PDA

View Full Version : F6F vs. A6M



Yellow14150
05-02-2009, 03:53 AM
Zeke vs. Wildcat Server
I love the full-realism settings, kinda like the real challenge of being there as finding the enemy and getting set up on them was 70% of the fight.

I've had some great fun flying these planes online against eachother. I mainly fly the American planes, but I occasionally fly the zeke to remember how to kill it. I tend to try and master specific planes before I switch to a new one. I got great with the 109E, the FW-190's, LaGG-3, and P-51. I find the F6F to be far more forgiving than the F4U, especially during takeoff and landing. Now onto the good part.

I was flying on one of the American attack maps in 1943. I think it was Guam. American's were based on carriers about 15 mi's from the south shore of the island we were attacking. I made several runs into the horbor area we were attacking but kept running into heavy enemy fighter cover down low. I would go into make my bumb run and the zeke's would perch at about 7,000 feet on my exit. After 2 runs and a try in a SBD I decided to stop my attack runs and go full fighter. On my next run I set my fuel to 50% and took drop tanks. I also set my gun convergence to 200, instead of 125, which I had been using for turning dogfights. 200 yards gave me a little more range when sneaking up on the zekes as they were climbing out. I flew out to the north climbing to angels 18 before turning west to head into the combat zone. I saw several contacts over the enemy island at about 11k. I dropped my tank and began a very slow turning decent. The zeke was in a steep climb when I closed to about 1000 yards. I didn't want him to see me so I dropped below him and slowly brought my nose up to him. At about 350 yards I gave a small squeeze on the trigger. I looked closely and saw that my guns were crossing before hitting the zeke. Another second went by. Closer now I opened up again. At first I thought I was still to far out but then I saw hits. I squeezed the trigger again, this time I new I had him. The steel jackets first ripped though the left elevator of the A6M, then onto the wing. I inadvertantly jerked the stick back, at the same time the zeke reacted and pulled left. I was closing with so much speed at this time. I hit me left rudder a little bit and fired again. This time the rounds went up right through the 'bigcage' canopy, then into the left wing root. Further on the left rudder. Out of no where I lost sight of my tracers as the left wing tank errupted in flame. Black smoke poored back onto me. I've often seen the A6M and Ki series planes go on flying for minutes with a flamming tank. I figured if he put in into a steep dive he could get the fire out and then wait for the fuel tank to empty out so he could RTB on his reserve. My first thought was to break off, but my sudden thinking made me stay on target. I fired another burst that shreaded into his left wing again. This time I got it, a massive expolosion. The zeke snapped to the left violently as the wing broke and shot above the fuselage. The last of my rounds hit the top of the canopy once more. I throttled up and broke right to climb back out. The zeke fell for what seemed like minutes until I saw the flash on my screen 'Enemy Aircraft Destroyed".

That made for one great and rewarding kill. I ended that sorty by tangling with a Betty. Though lightly armored, that damn sting in the tail(20MM) got my fuel tank, engine, and wounded me. I ended up ditching on my trip back to the carriers.

Wildnoob
05-02-2009, 07:06 AM
congratulations buddy, with sure you're a great ace! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

staticline1
05-02-2009, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by Yellow14150:
I ended that sorty by tangling with a Betty. Though lightly armored, that damn sting in the tail(20MM) got my fuel tank, engine, and wounded me. I ended up ditching on my trip back to the carriers.

Yeah those pesky little buggers have a nice stinger in the back, you only make that mistake once. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Congrats on your kill, good job.

R_Target
05-02-2009, 03:52 PM
Nice After-Action Report. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

general_kalle
05-04-2009, 03:12 AM
never hang behind a betty...Betty's can be tricky as you need to keep weaving forth and back on firing passes, dont give him a good shot, a single shell can make short work of your pilot or engine.

Xiolablu3
05-04-2009, 08:30 AM
We had a F4F vs D3A and Zero map on UBI Zoo coop on Saturday.

Great fun. The F4F's won out easily.

It ended with DD Old Timer in a Zero vs 4 F4F's. He put up a gallant defense but in the end had no choice but to run back to base to try and save his plane.

The dive speed of the F4F easily caught him and the 50's blew up his plane.

R_Target
05-04-2009, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by general_kalle:
never hang behind a betty...Betty's can be tricky as you need to keep weaving forth and back on firing passes, dont give him a good shot, a single shell can make short work of your pilot or engine.

