Jump to content

"Japanese Messerschmitts" at Coral Sea


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Seawinder said:

"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."

Sorry to leave you out of my last dispatch, your intel was good but we needed one of our specialists to bring additional information to light in order to get a more complete picture. I believe you are scheduled to be promoted to private 1st class. Congratulations, but please don't let it go to your head. You know what Winston said about power and corruption right? Carry on Private Seawinder, you are an asset to our ranks!

Cheers

 

P.S. Your conclusion has been duly noted and sent up the chain of command. You will receive additional rubber biscuits in your daily rations. No need to thank me, you are most welcome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, stevehnz said:

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,

It's amazing how additional information can really help us to see a clearer picture, and thanks to Nick we can assume that the aircraft perused was not a Tony, nor a Judy, but it is hard to fully accept that a Zero especially was misidentified as one of those aircraft. The B5N in its regalia could possibly been mistaken as a "Messerschmitt" but it is a much larger aircraft. Who knows? I just thought the topic was fascinating because I read reports from pilots in the Cactus Airforce who also mentioned these "Japanese Messerschmitts" early in the war. Just like most historical events, we will never really know.

Cheers

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JWM said:

 

 

 

like that?:

Boxart Nakajima B5N2 Kate 09076 Hasegawa

or like that"

Mitsubishi-Type-0-A6M-Japanese-Carrier-Fighter-300x200.jpg?resize=607%2C404

Cheers

J-W

I don't know, you think a guy who has only been flying against radial engined aircraft would know the difference between a radial and in line engined aircraft (unless some early prototype Fw 190D prototype got sent to the Japanese for Hirohito's birthday) but once again, who knows? Maybe it was one of those "fog of war" things that always happen in battle?

Cheers

cheers

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nick Millman said:

 

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

Well at least it wasn't a March hare right? I always find the more obscure parts of history more fascinating. One of my recent "hares" was in regard to Japanese seat belts, especially IJAAF, more specifically, why did the IJAAF only use lap belts in their fighters? Still trying to figure that one out. Anyway, thanks for your input as always, and your new book is on my Father's Day gift list.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Spitfire addict said:

Well at least it wasn't a March hare right? I always find the more obscure parts of history more fascinating. One of my recent "hares" was in regard to Japanese seat belts, especially IJAAF, more specifically, why did the IJAAF only use lap belts in their fighters? Still trying to figure that one out. Anyway, thanks for your input as always, and your new book is on my Father's Day gift list.

Cheers

 

Two reasons. Firstly to be able to use the optical gunsights on their early types - Ki-27, Ki-43, Ki-44 - which required them to lean forward and put their eye to the eyepiece. Secondly because they preferred freedom of upper body movement anyway that complimented the aerobatic WW1-type dogfight combat doctrine which persisted until the end of the war, never entirely superceded by hit and run tactics. The lap belt kept them from falling out which is all that mattered to them. Some Ki-27 pilots had the sliding canopies removed for better visibility and Hiko Dai 25 Sentai commander Maj Toshio Sakagawa, for example, had the rollover pylon/headrest removed from his Ki-43 for unobstructed rearwards visibility.    

 

Nick 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spitfire addict said:

Sorry to leave you out of my last dispatch, your intel was good but we needed one of our specialists to bring additional information to light in order to get a more complete picture. I believe you are scheduled to be promoted to private 1st class. Congratulations, but please don't let it go to your head. You know what Winston said about power and corruption right? Carry on Private Seawinder, you are an asset to our ranks!

Cheers

 

P.S. Your conclusion has been duly noted and sent up the chain of command. You will receive additional rubber biscuits in your daily rations. No need to thank me, you are most welcome!

Not really what I was getting at -- there were, after all, statements from a number of people discrediting the suggestion that a Ki-61 appeared in the Coral Sea a year or so before its combat debut -- but I suppose a promotion is a promotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seawinder said:

Not really what I was getting at -- there were, after all, statements from a number of people discrediting the suggestion that a Ki-61 appeared in the Coral Sea a year or so before its combat debut -- but I suppose a promotion is a promotion.

