"Japanese Messerschmitts" at Coral Sea

[Spitfires Forever]

Hello gentlemen, I got a doozy for you. I was reading an old book by Stanley Johnson called Oueen of the Flat-Tops, which basically is an eye witness account of the Lexington's fight in the Battle of the Coral Sea. On page 195 the author included an interview with a Lt. Commander Ramsey who was a flighter commander for the Lex  flying the F-4-F Wildcat. He described what he called "Japanese Messerschmitts" (I can only think it was an early Tony) that was "painted up with yellow and red stripes like a Christmas tree" etc. My question is, was this indeed a Tony? Which land base could it have flown from. Perhaps a base in New Guinea? The Solomons, Truk or Rabaul? The pilot couldn't have been Kobayashi could it? Any way you cut it, it sure is interesting. At the time of the battle the Tony was going into service right? Curious. Well it sure would make a great modeling subject. If anyone has any info on this it would be appreciated.

Cheers

 

[mhaselden]

Coral Sea was too early for operational use of the Ki-61.  I suspect this was a case of mis-identification.  "Messerschmitts" had been identified in numerous battles in the Pacific and CBI theatres, starting as early as Dec 41 during the Malayan Campaign.  Bear in mind there was a strong racist overtone to many assessments of Japanese aircraft and piloting skills, and this manifested itself in misidentifying German aircraft that were really Japanese. 

[Brad]

At the time of the Coral Sea, there weren't even any production KI-61-I's built, so I seriously doubt it was one of the 12 pre production prototypes. I have no idea what he saw, it could be a case of mistaken identity in the heat of combat or a case of fading/failing memories. Eyewitness reports, especially years after events are unreliable at best.

[Nick Millman]

Possibly - and tenuously - the early recce version of the Yokosuka Suisei'Judy' - Experimental Type 13 and/or D4Y1-C. Although it is generally reported that two of the prototypes were first deployed at Midway their development was quite early with prototypes flying in December 1940.

 

The first operational deployment of the Ki-61 was during the April 1942 Doolittle raid on Japan when two of the five pre-production aircraft so far manufactured and being tested by the Army were engaged in gunnery trials at Mito and attempted to intercept the raiders. At that stage all five were being flown in tests and trials at the Army Flight Test Centre at Fussa in Japan and had not been accepted for service. The Doolittle interception and combat is described in my book 'Ki-61 and Ki-100 Aces'.

 

Nick 

[mhaselden]

Hi Nick,

 

Any idea what an early Judy might look like?  I'm pondering whether it would be  "painted up with yellow and red stripes like a Christmas tree" per the original observer's comments?  My knowledge of D4Y1s is very limited but most operational airframes seem to be pretty boring (from a modelling perspective) with little to distinguish them other than the unit and airframe identifiers on the fin/rudder. 

 

Kind regards,
Mark

[stevehnz]

I'm wondering if memory mightn'y be playing tricks, as Nick said, maybe seeing something like this, & confusing it with B5Ns with the different stripes they carried in the form of unit markings & rear gunner aim marks on the tail plane. The D4Y with its Atsuta engine certainly had a front profile that could be mistaken for a bf 109 in the heat of battle & the overall shape is similar enough to a B5N to confuse the 2 in similar circumstances,

Steve,

[Guest]

I will give the benefit of the doubt to Lt. Commander Ramsey who reported the ecounter to the author of the book shortly after his return to the Lex. I am sure he could tell the difference from a radial and inline engined aircraft, especially at close quarters. While the Judy has a more sleek silhouette than the radial engined aircraft he encountered during, and prior to the battle, the Tony would look very much more like a Messerschmitt than a Judy, and is the logical choice between the to possible aircraft encountered. We will never know for sure obviously, but he was on the tail of this "Messerschmitt" and was having a very difficult time staying with it. He even said upon return to the Lex "if they have airplanes like this we are in for a very tough time." Now, assuming that the aircraft was a Tony, where did it fly out of in order to join in the fray?

Cheers

Edited June 9, 2017 by Spitfire addict
Needs to add data

[mhaselden]

It's really hard to identify an operating base for a type that wasn't in the theatre.  The Japanese air ORBAT for the Battle lists only radial-engined types, and all were IJN - there were no IJAAF aircraft involved in the battle.  The Japanese had no inline engined aircraft in their inventory during the Malayan Campaign but several pilots identified Messerschmitts, both 109s and 110s, so we have precedent for similar misidentification of Japanese aircraft. 

