PDA

View Full Version : Chinese A6Ms



luftluuver
07-10-2006, 05:35 PM
The following is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A6M_Zero

In the waning mounths of the Second Sino-Japanese War, the Chinese, both KMT and CCP, learned how to produce Zeros of their own. Mostly the A6M2 Type 0 Model 21, the Chinese Zeros were produced so rapidly they easily eclisped the total number made by Japan. They saw service in the second phase (1945-1946) of the Franco-Thai War (on the Thai side), the Thai Civil War (in all (Thai, North Indian, and French Indochinese theaters on the the side of the Nationalist Thais) , and the Chinese Civil War (On both sides of the later). Though their sheer number made them very formidable, and they managed to wipe out the Royalist Thai Air Force almost completely in about 1 1/2 weeks, the presence of New Western Allied planes such as the American P-51 Mustang and F4U Corsair, and several new British Spitfire Models (namely the models XI and XII) and the Hawker Temptest saw the "Blue Sun Zeros" (named after the sun insignea of the KMT's airforce) suffering heavy casualties with very little to show for it. They were still used by both sides of the Chinese Civil War, and preformed much better in that theatre. However, due to dysmal performance in the Kazakstani border war with Soviet Russia from April 6th- June 9th 1948, (not mainly in dogfighting, but due to the Zero's general inadaqucy to cope with cold weather operations) and with uttterly disastrous performance against the UN/Western Allied planes in the early stages of the Korean War, production ground to a halt.

Is this some wild story or is it true?

Chuck_Older
07-10-2006, 06:07 PM
Don't know. I do know that the AVG had a member called "Herman the German" if I recall correctly

His name was Gerhard Neumann. He was recruited by Chiang Kai-Shek to service German built aircraft in China before the war, but none were sent before war broke out

The British interned him in Hong Kong at that time. About a year later he earned a release (I don't know how). He apparently desired to try and stick to his orignal agreement with the Chinese government, and travelled to Kunming, where he begain servicing AVG aircraft instead of the non-existant German planes that were never sent

He also worked on the China Air Task Force aircraft after the AVG disbanded

In 1943 he actually rebuilt a Zero that was found on a beach in China. The plane was taken apart by the Chinese, and delivered to Liuchow, China.

Neumann and two mechanics (one Chinese, one American) put the plane back together and it was made airworthy. It was flown to Kueilin, where the gear collapsed on landing (Zeros have an odd hydraulic system that require a lever handle to be in a certain position or the fluid cycles uselessly; if in this position and enough pressure builds a problem can arise, I've read reports from the 1980s that relate that the lever is almost impossible for a human to move if in the neutral position and the pressure is too high, could be the gear wasn't locked?). Neumann rebuilt the plane again, it flew to India, Neumann disassembled it and it was shipped to the US

So there is every possibility that the Chinese knew a whole lot about how to build or rebuild A6Ms, as early as 1943 based on this

My copy of "Days of the Ching Pao" (great book) makes no reference to these Chinese A6Ms though

vocatx
07-10-2006, 07:26 PM
Not exactly on topic, but if I recall, Thialand used Ki-43s and Ki-51s left behind after the war for several years. So, I wouldn't be too surprised to find that Zeros were in the inventory of more than one South-east Asian country after WW II.

luftluuver
07-10-2006, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by vocatx:
Not exactly on topic, but if I recall, Thialand used Ki-43s and Ki-51s left behind after the war for several years. So, I wouldn't be too surprised to find that Zeros were in the inventory of more than one South-east Asian country after WW II. But Chinese manufactured A6Ms?

Did Spit XIs and XIIs go to SEA?

JG53Frankyboy
07-10-2006, 08:02 PM
sounds like a big joke!

and for sure none of the 100 build Spit XII made it to asia !

the XI yes, but why should they harm any foe aircraft - they were unarmed recon planes..........

Feathered_IV
07-10-2006, 08:05 PM
"the Chinese Zeros were produced so rapidly they easily eclisped the total number made by Japan"

That sounds highly suspect. One wonders what became of these hundreds of A6M's. A fascinating post though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JG53Frankyboy
07-10-2006, 08:07 PM
chinese Zeros at Korea !
LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and "interesting" wars happend there in Thailand http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VW-IceFire
07-10-2006, 08:20 PM
That sounds pretty wild. Have to do some more research...we know that the Chineese captured a number of different Japanese aircraft types but didn't use them for very long due to lack of spare parts. They had abundant US aircraft available...many in crates...so producing the Zero...suspect.

p1ngu666
07-10-2006, 08:42 PM
never heard of that before...

i think the XII was replaced by the XIV in raf service in 44/45 aswell

WarWolfe_1
07-10-2006, 09:14 PM
I don't see why not. The Russians did it with the B-29, they even put Boeing stamps on some parts.