Indeed. USN records show six F6F lost solely to G4M.

Xiolablu3
05-05-2009, 05:34 AM
I wonder why more bombers didnt include a 20mm tail turret?

The Lanc Turret could easily have fitted 2 20's I would have thought?

b2spirita
05-05-2009, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by general_kalle:
never hang behind a betty...Betty's can be tricky as you need to keep weaving forth and back on firing passes, dont give him a good shot, a single shell can make short work of your pilot or engine.

Indeed. USN records show six F6F lost solely to G4M. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In total? That seems a tiny number.

danjama
05-05-2009, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by b2spirita:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by general_kalle:
never hang behind a betty...Betty's can be tricky as you need to keep weaving forth and back on firing passes, dont give him a good shot, a single shell can make short work of your pilot or engine.

Indeed. USN records show six F6F lost solely to G4M. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In total? That seems a tiny number. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yea i think he was being sarcastic

M_Gunz
05-05-2009, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I wonder why more bombers didnt include a 20mm tail turret?

The Lanc Turret could easily have fitted 2 20's I would have thought?

Weight clear out at the back of the tail is pretty severe to balance isn't it?
The lever arm goes clear to the middle of the wings.
Maybe one 20mm and ammo that using that up will change the balance of the whole plane more with 20mm than bullets.
Summon up in your mind the oft-linked to picture of the row of shells and bullets. Big ammo is that kind of heavier.
OTOH there is no substitute for stand-off range.

TinyTim
05-07-2009, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I wonder why more bombers didnt include a 20mm tail turret?

The Lanc Turret could easily have fitted 2 20's I would have thought?

Yeah, something I also found weird many times. Some planes even had movable 20mm cannon firing forward (!) (He-111, Ju-88), and a single puny 7,9mm protecting it from rear...

If I recall correctly, US fighter pilots nicknamed the H8K a "porcupine" due to its formidable defensive armament (one 20mm in tail and one in dorsal position plus two in waist positions, both of these able to fire straight backwards - not many US fighters could outgun quad 20mm).


Originally posted by R_Target:
USN records show six F6F lost solely to G4M.

Ineffective indeed, but not a 20mm cannon to blame - it's shortsighted design of the plane. I bet if the tail gunner had any kind of armoured glass alowing him to survive long enough to return some accurate fire this number you posted might have been different.

Apart from psychological effect (for the bomber crew and the attacking fighter pilot), real G4M coud as well have a slingshot in a tail instead of 20mm - both are useless if the operator is dead.

R_Target
05-07-2009, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by b2spirita:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by general_kalle:
never hang behind a betty...Betty's can be tricky as you need to keep weaving forth and back on firing passes, dont give him a good shot, a single shell can make short work of your pilot or engine.

Indeed. USN records show six F6F lost solely to G4M. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In total? That seems a tiny number. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I just checked the source, and these six losses are September 1, 1944 to August 1945. That's only about half the time the Hellcat was in service in WWII. Earlier data in this much detail is apparently unavailable. I would guess that double or triple the original figure I posted wouldn't be too far off the mark. Total F6F losses to enemy aircraft are around 300.

Low losses to Betty doesn't surprise me though. USN pilots were trained to make gunnery runs from above and to the side, rather than saddle up on 6 o'clock and blast away. That's not to say that it didn't happen, as you can see from the G4M interception film in the "color guncam" thread.

At any rate, I have read many accounts of F6F pilots, and few mention any particularly effective return fire from tail gunners.

R_Target
05-07-2009, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
Ineffective indeed, but not a 20mm cannon to blame - it's shortsighted design of the plane. I bet if the tail gunner had any kind of armoured glass alowing him to survive long enough to return some accurate fire this number you posted might have been different.

Apart from psychological effect (for the bomber crew and the attacking fighter pilot), real G4M coud as well have a slingshot in a tail instead of 20mm - both are useless if the operator is dead.

Agreed.

Gibbage1
05-08-2009, 01:43 PM
Why didnt bombers have more 20MM defensive guns?

#1, recoil. On a turreted weapon, strong recoil can mess things up. To counter that, you need lot more structure. That adds more weight.