Duly noted my friend, it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility that a Tony was present despite the information presented, that is why I gave Ramsey the benefit of a doubt. We have possibility vs probability here and the weight of the evidence is on the probability side, in the negative of course. I do appreciate your input, always valuable, so continue to press on lieutenant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spitfire addict said:

, it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility that a Tony was present despite the information presented,

Really, certainly way outside the realm of probability, despite you wanting it to be otherwise. There have been many instances of mistaken aircraft ID, how many He 113s did experiences RAF pilots shoot down in the Battle of Britain? Having a Judy at Coral Sea would have cut the Commander some slack, however that appears nearly improbable as a Tony.

Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, stevehnz said:

Really, certainly way outside the realm of probability, despite you wanting it to be otherwise. There have been many instances of mistaken aircraft ID, how many He 113s did experiences RAF pilots shoot down in the Battle of Britain? Having a Judy at Coral Sea would have cut the Commander some slack, however that appears nearly improbable as a Tony.

Steve.

Less than 1% of 1% probability I would say,  I am fully convinced it was misidentification and have no obsession whatsoever with making something that is pretty much impossible a reality, it is just one of the quirks that history has provided. The only reason I posted the topic was to investigate the probability/possibility of it being a Tony. All the accumulated evidence suggests it was a case of misidentification. With that being said I think we have sufficiently beaten this horse into glue. Thank you for your input.

Cheers

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nick Millman said:

 

Two reasons. Firstly to be able to use the optical gunsights on their early types - Ki-27, Ki-43, Ki-44 - which required them to lean forward and put their eye to the eyepiece. Secondly because they preferred freedom of upper body movement anyway that complimented the aerobatic WW1-type dogfight combat doctrine which persisted until the end of the war, never entirely superceded by hit and run tactics. The lap belt kept them from falling out which is all that mattered to them. Some Ki-27 pilots had the sliding canopies removed for better visibility and Hiko Dai 25 Sentai commander Maj Toshio Sakagawa, for example, had the rollover pylon/headrest removed from his Ki-43 for unobstructed rearwards visibility.    

 

Nick 

Thanks again Nick, that pretty much takes care of that. Looking forward to the new book!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

If we insist on V-engined fighter - some 12 of He-112 was used by Japan Navy. Wiki says that:

Japan[edit]

The Imperial Japanese Navy purchased 12 Heinkel He 112B-0 fighters, which it designated both as the Heinkel A7He1 and as the Navy Type He Air Defense Fighter. The Japanese flew the A7He1 briefly during the Second Sino-Japanese War, but phased it out of service before the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 in favor of the Mitsubishi A6M Zero. Assuming it still to be in Japanese use, however, the Allies assigned the reporting name "Jerry" to the A7He1 during World War II.[18]

 

Perhaps no all were pased out before Pearl Harbour?

Rgeards

J-W

 

P.S.

Or He 100 (again from Wiki):

The three D-0 aircraft were completed by the summer of 1939 and stayed at the Heinkel Marienehe plant for testing. They were later sold to the Japanese Imperial Navy to serve as pattern aircraft for a production line, and were shipped there in 1940. They received the designation AXHei.

 

Edited by JWM
added PS
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JWM said:

 

The Imperial Japanese Navy purchased 12 Heinkel He 112B-0 fighters, which it designated both as the Heinkel A7He1 and as the Navy Type He Air Defense Fighter.

The Japanese flew the A7He1 briefly during the Second Sino-Japanese War, but phased it out of service before the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 in favor of the Mitsubishi A6M Zero

 

 

And yet another hare leaves the trap and races out across the field! 

 

Were all 12 aircraft delivered? What IJN unit did they serve with and where? No record of them ever in China. The IJN certainly had at least one imported example (V11 Werknr.2254 registered D-IRXS, prototype for the B-0 series and re-engined with DB601) - still in Japan and photographed there in 1945 in a dismantled state, and there was some consideration to licence build the type which would have been designated A7He1. But as Hans-Peter Dabrowski wrote in 1998 in his detailed study of the history and development of the type:-

 

"Other sources claim that Japan received over 40 aircraft, but to date there is no evidence (photos, documentation) that this delivery was ever made."

 

Meanwhile Heinkel had run into difficulties with their export plans with the Minister of Aviation and the RLM. 

 

The Zero was introduced to service in the late summer of 1940 and the aircraft phased out in its favour was the A5M 'Claude', already operational since 1937 and still in limited front line operation during early 1942. The key to understanding IJN plans for the Heinkel is the proposed designation Air Defence Fighter. But overtaken by events and unlikely to have been on a carrier in the Coral Sea in 1942 . . . 