Enforcer572005
07-10-2006, 10:14 PM
I can assure you guys htat NO Zekes were actually manufactured by the Chinese, and that the only Jpanese planes they used (a few) were captured ones, and that they were used for tests primarily.

There simply was no need, since american planes were plentiful after 42, and especially afer WW2. There was never a Zeke used in korea either-be sure. Now some P-39s or P-63s supposedly, but no Zekes.

the soviets copied the B-29 as the TU-4 because they had a serious need and high priority for a strategic bomber, and they just couldnt come up with anything comparable. The Tu-4 was a huge engineering project that took up great resources, and the chinese never had to resort to that measure to get fighters.

the part about great numbers is really hilarious. A few captured planes in use does not make "eclipsed" numbers. that article is a huge joke , or maybe a promotion for a custom cmpn for some flt sim-in fact, that is what I thought it was; some kinda alternate history cmpn. Would be kinda cool actually..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I believe there are several non existant incidents mentioned in this.

EDIT. Ok, i read that piece, and whoever the moron was that wrote it is a total wack job. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gifTotally. See if you can find any reference anywhere on the internet about chinese manufactured zekes. that stupid comment at the end about chinese zekes being "considered less pure" is absolute fiction.

You will notice that toward the end it states "users-Japan. China (small numbers of
captured aircraft). I was thinking id never use this outfit as a source for tech info, but this HAS TO BE A HACK JOB. the above reference to the chinese use is a big hint. most of the info is pretty accurate, but suddenly skews off into la la land.

Enforcer572005
07-10-2006, 10:40 PM
i tried to get in the discussion aspect, but its just too complicated to mess with. IN the meantime, they have a pretty bad joke screwing up a good effort at military history.

joeap
07-11-2006, 01:18 AM
Wikipedia strikes again. Anmother confirmation not to accept it as a valid source, unless you can check the citations in the article.

stansdds
07-11-2006, 04:14 AM
I agree with JoeAP, Wikipedia is interesting and a lot of entries are correct, but it's open editing nature lends itself to corruption by misinformed or mischeivious individuals.

Vrabac
07-11-2006, 05:05 AM
The fantasy part is already deleted, so I guess Wikipedia has it's strenghts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luftluuver
07-11-2006, 05:15 AM
"This tactic (Thatch Weave) was used with spectacular results at the Battle of the Coral Sea and at the Battle of Midway, and helped make up for the inferiority of the US planes until new aircraft types were brought into service."

Were the American a/c that inferior?

JG53Frankyboy
07-11-2006, 05:22 AM
"The Bell P-39 and Grumman F4F-4 are key points of comparison and merit brief comment. The maximum speed of the P-39D is generally cited as 360 m.p.h. at 15,000 feet (Dial, p. 272). That for the F4F-4 is given as 318 m.p.h. at 19,400 feet (Taylor, p. 501) or as more pertinent here 274 m.p.h. at sea level (Baugher). The F4F-4 engaged the Zero in both carrier battles and in numerous combats over Guadalcanal operating from land bases. The P-39D (and its P-400 export version) operated against the Zero both over Guadalcanal and over New Guinea . It should be kept in mind that during the period under review Zeros flying from land bases over Guadalcanal almost always entered combat with their external fuel tanks attached. Zeros in combat over New Guinea generally flew without such tanks or dropped them before combat. Without the tank the Zero would have been somewhat faster than flying with the tank attached.

A report summarizing the combat performance of the P-400 and F4F-4 against the Zero over Guadalcanal in late September 1942 stated: €œAt all altitudes under 10,000 feet the P-400's can pull away from the Zero (P-400 speed about 360 m.p.h. F4F-4 about 40 m.p.h. slower). Zeros are faster than the F4F-4's at all altitudes and more maneuverable€¦€ (Performance).

