expertise, alloying metals, and good machining equipment.

The Nakajima Homare is a good example. On paper an extremely impressive design, delivering similar power as the Double Wasp but lighter and smaller. However, reliability at rated power was horrid and engine life was short, meaning most engines in service had to be derated. Post-war tests of captured Homare engines showed a very large variation in performance from engine to engine.

>How the fuck did the Americans with their superior factories and available technology managed to not create an usurpassable fighter?

Because numbers and keeping your supply lines running while killing your enemy's war economy and irreplaceable assets is how you win a war, not having the "best"

Pic related

Attached: T34 Wallpaper__yvt2.jpg (1024x768, 384K)

>managed to not create an usurpassable fighter?

Because you don't need to surpass an aircraft in every category to beat it. The Fw-190 and the P-47 had lower climb rates and wider turning circles than other contemporary designs fielded by their air forces, but they were arguably the most successful they produced.

Attached: Fw-190 A0.jpg (940x725, 107K)

>2019
>autists still don't understand that single unsurpassable wonder weapons are not what win wars, but mass produced readily available adequate ones being fielded in large quantities
how is this even a fucking discussion after all this years

FW-190 had the highest roll-rate out of any mass-produced fighter in WW2, which makes it very agile in the vertical.

P-47 was the only mass production single engine fighter with a turbocharger. At 9,000 meters or higher, P-47 will out climb a P-51 because it's turbocharged double wasp was still producing 95% rated power while the Packard was down to 75%.

Great job, you missed the point. They weren't "unsurpassable", just very capable in the areas they needed to be.

would this have been a viable threat if they were built, or would it just have been a meme plane?

Attached: Mizuno Shinryu.jpg (1202x736, 130K)

The only thing that could outrun a P-47 in the climb would be the point screaming past your head.

Because they didn't need to. If you have unlimited resources, your strength is in quantity, not quality. If you don't need to spend the money on research and the cost of implementing that research to win, why would you? The faster you can field planes and tanks, the faster you can take advantage of your massive population by putting them in said planes and tanks. Plus the US didn't particularly care how many troops died for the jews

the reason americans didnt really invest in better torpedoes until 1943 was because they never saw the torpedoes as integral to their vessels the same way japanese did

japanese saw how powerful torpedoes were in russo-jap war, and so underwent a crash course in modernizing torpedoes and refining torpedo tactics
thats why they had the O2 torpedo and put torps on everything from destroyers to cruisers

americans preferred all-purpose destroyers with an emphasis on long-range endurance and dual purpose weaponry
they put much more emphasis on fire-control, anti-air, and anti-submarine rather than sheer speed and torpedo armament

A7M>Shinden Kai

Dude, I'm a fucking weeb, but looking at the facts, there wasn't a single fucking thing Japan did right in WWII.

No, seriously, someone tell !e if Japan made a single smart move in the second world war. I dare you.

Except the US was able to get the best of both worlds with quality AND quantity.

With just planes, US fighters had superior speed, superior protection, superior engines, superior fuel quality, and a superior pilot training program. They could field well equipped, well trained squadrons at a much faster rate and on a much more massive scale than the Japanese could have ever hoped to achieve.

And that was just the fucking fighter planes.

>Japan made a single smart move in the WW2

They did, it's called surrender.

And they needed to be bombed a fucking second time for that! It took the emperor surrendering.

Let's not forget the holdouts who kept fighting for up to thirty years.

I love Japan, but fuck are they dumb as shit when it comes to war.

I would argue that their torpedos were fantastic.

Also, optical range finding equipment. But that doesn’t matter because radar master race.

Also, while it would never workin the long run, knocking out the fleet at Pearl was their best chance at achieving a victory

Tactics matter. American Flying Tigers have beaten Japanese aircraft with inferior machines in China.

This.

As far as i know this was meant to be a rocket shooting interceptor like the natter, so no plane for a fight.

The ki84 in all aspects was just as good or a better fighter than the mustang, more maneuverable, better in climb and had better weaponry. Shame on 'Murica

> canard
> before transistors
> viable
no.

P-51D yes. But there were some hotrods in the testing labs that didn't get built because they got cancelled when it was understood Japan's planes were all grounded with empty fuel tanks.

By the time the Ki-84 was operational, it was the end of 1944 (Leyte Gulf and the ensuing island campaign), Japan knew the oil supply was was going to dry up and good pilots were in shorter supply.

The P-51H and P-51L were 450-475mph planes but the Army and War Department were more interested in staying the course and building bombers. The H model was built in small numbers before they were cancelled and the -L was only a flyable airframe with its intended engine never finished.

Attached: P-51L.jpg (1745x1224, 146K)

War conditions put aside. It still boggles the mind how the Japs managed to make something so good.

This a million times. OP is a faggot.

well, Germany had some pretty fantastic shit by April 1945. When you're desperate, you throw caution to the wind and go "all-in" without regards to fuel scarcity or practicality. Japan did the same.

Attached: 116-FE-112 Fw190.jpg (3000x1336, 1.48M)

Honestly Japan's position at the time, there wasn't really any choice for them, politically as well as culturally. They couldn't withdraw from China because they'd poured too much into resources and men. Japan needed resources to sustain this, and Japanese generals and admirals all tried to come up with the best solution, knowing that they could NOT get into a fighting war with the US. The gambit of Pearl Harbor could have put the US in such a state that they would be out of the war long enough for Japan to stabilize and hold their Pacific islands with their navy. If the carriers had been in port, and the oil fields had been hit, they would be the dominant naval power, bar none, in the Pacific.

