Who had the better planes before the Changkufeng Incident? (1938)

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Japan and Russia fought a little bit in 1938 over some town in Manchuria, which although it never escalated into war, had quite a big impact on each side's planning, especially the Japanese, in preparation for WWII.

I think there is no dispute that Russia would have won a ground war, mostly because it could call upon over ten million men if it had to, while most of the IJA was busy in China. Also Russia had tanks with stuff better than machine guns, while the best Japanese tanks at the time were the Type 89 (obsolescent), the Type 94 "TK" (weaker than Pzkw I) and the Type 95 (not enough around in '38).

However the air war, from what I have found so far, is a lot less clear. Russia's main fighters were the I-15 (and I-153 variant) and the I-16, which were decent in Manchuria but got trashed by the Germans in 1941. Japan at the time had the Ki-27, along with crews that had seen a lot of action in China. They could also bring in the A4N and A5M carrier planes, which were basically the precursors to the Zero.

AFAIK Russia had no tactical bomber force at this stage, and Japan had the D2N, but not many of those were made so I'll just ignore bombers for this thread.

So assuming Japan and Russia go to war in 1938, who wins the air war?

- BNC

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

(quietly bumps in hope more people see poll, or contribute to empty discussion!)

- BNC

 

[Just Leo]

So assuming Japan and Russia go to war in 1938, who wins the air war?- BNC

Due to the vagaries of dissimilar air combat, there is no clearly defined winner. It's mostly a case of better pilots using best tactics. The highest scoring Ki-27 pilot was killed by an I-16 pilot. The Nakajima aircraft was far more delightful to fly, but offered little resistance to stray bullets, while the Polikarpov was a bear to fly, but strong, like bull.

 

[zert]

It might come down to the more numerous Russian planes and pilots. I personally think the Nate might have the edge. I accidentally votes for the Claude, though would change if I could. In the end, both sides will lose valuable pilots, planes, and crews.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

It might come down to the more numerous Russian planes and pilots. I personally think the Nate might have the edge. I accidentally votes for the Claude, though would change if I could. In the end, both sides will lose valuable pilots, planes, and crews.

I've edited the poll so it should let you change now.

In 1938 I don't think the Russians had too much in the way of superior numbers - 7000 I-16s were built total against 3500 Ki-27s and 1000 A5Ms. A substantial number of Soviets were also either in Spain (fighting Franco) or on the border with Poland and Romania in case of European war (1600 at time of Barbarossa), so I don't think the numbers would be too much a factor.

Due to the vagaries of dissimilar air combat, there is no clearly defined winner. It's mostly a case of better pilots using best tactics. The highest scoring Ki-27 pilot was killed by an I-16 pilot. The Nakajima aircraft was far more delightful to fly, but offered little resistance to stray bullets, while the Polikarpov was a bear to fly, but strong, like bull.

In a 1-on-1 or even 10-on-10, that is definitely true. However we do know that the Spitfire was clearly better than the Bf 109, or that the Hellcat was superior to late model Zeros. So I'm wondering everyone's thoughts with the six types in the poll (although I don't expect the A4N or I-15 to get anything other than a 'joke vote', seeing as their immediate successors are on as well).

- BNC

 

[Just Leo]

However we do know that the Spitfire was clearly better than the Bf 109, or that the Hellcat was superior to late model Zeros. - BNC

We don't know this at all. Han Joachim Muncheberg, flying a Bf-109G-2, died when rammed by his 46th Spitfire victory. That doesn't address a clear superiority.

To more clearly address my point, the Zero clearly out-performed the Grumman Wildcat, in John Thatch's own words, but the Wildcat had characteristics similar to the I-16, and the adoption of suitable tactics changed the balance in favor of the 'Cat.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

We don't know this at all.

Against the 109E, the Spitfire performed better, hence the lower losses in the Battle of Britain than one would expect from a starting 4:5 position (the casualties are more like 1:2). Perhaps I wasn't quite clear in that regard (I was referring to 1940, though obviously forgot to include that in the post).

To more clearly address my point, the Zero clearly out-performed the Grumman Wildcat, in John Thatch's own words, but the Wildcat had characteristics similar to the I-16, and the adoption of suitable tactics changed the balance in favor of the 'Cat.

In that case, how did A5M tactics in China compare to the A6M in WWII, and the Russian I-16 to the Widcat? You post comes across as suggesting that the A5M would be better in this regard, due to it being similar to the Zero.