In a report based on questioning forty fighter pilots of VMF-121, 212 and 251 and VF-71 concerning combats in October 1942 the discussion of comparative performance was brief: €œA Zero is faster, more maneuverable, and has a higher rate of climb than our F4F-4s€ (Observations).

In an after action interview given in November 1942 Major John Smith, commander of VMF-223 at Guadalcanal , said little about the Zero's performance until asked a direct question and then replied: €œThey had much more performance than we had. I think they did because we just couldn't stay with them at all, and dog fight at any altitude.€

The F4F-4s of VF-5 commanded by Lt. Commander LeRoy Simpler flew against Zeros from a carrier in August 1942 and were land based on Guadalcanal during September and October 1942. Upon returning to the U.S. Simpler was apprised of the test report that said an F4F-4 was equal in speed to a Zero at low level. His comment was that the report was €œflat wrong.€ "


but the Wildcat pilots managed to fight the Zero very well:
using teamtactics with radio
having the better armament and much more protected plane.

Chuck_Older
07-11-2006, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
"This tactic (Thatch Weave) was used with spectacular results at the Battle of the Coral Sea and at the Battle of Midway, and helped make up for the inferiority of the US planes until new aircraft types were brought into service."

Were the American a/c that inferior?

Inferior aircraft? Define inferior. Was the A6M inferior to the Wildcat because it couldn't take as much damage or dive as fast? Was the A6M inferior because it's radio equipment often didn't work at all and was considered to be dead weight by most pilots?

The Thach Weave is a Superior Tactic. The tactic is so good in fact that I suggest you read up on it's history, implementation, and for how long it was used

luftluuver
07-11-2006, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
"This tactic (Thatch Weave) was used with spectacular results at the Battle of the Coral Sea and at the Battle of Midway, and helped make up for the inferiority of the US planes until new aircraft types were brought into service."

Were the American a/c that inferior?

Inferior aircraft? Define inferior. Was the A6M inferior to the Wildcat because it couldn't take as much damage or dive as fast? Was the A6M inferior because it's radio equipment often didn't work at all and was considered to be dead weight by most pilots?

The Thach Weave is a Superior Tactic. The tactic is so good in fact that I suggest you read up on it's history, implementation, and for how long it was used </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You define the word. I only asked because that is what the article said?

KIMURA
07-11-2006, 06:50 AM
Sure, the Thach Weave worked properly against the Zero, but one thing is for sure. The Thach Weave only worked if used by 2 combat experienced pilots, so the use of that manoeuvre was limited. Its not an easy flying manoeuvre like "flollow my rear wheel€.

To the which a/c is inferior thing. IMHO inferior a/c is that a/c which has to follow the dictate of the counterpart €" in case both pilots has the same skill. An inferior a/c has to stay in the fight until the counterpart got success or want to stop combat Its inferior in speed (deciding to take the combat or not) and/or agility.(where speed is the more important factor)

Chuck_Older
07-11-2006, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
"This tactic (Thatch Weave) was used with spectacular results at the Battle of the Coral Sea and at the Battle of Midway, and helped make up for the inferiority of the US planes until new aircraft types were brought into service."

Were the American a/c that inferior?

Inferior aircraft? Define inferior. Was the A6M inferior to the Wildcat because it couldn't take as much damage or dive as fast? Was the A6M inferior because it's radio equipment often didn't work at all and was considered to be dead weight by most pilots?

The Thach Weave is a Superior Tactic. The tactic is so good in fact that I suggest you read up on it's history, implementation, and for how long it was used </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You define the word. I only asked because that is what the article said? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why should I define it? So are we having a confrontation now? "You define it" indeed. No I won't. If that's all you got, then you don't have an argument to support the superior and inferior aspects of the aircraft in question. You know as well as I do that maneuverability (in some areas and at some speeds), climb rate, range, top speed, firepower, etc, the A6M is superior to the F4F. You also know that the A6M was a fragile aircraft that couldn't dive as well as the F4F

If the F4F is inferior to the A6M because when flown the way an A6M should be flown, the F4F cannot perform as well, then I'm curious as to the definition of 'inferior'. The A6M is inferior to the F4F in dive and ruggedness, and also in systems such as communications

"Inferior" is a blanket statement in this case and cannot be used to describe either aircraft inr egards to the other unless broad generalisations are used.

if you'd rather have a confrontation, go for it. It doesn't prove your points though

Chuck_Older
07-11-2006, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
Sure, the Thach Weave worked properly against the Zero, but one thing is for sure. The Thach Weave only worked if used by 2 combat experienced pilots, so the use of that manoeuvre was limited. Its not an easy flying manoeuvre like "flollow my rear wheel€.