 

If the good Lt Cdr was on the tail of the enemy aircraft, how could he determine with certainty the shape of the engine cowling?  None of this is to denigrate Lt Cdr Ramsey.  Sitting in our comfy armchairs, it should be self-evident that an inline engine is clearly different from a radial...but we're not sitting in a cramped cockpit at 300mph with people shooting at us. 

 

By far the most likely scenario is that Lt Cdr Ramsey misidentified an A6M. 

[Seawinder]

1 hour ago, Spitfire addict said:

I will give the benefit of the doubt to Lt. Commander Ramsey who reported the ecounter to the author of the book shortly after his return to the Lex. I am sure he could tell the difference from a radial and inline engined aircraft, especially at close quarters. While the Judy has a more sleek silhouette than the radial engined aircraft he encountered during, and prior to the battle, the Tony would look very much more like a Messerschmitt than a Judy, and is the logical choice between the to possible aircraft encountered. We will never know for sure obviously, but he was on the tail of this "Messerschmitt" and was having a very difficult time staying with it. He even said upon return to the Lex "if they have airplanes like this we are in for a very tough time." Now, assuming that the aircraft was a Tony, where did it fly out of in order to join in the fray?

Cheers

Well, it might have been a plane with an in-line engine, but it's hard to see how it could have been a Ki-61: quoting the Wikipedia article, "The new Ki-61 Hien fighters entered service with a special training unit, the 23rd Chutai, and entered combat for the first time in early 1943, during the New Guinea campaign."

[Guest]

What you say makes sense. Why the heck would the IJAAF, who couldn't stand the navy and were loath to cooperate in any way whatsoever inject their fighters into what they would consider a naval problem. As to getting a good look at the adversary, that is easy to explain. Within the ACM envelope you will be flying at all angles of attack to strike the enemy aircraft, especially when trying to get in a good deflection shot as the enemy aircraft turns, which should provide a good side view of the aircraft. Regardless it is an enigma, and we will never really know what really happened, but those pilots were not prone to hallucinations. As a point of interest, I have a very good friend who was an F-104 driver back in the early 1960's, and part of his duties were ADC, basically chasing down blips, aircraft that didn't have their IFF on, lost aircraft, etc. This friend of mine had a lot of hours in the F-104, 100, 101, and flew ground support in Vietnam Nam. Additionally, he had a lot of hours in various commercial types for American Airlines. I asked him if he ever chased down a UFO (no, I'm not a tin foil hat conspiracy nut) and he said he had some very interesting "close encounters" and found it impossible to chase whatever these things were down. Regardless, he knows what he saw and his wing man backed him up. Of course they were told to shut up if they valued their careers. The point of this all being, people see what they see, whether it is real or illusion. The experiences were quite real to the pilots and their wingmen. Of course we will never really know for sure will we? Still, it's pretty interesting any way you cut it.

Cheers

Commander Zog of the 12the Universe

Edited June 9, 2017 by Spitfire addict

[NAVY870]

If one watchs the 1970's classic fillum "Midway" during the major battle sequence

one will see a 109 roaring across the sky pursed by a certain Supermarine product.

As Hollywood is known for its uncompromising accuracy the 109 and the Spitfire both took

part in the Midway theatre without question.

 

[JWM]

On 8.06.2017 at 1:54 AM, Spitfire addict said:

He described what he called "Japanese Messerschmitts" (I can only think it was an early Tony) that was "painted up with yellow and red stripes like a Christmas tree" etc.

This could means that only the tail of the machines was yellow/red as happens for early Japan Navy. Perhaps...

Regards

J-W

[Nick Millman]

20 hours ago, mhaselden said:

Hi Nick,

 

Any idea what an early Judy might look like?  I'm pondering whether it would be  "painted up with yellow and red stripes like a Christmas tree" per the original observer's comments?  My knowledge of D4Y1s is very limited but most operational airframes seem to be pretty boring (from a modelling perspective) with little to distinguish them other than the unit and airframe identifiers on the fin/rudder. 

 

Kind regards,
Mark

 

Hi Mark 

 

There was a speculative article on the appearance of the recce Judy at Midway in the Asahi Journal (Vol.4 No.3) which concluded that it was possibly in the standard "grey" finish of that time with blue carrier ID band and red tail code. I'm not so sure of that. Reportedly two Judies were embarked on Soryu (the 3rd and 4th prototypes) but one was lost in an accident before the battle. 

 

Ramsey's "Christmas tree" sounds very much like a fleeting view of carrier ID bands and tail stripes, probably on a Zero but there are still many unknowns about Judy's introduction to service. And the capability suggests an experienced pilot who would probably have been displaying leader tail stripes too.   