- BNC

 

[Just Leo]

Against the 109E, the Spitfire performed better, hence the lower losses in the Battle of Britain than one would expect from a starting 4:5 position (the casualties are more like 1:2). Perhaps I wasn't quite clear in that regard (I was referring to 1940, though obviously forgot to include that in the post).- BNC

Comparing Spitfire I to Bf-109E, Alan Deere quoted "Overall, there was little to chose between the two." There were factors involved, as there normally are, far beyond mere fighter performance, in the BoB, as elsewhere. Otherwise, one would have expected the Hurricane to fare much worse than was the case.

In that case, how did A5M tactics in China compare to the A6M in WWII, and the Russian I-16 to the Widcat? You post comes across as suggesting that the A5M would be better in this regard, due to it being similar to the Zero. BNC

I never brought up the A5M, since I have no relevant facts, but I think it is much more similar to the Ki-27 than the Zero, and shares the same weaknesses against the I-16's strengths.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

I never brought up the A5M, since I have no relevant facts, but I think it is much more similar to the Ki-27 than the Zero, and shares the same weaknesses against the I-16's strengths.

The Zero was directly developed from the A5M, and the two planes were very similar. The Zero was pretty much just a lighter and faster A5M from what I have read. The Ki-27 was a heavier fighter not designed for carrier use, and AFAIK was developed sometime between the two carrier fighters.

- BNC

 

[Just Leo]

The Zero was directly developed from the A5M, and the two planes were very similar. The Zero was pretty much just a lighter and faster A5M from what I have read. The Ki-27 was a heavier fighter not designed for carrier use, and AFAIK was developed sometime between the two carrier fighters.BNC

You have a very poor eye for detail, in that the A6M shares little with the A5M, and your weights are quite askew. The Zero is heaviest and the Nate the lightest.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Zero was directly developed from the A5M, and the two planes were very similar. The Zero was pretty much just a lighter and faster A5M from what I have read.

Not likely.
The Zero was a brand new fighter, with a new wing, new tail, new fuselage, new canopy, engine, armament, undercarriage, fuel & oil system. It was considerably bigger & heavier.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

@Just Leo , @tomo pauk

Looking at the side view of the A5M and A6M, they seem quite similar, which makes sense seeing as the A6M was designed as a direct successor to the A5M. Plus, the Zero was designed to save as much weight as possible, hence what I understand to be no armour at all. So it seemed logical that it would be lighter.

Officially, it sucks to be proven wrong in my own discussion, but oh well. Do any of you have any good sites that you recommend I check out? Evidently I've only been looking at rubbish ones.

- BNC

 

[Just Leo]

Do any of you have any good sites that you recommend I check out? Evidently I've only been looking at rubbish ones. BNC

Before I responded to this thread, I played google to confirm what I thought, from reading for over fifty years on the topic. Sometimes, history changes. I checked the weights on Virtual Aircraft Museum. Just keep reading. Even Wiki is handy sometimes. It's not always wrong. If you read all the sites, there's bound to be a kernel of truth.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
Officially, it sucks to be proven wrong in my own discussion, but oh well. Do any of you have any good sites that you recommend I check out? Evidently I've only been looking at rubbish ones.

- BNC

Wikipedia is indeed a good start. There is also a forum, dedicated to the Japanese aircraft: http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php

 

[mudhead]

You really should include the Kawasaki Ki-10 when dealing with this period - Japan's last biplane fighter, in widespreadd use during this period.
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/Nippon/aircraft/Perry.htm

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

You really should include the Kawasaki Ki-10 when dealing with this period - Japan's last biplane fighter, in widespreadd use during this period.
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/Nippon/aircraft/Perry.htm

To quote Wikipedia, "by the time of the Nomonhan Incident (Battles of Khalkhin Gol) in 1939, against the forces of Soviet Union, [the Ki-10] was largely obsolete." Nomonhan was only a year after Changkufeng, so there is no way it would make any real impact other than target practise. AFAIK there wasn't much difference in the Red AF during this time.

Before I responded to this thread, I played google to confirm what I thought, from reading for over fifty years on the topic. Sometimes, history changes. I checked the weights on Virtual Aircraft Museum. Just keep reading. Even Wiki is handy sometimes. It's not always wrong. If you read all the sites, there's bound to be a kernel of truth.

You accidently hyperlinked that to your profile page

Wikipedia is indeed a good start. There is also a forum, dedicated to the Japanese aircraft: http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php

I started this thread not long after reading the wiki page and was thinking about an early-start WW2 at the time. It didn't say much about the two in comparison to each other, so I thought some people here might have opinions about it. According to the poll, they do , and one of those opinions is that biplanes are garbage!

I'll probably spend the rest of today trawling that forum now!

- BNC