#2, rate of fire. The 20MM on the G4M had a VERY low rate of fire. Something like 200-300RPM. With just 1 gun, firing at that low rate of fire, its hard to hit a small fighter in deflection unless he is just parked on your 6.

Yes, some 20MM canon's had 600-700RPM, but those were only for fixed mounts. On flexible mounts, even the M2's were reduced to 400-500RPM to help reduce recoil.

#3, ammount of ammo. On a bomber, there is no RTB when your Winchester. A 20MM round has about 4x the volume as a .50 cal, so they would only be able to carry about 1/4 the ammo in the same space.

#4, size. The 20mm canon was a LOT bigger, and turrets were still a very new concept.

#5, velocity. The .50 cal had a lot higher velocity, so it had less arc to account for. Helped a lot with aiming the weapon.

Also, remember, in WWII, there was no re-spawn. Most of the time, you only needed to HIT the target to "discourage" further persuit, not DESTROY it like in IL2. With 2 guns firing at 500RPM, your a lot more likley to hit then 1 gun firing at 300RPM. Also, a lot of time you didnt even need to hit. Seeing a bunch of tracers firing at you was often enough to drive away an enemy.

As aircraft got stronger, there was more development in aircraft defense. A model of B-29 had a 20MM plus two .50 cal's in its tail turret, and the B-36 had ONLY 20MM defensive guns in remote turrets.

Mr_Zooly
05-08-2009, 02:09 PM
I agree about the weight issue as I have had the good fortune to hold a 20mm Hispano cannon from a Hurricane and I was quite surprised at the weight of the thing, this coupled with X amount of ammo would seriously affect the weight distribution of most WW2 era aircraft.

Wildnoob
05-08-2009, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
if the tail gunner had any kind of armoured glass alowing him to survive long enough to return some accurate fire this number you posted might have been different.

from Wikipedia G4M's article:

"G4M3
Mid- or late-production G4M1 Model 11s with the propeller spinners and rubber ply beneath the wing fuel tanks.
Early production G4M1s of Kanoya Kokutai with the original shape tail cones.

G4M3 Model 34:

Redesigned G4M2 with added self-sealing fuel tanks, improved armor protection and an entirely new tail gunner's compartment which was quite similar to that of late model B-26 Marauders. Wings were also redesigned and horizontal tail plane was given dihedral. Armed with 2 7.7 mm Type 92 machine guns in nose cabin and in both side positions, and 1 Type 99 Model 1 20 mm cannon in dorsal turret and tail. Entered production in October 1944 in G4M3a Model 34 Ko form with 20 mm cannon in side positions instead of machine guns."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G4M2_Betty

the G4M3 with sure was efficient plane, at least in comparison with other non armored and with week defensive guns versions apart from the tail, like the G4M1-11 that we have as officialy flyable IL2.

I even would say that think the plane was comparable with allied aicraft already designed with defensive guns up to the rifle caliber models and armour protection like the B-25 and the B-26.

but unfortenetely for the Japanese, most of the G4M's in service where the model 1-11. alongside with this improved versions of the G4M, like many other excellent machines like the Ki-84, N1K, J2M among a few others, they came too late to have any effective for the war machine of the impire.

PS: just my personal view.

ImpStarDuece
05-08-2009, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Why didnt bombers have more 20MM defensive guns?

#1, recoil. On a turreted weapon, strong recoil can mess things up. To counter that, you need lot more structure. That adds more weight.

True, but the recoil of a single 20mm is not likely to be much more than that of a double .50 cal mounting.

Additionally, most 20mms didn't fire at near the velocity of a .50 cal weapon. The 20 x 72 RB fired at about 525 m/sec, the 12.7 x 99 fired at about 880 m/sec.

Good old F=MA comes into play.


#2, rate of fire. The 20MM on the G4M had a VERY low rate of fire. Something like 200-300RPM. With just 1 gun, firing at that low rate of fire, its hard to hit a small fighter in deflection unless he is just parked on your 6.

The Betty mounted a Type 99 Model 1, which fired at around 475-525 rpm (sources vary). No source I have indicates that the cannon operated at a reduced RoF in the mount on the Betty.


#3, ammount of ammo. On a bomber, there is no RTB when your Winchester. A 20MM round has about 4x the volume as a .50 cal, so they would only be able to carry about 1/4 the ammo in the same space.

The ammunition of the Type 99-1 is 20 x 72 mm.
The ammunition of the .50 cal is 12.7 x 99 mm.