To the which a/c is inferior thing. IMHO inferior a/c is that a/c which has to follow the dictate of the counterpart €" in case both pilots has the same skill. An inferior a/c has to stay in the fight until the counterpart got success or want to stop combat Its inferior in speed (deciding to take the combat or not) and/or agility.(where speed is the more important factor)


All the Thach Weave does for the F4F is allow it's strong points to be maximised. Using the 4F4 like a Zero is stupid and the plane can't perform like a Zero. Using an aircraft in a way that exploits it's own weaknesses while staying away from it's strong points doesn't make the Plane inferior, it makes the Pilot inferior

luftluuver
07-11-2006, 08:58 AM
Improve your reading comprehension Chuckie. I asked if American a/c were inferior.

If you failed to notice, that was a quote from the wiki article, not by me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The only one looking for a confrontation is you Chuckie.

Chuck_Older
07-11-2006, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Improve your reading comprehension Chuckie. I asked if American a/c were inferior.

If you failed to notice, that was a quote from the wiki article, not by me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The only one looking for a confrontation is you Chuckie.

So you're asking the Wiki entry about whether or not US planes were inferior? When you make vague statements, don't blame the readers for poor reading comprehension. Just because you meant something else, that doesn't mean I'm to blame for not knowing you were being rhetorical. Ypu post a quote and then ask a question. I can't read your inflection in what you type. In any case, all I asked was to define 'inferior', which you decided to take offense to. That's looking for a fight. I never said anything negative about what you posted, and in fact I'm the only one to give solid info about this whole thing you've brought up being possible

I find almost every post you make is loaded so that you can go one way or the other. On one hand, you say I'm being confrontational because I asked you to define the word 'inferior' in this context, which you chose to take as a challenge. On the other, you're an innocent lamb whose statements were clear and concise, which makes me ignorant and incapable of comprehending your words. That's Bull and we both know it

I also love it when folks call me "Chuckie" here. It tells me you're out of ammo and that the name calling is the last round in the chamber. You started off asking if this Wikipedia reference was trustworthy. Should I have said "You tell me if it's true?" to you because you had the nerve to ask a question?

Lucius_Esox
07-11-2006, 01:37 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Chuck_Older
07-11-2006, 01:57 PM
Easy to find fault, not easy to contribute, eh?

luftluuver
07-11-2006, 02:05 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Only vague for those with a comprehension problem Chuckie. I don't use Chuck O as that would be an insult to the real Chuck O. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The real Chuck O was not full of himself. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Go away now and stay out of my threads from now on. You have added nothing.

p1ngu666
07-11-2006, 02:08 PM
well, the zero was faster, better turning, better climbing, better cockpit view, better range

Chuck_Older
07-11-2006, 03:10 PM
You must be drunk, luftluuver. I'm the only one who added any solid information that could conceivably indicate the Chinese had the info to build A6Ms.

~edit:

here's the second post in this thread, the very first reply, luftluuver. This is not contributing? By the way, I posted it in a (vain apparently) effort to shed light on your question. Silly me!

"Don't know. I do know that the AVG had a member called "Herman the German" if I recall correctly

His name was Gerhard Neumann. He was recruited by Chiang Kai-Shek to service German built aircraft in China before the war, but none were sent before war broke out

The British interned him in Hong Kong at that time. About a year later he earned a release (I don't know how). He apparently desired to try and stick to his orignal agreement with the Chinese government, and travelled to Kunming, where he begain servicing AVG aircraft instead of the non-existant German planes that were never sent

He also worked on the China Air Task Force aircraft after the AVG disbanded

In 1943 he actually rebuilt a Zero that was found on a beach in China. The plane was taken apart by the Chinese, and delivered to Liuchow, China.