 

The He 100, another Japanese import as the He 113 for possible license building, was passed on to Kawasaki via the Army after propeller vibration testing at Yokosuka where it had been recorded as 'Heinkeru 100 Model Fighter' (the AXHe1 designation - not AxHei - was intended for the license built production aircraft). Kawasaki took it apart to see what made it tick as part of the Ki-61 project with that prototype completed by December 1941. The fate of the other two supposedly imported is unknown. It boggles the mind that Kawasaki gave it back and the Navy then trundled it out to the Coral Sea on a carrier. Why? 

 

Both types could be summed up as contributing to the Japanese design and development dalliance with liquid-cooled engines. All well and good for a bit of what if modelling but one man's hare soon becomes another few hundred men's incontrovertible fact.  

 

Nick

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, aircraft identification in WW2 was pretty dire. My Grandfather was in the Royal Observer Corps, post-war. I read all their magazines (sadly since lost) in which they detailed the Allied planes shot down or damaged in friendly fire incidents, the numbers were frighteningly high.

 

Blenheims mistaken for JU-88s, Mustangs for Bf109s and, Typhoons for Fw190s... all easily identifiable by some-one sitting in an armchair but imagine yourself in a cockpit with some-one shooting at you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nick Millman said:

 

And yet another hare leaves the trap and races out across the field! 

 

Were all 12 aircraft delivered? What IJN unit did they serve with and where? No record of them ever in China. The IJN certainly had at least one imported example (V11 Werknr.2254 registered D-IRXS, prototype for the B-0 series and re-engined with DB601) - still in Japan and photographed there in 1945 in a dismantled state, and there was some consideration to licence build the type which would have been designated A7He1. But as Hans-Peter Dabrowski wrote in 1998 in his detailed study of the history and development of the type:-

 

"Other sources claim that Japan received over 40 aircraft, but to date there is no evidence (photos, documentation) that this delivery was ever made."

 

Meanwhile Heinkel had run into difficulties with their export plans with the Minister of Aviation and the RLM. 

 

The Zero was introduced to service in the late summer of 1940 and the aircraft phased out in its favour was the A5M 'Claude', already operational since 1937 and still in limited front line operation during early 1942. The key to understanding IJN plans for the Heinkel is the proposed designation Air Defence Fighter. But overtaken by events and unlikely to have been on a carrier in the Coral Sea in 1942 . . . 

 

The He 100, another Japanese import as the He 113 for possible license building, was passed on to Kawasaki via the Army after propeller vibration testing at Yokosuka where it had been recorded as 'Heinkeru 100 Model Fighter' (the AXHe1 designation - not AxHei - was intended for the license built production aircraft). Kawasaki took it apart to see what made it tick as part of the Ki-61 project with that prototype completed by December 1941. The fate of the other two supposedly imported is unknown. It boggles the mind that Kawasaki gave it back and the Navy then trundled it out to the Coral Sea on a carrier. Why? 

 

Both types could be summed up as contributing to the Japanese design and development dalliance with liquid-cooled engines. All well and good for a bit of what if modelling but one man's hare soon becomes another few hundred men's incontrovertible fact.  

 

Nick

Thank heavens we have you Nick to chase those pesky "hares" down, we learn a lot we didn't know that way. Talley Ho!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space is extremely limited on an aircraft carrier.  Not only do you have to carry the aircraft but the logistical support to keep them operational as well.  To bring on board an additional type doesn't just mean space for the aircraft it means space for the inevitable bins of spare parts to keep them flying and quite possibly additional maintenance personnel if the type is not something that the regular maintenance people on the carrier would be familiar with.  How many IJN mechanics do you think would know anything about maintaining a DB601?  The Heinkel 112 would offer no performance edge over the Zero so it would make no sense to complicate and compromise the maintenance issue on a carrier by bringing that aircraft aboard.  The Heinkel 100D is for all practical purposes nonexistent. 

 

The battle in the Coral Sea was part of Japan's southward offensive aimed at Australia.  The idea that they would add this bit of experimentation to a strategically critical operation at a time when the Zero was entirely adequate against existing American fighters makes no sense.  I think this was a straightforward case of misidentification which happened quite often in the chaos of air combat.  The hares as interesting or tempting as they may be should stay in the shed where they belong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...