Still though, Japan, as much as I like their ballsy attitude back then, should have pulled themselves back, and/or maybe tried harder on their own PR. Rape of Nanking and other such atrocities weren't so horrible when compared to the eastern front in Europe, where it was just as brutal.

>And they needed to be bombed a fucking second time for that! It took the emperor surrendering.

If I remember correctly, the "No" that was received, was a mistranslated message of a sort. It was allegedly something more akin to "We're still discussing"

>Let's not forget the holdouts who kept fighting for up to thirty years.

Okay so, you're a young man who's been brought up within the Japanese Empire. You sign up/get conscripted to fight, you love your Emperor, your family, and you want to honor both by your actions. You get sent to one of Japan's island holdings. Radio information is strictly regulated, officers hear it first and if it's "worth telling you" they'll only then tell you. Suddenly radio broadcasts "stop" maybe pamphlets are dropped in, newspapers even, in Japanese saying the war is over. Some of your platoon/squad/group decides to believe it, but you're a good Soldier, your Empire would never surrender, so if Japanese newspapers are saying the war is over, then they are lies, because every japanese person would fight to the death, or so they would have before you left to fight.

I'm just saying, neither of these have much to do with actual warfighting. Also I'd say that some of those holdouts were decent at it if they could evade capture for that long, even sometimes with people looking for them actively

I don't know if I'd call the P-40 inferior exactly. Just designed for different fighting style

>pilots were equal in skill at the time.

Japan did not have any good pilots. they didnt have any way of aces to train new ones. They just flew until they died...which was probaly some time in 43 at the latest.

P-40 was actually a good design for 1941, it had shortcomings like high altitude combat, but it could more than hold its own when in its element

the major breakthrough the flying tigers got against the zeros was to use the advantages they had
6 .50s would vaporize a zero, they had good dive handling, good high speed handling, and a durable airframe that could take more stressful maneuver

so as long as they had the energy advantage, manoeuvresd vertically, and attacked from a drive, they could have an advantage over the zeroes
their losses dropped drastically when they stopped turn fighting the zeroes and instead used their superior high speed handling to disengage before re-engaging when favourable

also, the shark face was probably very intimidating

>If OP wants to talk about some fantatstic hypothetical where Kates and Georges are in abundant numbers and have skilled pilots to the fly them, then they get to fight Bearcats and Tigercats.

OP is off his rocker. what is the japanese equivalent of a wehraboo?

Right that's mainly what I'm going off of, they had a much more...ah...."Zoom and Boom....or Boom and Zoom"? whichever, style of fighting in mind. While Zero's were phenomenally maneuverable in their prime time, they'd be fairly shit at attacking ground forces who were properly armed for air attack.

Why didn't they adapt it to outmaneuver the jap planes in any possible dogfight during and after 1944?

empty weight (wikipedia):
Zero=1,680kg
Ki-84=2,660kg
P-51=3,465kg
P-47=4,535kg
F6F=4,190kg
F-4U=4,175kg

Japs were still up to their old philosophy of reduced armor and damage control to eke out speed and range.

Attached: deathtrap.jpg (220x116, 5K)

Now this is pure conjecture, but they didn't need to. By 1944 the US typically always had a numerical advantage, as well as a skill advantage in the air. US doctrine even before this point in the war had countermeasures that worked well enough against Japanese planes that could outmaneuver them. Typically a wingman focused series of maneuvers that provided ample protection

>Why didn't they adapt it to outmaneuver the jap planes in any possible dogfight during and after 1944?
Instead you could have your planes out range them, out gun them, and give your plane enough armor to survive a hit.

With the thatch weave you don't need to out maneuver them, just outnumber them.

Dumbed down for you
youtube.com/watch?v=2egoBqezzkQ

There's more to a dogfighter than just maneuverability. The Hellcat demonstrated that against the Zero, as it outperformed the Zeke in everything *but* maneuverability and managed a great K:D against them.

Attached: 1532905186584.jpg (1280x720, 158K)

It was literally only the zero that didn't have armor and self sealing fuel tanks and that was done to increase it's range.

So on an unrelated note, given the positive reception of the P-40 in the pacific, why was the P-39 which had the same engine and similar performance regarded as shit.

>why was the P-39 which had the same engine and similar performance regarded as shit.
American pilots hated it's weird flying characteristics due to it's weird design of the engine being behind the pilot. It's 37mm cannon was extremely unreliable, worse than the 20mm in the P-38.

The Soviets absolutely loved the P-39 and operated them until the end of the war, infact the last kill scored by a P-39 was on a ME-262.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-39_Airacobra

Attached: 382987-1920x1080.jpg (1920x1080, 309K)

Yes, I know that the Soviet Union used them and liked them. However, as the Pacific was to a certain extent a dumping ground of stuff that wasn't super-successful in the ETO, why were they hated versus the very similar Warhawk.

>unreliable 37mm cannnon
If the Soviets made it work, why didn't it work for the USA?

>If the Soviets made it work, why didn't it work for the USA?
It's probably a matter of perspective, American pilots complained about the flying characteristics due to change of the center of gravity because of the engine being behind the pilot but Soviet pilots were already use to things like that. American pilots probably expected too much from it while the Soviets were glad it shot at all.

Because turning with the enemy is reckless if you can just out dive them

P39s didn't have the range. They could go about 500 miles. A P51 or P38 could do more than triple that.