 

Kind regards

Nick

[MDriskill]

20 hours ago, mhaselden said:

Hi Nick,

 

Any idea what an early Judy might look like?  I'm pondering whether it would be  "painted up with yellow and red stripes like a Christmas tree" per the original observer's comments?  My knowledge of D4Y1s is very limited but most operational airframes seem to be pretty boring (from a modelling perspective) with little to distinguish them other than the unit and airframe identifiers on the fin/rudder. 

 

Kind regards,
Mark

I certainly agree. From a modelling perspective, it's frustrating that this beautiful aircraft only ever appeared in the IJNAF's ho-hum green over gray, LOL... With Nick's Asahi Journal comments in hand--believable or not!--I could be tempted to do an all-gray one with black nose and Soryu stripes...!

[Nick Millman]

9 hours ago, Spitfire addict said:

I will give the benefit of the doubt to Lt. Commander Ramsey who reported the ecounter to the author of the book shortly after his return to the Lex. I am sure he could tell the difference from a radial and inline engined aircraft, especially at close quarters. While the Judy has a more sleek silhouette than the radial engined aircraft he encountered during, and prior to the battle, the Tony would look very much more like a Messerschmitt than a Judy, and is the logical choice between the to possible aircraft encountered. We will never know for sure obviously, but he was on the tail of this "Messerschmitt" and was having a very difficult time staying with it. He even said upon return to the Lex "if they have airplanes like this we are in for a very tough time." Now, assuming that the aircraft was a Tony, where did it fly out of in order to join in the fray?

Cheers

 

Even if we are to believe that a pre-production Tony from the Army Flight Test Centre was somehow committed to a naval battle several thousand miles from Japan and was flying from an IJN carrier, at the time that theatre was the responsibility of the IJN and it was a Japanese naval operation that led to the Coral Sea battle.

 

After you set your latest Japanese hare running I re-visited the accounts. This incident and the 109 mis-identification is covered by John B Lundstrom in his thoroughly researched book 'The First Team'. Ramsey had been in combat with Zeros before this incident, identifying them as Zeros, but had also misidentified Kates as Zeros. All the fighter combats he was involved in were with identified IJN carrier fighter units - Zuikaku's 2nd Chutai and Shokaku's 1st Chutai at low-level, then Shokaku's 1st Chutai at medium altitude. Lundstrom quotes Lt (jg) W N Leonard:-

 

"Not as bad a mistake as it sounds. Zero had an out-sized propeller and compact radial engine. From some angles the general visual impression was of a long nose, i.e. in line engine. Later familiarity with Zero in all its aspects eliminated this kind of mis-identification".

 

I'm not entirely convinced by that but note that the aircraft that Ramsey attacked unsuccessfully was scooting along alone at low level. That makes me wonder whether a recce Judy was on board a carrier earlier than has previously been reported. I think it unlikely but far less unlikely than a Tony scooting about. 

 

Nick

[mhaselden]

6 hours ago, NAVY870 said:

If one watchs the 1970's classic fillum "Midway" during the major battle sequence

one will see a 109 roaring across the sky pursed by a certain Supermarine product.

As Hollywood is known for its uncompromising accuracy the 109 and the Spitfire both took

part in the Midway theatre without question.

 

 

Go and stand in the naughty corner....NOW!  

[mhaselden]

7 hours ago, Spitfire addict said:

What you say makes sense. Why the heck would the IJAAF, who couldn't stand the navy and were loath to cooperate in any way whatsoever inject their fighters into what they would consider a naval problem. As to getting a good look at the adversary, that is easy to explain. Within the ACM envelope you will be flying at all angles of attack to strike the enemy aircraft, especially when trying to get in a good deflection shot as the enemy aircraft turns, which should provide a good side view of the aircraft. Regardless it is an enigma, and we will never really know what really happened, but those pilots were not prone to hallucinations. As a point of interest, I have a very good friend who was an F-104 driver back in the early 1960's, and part of his duties were ADC, basically chasing down blips, aircraft that didn't have their IFF on, lost aircraft, etc. This friend of mine had a lot of hours in the F-104, 100, 101, and flew ground support in Vietnam Nam. Additionally, he had a lot of hours in various commercial types for American Airlines. I asked him if he ever chased down a UFO (no, I'm not a tin foil hat conspiracy nut) and he said he had some very interesting "close encounters" and found it impossible to chase whatever these things were down. Regardless, he knows what he saw and his wing man backed him up. Of course they were told to shut up if they valued their careers. The point of this all being, people see what they see, whether it is real or illusion. The experiences were quite real to the pilots and their wingmen. Of course we will never really know for sure will we? Still, it's pretty interesting any way you cut it.