Neumann and two mechanics (one Chinese, one American) put the plane back together and it was made airworthy. It was flown to Kueilin, where the gear collapsed on landing (Zeros have an odd hydraulic system that require a lever handle to be in a certain position or the fluid cycles uselessly; if in this position and enough pressure builds a problem can arise, I've read reports from the 1980s that relate that the lever is almost impossible for a human to move if in the neutral position and the pressure is too high, could be the gear wasn't locked?). Neumann rebuilt the plane again, it flew to India, Neumann disassembled it and it was shipped to the US

So there is every possibility that the Chinese knew a whole lot about how to build or rebuild A6Ms, as early as 1943 based on this

My copy of "Days of the Ching Pao" (great book) makes no reference to these Chinese A6Ms though"


I even cite my reference for you. You're welcome, by the way

VW-IceFire
07-11-2006, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
"This tactic (Thatch Weave) was used with spectacular results at the Battle of the Coral Sea and at the Battle of Midway, and helped make up for the inferiority of the US planes until new aircraft types were brought into service."

Were the American a/c that inferior?
Not really...the American planes were better...but they were using outdated tactics that played to the strengths of the Zero and the well trained, battle experienced, Japanese pilots of 1942 cut them out of the sky. The American planes were generally better armed, more robust and able to sustain damage (or protect the pilot), and had better radios. The biggest problem was not the planes but getting the most use out of them. It definately helped that by 1944 the USN had the F6F which was faster and climbed at a similar rate to the Zero but it was the massive amount of training and experience that the USN pilots had versus their Japanese counterparts in 1944 that really turned tides.

Pilots matter so much.

Chuck_Older
07-11-2006, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
well, the zero was faster, better turning, better climbing, better cockpit view, better range

All true. It was the better dogfighter by far. However, it had a few bad points- poorer maneuverability at high speed, poor radio (the aerobatics many Allied pilots saw were in fact not A6M pilots showing off, it was a series of commands for the other Japanese pilots), poor durability

The A6M was eventually revealed to be what it was: a highly original design that acheived it's startling performance from a drastic weight reduction program that eschewed things such as pilot armor and self sealing fuel tanks. There's no magic behind the Zero's performance, it's power to weight.

Judged on the design philosophy of the aircraft, it is superior to the Wildcat. Certainly the F4F's performance was inferior. What else is there besides performance? No pilot prefers a slow plane that is hard to turn to a fast one with light controls

But the tubby little F4F has a bad rep as an unmaneuverable death trap. It was a rugged machine, a good utilitarian tool. And it was good enough to lend itself to a tactic that was so good, so sound, that it's still used today. Are the tactics that the A6M inspired still in use today?

The F4F couldn't compete with the Zero in climb, range, and speed. Serious drawbacks. But what Allied plane could compete with the Zero in Climb and range in 1940? The later A6Ms could do 351 mph at 19,600 ft. Spitfire VC could do 374 mph at 13,000. The later Zeroes got to 20K feet quicker than the VC by about 30 seconds. These numbers show the Spit VC to ne inferior to the Zero. Am I comfortable saying the Spit was inferior to the Zero? No. Judged on pure dogfighting and pure performance the F4F is inferior. In this sim it is markedly inferior, as real life isn't a factor. A 1967 Lotus 49 can do 200 mph, so can a 1967 Gurney/Weslake Eagle. They were maneuverable to the point of squirrely. Are those cars superior to a brand new Corvette? Taken on numbers and paper, yes. It all depends on what you're defining by superior and inferior

So the Zero outperforms the F4F, sure, no contest. Which plane was easier to fly? Easier to repair? Had better engineering? Had less of a reputation for breakdowns? Took up less space in a carrier? Was easier to train pilots in? Was more able to bring a pilot home in an emergency? Less fatiguing to fly? Re-armed, re-fueled, and re-plensished oxygen faster? Had more accurate instrumentation? Better ancilliary equipment?

We play a sim, we fly the planes, we know "good" and "bad" performance in the limited ways we use the planes. Nobody ever considers anything else other than the sandbox we can play in and hardly anyone takes things that we don't have to do or aren't confronted with into consideration

WarWolfe_1
07-11-2006, 03:44 PM
The point is that the P-39/P400, P-40, some F2As, and F4Fs Held the line and did so with great honor. The planes may have been weaker in certin areas, but the ones that saved more pilots were they're ablity to out dive, and take lots of Damage. The planes may have been scrap once the got back to base but the pilot was alive and could get right in to another plane and fly another mission.

Call them inferior if you like, but history would show that they did the job that was asked of them.


ANYWAYS.

So the china Zekes are a lie! All to funny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Lucius_Esox
07-11-2006, 05:12 PM
Easy to find fault, not easy to contribute, eh?



Oh Dear, was I finding fault?