Cheers

Commander Zog of the 12the Universe

 

Having not read the actual account, it's hard to know just how much ACM took place.  Was this a 1-v-1, 2-v-1 or n-v-n engagement?  What was the tactical situation?  Did Ramsey approach from the rear, take a shot and the enemy aircraft pulled away? 

 

I think we can know with a fair degree of certainty, as Nick's comments about Lundstrom's analysis indicates.  If there were no IJAAF units involved, and Ramsey had previously engaged A6Ms (and mis-identified Kates for Zeros), then I think we can state with a fair degree of probability that it was a Zero.  If it walks like a duck etc....

[Nick Millman]

46 minutes ago, mhaselden said:

 

Having not read the actual account, it's hard to know just how much ACM took place.  Was this a 1-v-1, 2-v-1 or n-v-n engagement?  What was the tactical situation?  Did Ramsey approach from the rear, take a shot and the enemy aircraft pulled away? 

 

I think we can know with a fair degree of certainty, as Nick's comments about Lundstrom's analysis indicates.  If there were no IJAAF units involved, and Ramsey had previously engaged A6Ms (and mis-identified Kates for Zeros), then I think we can state with a fair degree of probability that it was a Zero.  If it walks like a duck etc....

 

According to Lundstrom Ramsey and wingman were at 17,000 ft attempting to follow Japanese carrier bombers withdrawing after their attack. They spotted the lone enemy aircraft below at 4,000 ft and dived on it from the rear, Ramsey firing a long burst from above and behind. He was surprised it did not "blaze up", passed below it and intended to zoom up for another attack. His wingman also fired, seeing his tracers hit the enemy aircraft, but it turned tightly and scooted into cloud. The wingman attempted to follow it but lost it. Ramsey claimed it was smoking heavily. 

 

Nick 

[mhaselden]

7 minutes ago, Nick Millman said:

 

According to Lundstrom Ramsey and wingman were at 17,000 ft attempting to follow Japanese carrier bombers withdrawing after their attack. They spotted the lone enemy aircraft below at 4,000 ft and dived on it from the rear, Ramsey firing a long burst from above and behind. He was surprised it did not "blaze up", passed below it and intended to zoom up for another attack. His wingman also fired, seeing his tracers hit the enemy aircraft, but it turned tightly and scooted into cloud. The wingman attempted to follow it but lost it. Ramsey claimed it was smoking heavily. 

 

Nick 

 

Thanks Nick.  That helps a lot.  So the initial spot took place at a range of at least 2.5 miles and then diving in behind...I can entirely understand how Lt Cdr Ramsey might misidentify the aircraft.  For all we know, it could even be a Kate, although a Zero is more plausible. 

[Guest]

Thanks to Nick and his analysis, additional information e.g. combat reports, etc. some light has been shed on this subject that strongly suggests that the aircraft in question was misidentified and could have not been a Tony. Thanks Nick, your input is always greatly valued.

Cheers

[Seawinder]

2 hours ago, Spitfire addict said:

Thanks to Nick and his analysis, additional information e.g. combat reports, etc. some light has been shed on this subject that strongly suggests that the aircraft in question was misidentified and could have not been a Tony. Thanks Nick, your input is always greatly valued.

Cheers

"Could have not been a Tony"? Aw, come on! It wasn't only Nick who pointed out that there's virtually no possibility it could have been a Tony. I suggest this emendation to your statement: "... that possibly suggests that the aircraft in question ... could have been something other than a Zero."

[JWM]

 

 

 

4 hours ago, MDriskill said:

"painted up with yellow and red stripes like a Christmas tree"

like that?:

or like that"

Cheers

J-W

[Gerrardandrews]

Book I think was named Empire of the sky, that I read a few years ago, about British Test pilot's, and described within the pages are two prototypes that no one ever seen, in the 50s.

So go back to the early 40s, the Japanese are the master's of the sky in the pacific, and very secretive about everything, as they had been at war for a few years, So, might have been a aircraft no one knows about, and never will, remembers, no one knows the exact look of their biggest battle ship, as they kept it hidden, lots of documents must have been destroyed in 45.

So might have been a top secret aircraft that no one will ever know 😊

[Greg in OK]

Yellow and Red Stripes!!??

 

Are we sure it wasn't a Vichy aircraft?

 

Sure it's a long way from France but a D-520 sorta looks like a 109 if you stand REAL far back and squint.

 

Greg in OK

 

 

Edited June 9, 2017 by Greg in OK

[Milo Burgh]

An hypothetical Judy profile for Midway here (bottom of the page):

 

http://japanese-aviation.forumeiros.com/t17-45-midway-islands-battle-june-4-1942