The two rounds are very similar in size. The .50 cal round is very slightly longer, but the 20 x 72RB has a wide case diameter (21.9 mm compared to 20.4 mm), and the M2 round tapers {to 18.8 mm}, while the 20mm is a straight case.

A 20 x 72RB actually only takes up about a third more space than a .50 cal round.


#4, size. The 20mm canon was a LOT bigger, and turrets were still a very new concept.

Turrets were hardly a new concept. A crude form had been mounted on aircraft sine WW1 (the Scarff ring).

The USAAF had operationally used powered defensive turrets since 1932, and had been experimenting with enclosed and power operated turrets since [b]1917[/b,]. The Japanese had been using enclosed turrets since the Ki-1, which first flew in 1933, and powered turrets since 1936.

horseback
05-10-2009, 09:41 AM
On the 20mm vs HMG or LMG armament issue, the key consideration was that it was <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">BRUTALLY HARD </span>to hit an attacking fighter from a moving, bouncing, vibrating gun platform at any range greater than 20m, even from a tail gunner position shooting at a fighter approach from a level 6 o'clock.

The most successful means of defense was not heavier ordnance, but more ordnance. LOTS more ordnance, with a high proportion of tracer, so that an attacker knew that he was being shot at.

The more rounds you could spit out at an attacker the farther off he would turn away from his firing pass, and if by some miracle he was aware that you had actually hit him, he was quite likely to RTB, because there was no way to measure the damage you had done, or how soon it might cause the loss of a critical system.

The best way to get many, many rounds of ammo fired at an attacker was to use lighter guns and fly in a relatively tight formation so that more gunners could shoot at an attacker.

Given the difficulty of scoring a hit with a heavier gun, coupled with the real-life ruggedness of the F6F, it would take a lot of very lucky rear gunners and very stupid (and persistant) F6F drivers to shoot down a significant number of Hellcats.

Of course, the phony glass jaw R-2800 of the in-game Hellcat coupled with T-1000 Terminator robot gunners does not remotely reflect the historical reality.

cheers

horseback

M_Gunz
05-10-2009, 01:02 PM
One of those Dogfights shows talked about an photo-recon B-17 with extra guns and crew that fought off 17 Zeros
and got back with the pics before the invasion. Not all of the Zeros made attack runs and quit a few got shot
down. Pilot and many crew were badly wounded and one dead who crawled back to the nose MG to kill an attacker
after he was shot up bad in a previous run. This B-17 had fixed nose guns for the pilot even.

Real or Legend? Supposed to have been the B-17 known as "Old 666".

According to the tale, they waxed several Zeros that day and the rest left when their fuel range ran out.
If it's near to impossible to down an enemy fighter with bomber guns then it just must have been their day, huh?

JtD
05-10-2009, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by horseback:

Given the difficulty of scoring a hit with a heavier gun, coupled with the real-life ruggedness of the F6F, it would take a lot of very lucky rear gunners and very stupid (and persistant) F6F drivers to shoot down a significant number of Hellcats.

Well, in our online game there is no lack of stupid and persistent F6F drivers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

horseback
05-10-2009, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
One of those Dogfights shows talked about an photo-recon B-17 with extra guns and crew that fought off 17 Zeros
and got back with the pics before the invasion. Not all of the Zeros made attack runs and quit a few got shot
down. Pilot and many crew were badly wounded and one dead who crawled back to the nose MG to kill an attacker
after he was shot up bad in a previous run. This B-17 had fixed nose guns for the pilot even.

Real or Legend? Supposed to have been the B-17 known as "Old 666".

According to the tale, they waxed several Zeros that day and the rest left when their fuel range ran out.
If it's near to impossible to down an enemy fighter with bomber guns then it just must have been their day, huh? Heard many similar stories over the years, and I'm just going to say that bomber gunners made a lot of claims that are not reflected on enemy loss statistics. Chances are excellent that the History Channel show did not mention Japanese loss reports for that location and date...

Bear in mind that early in the war, the B-17 was MUCH larger than anything the average fighter pilot of any nation had run into, and its many gunners' stations spitting out lots of tracer could be quite intimidating.

German pilots reported tremendous early difficulty estimating range on the things and great apprehension about colliding with it on attack runs in late 1942/early 1943.

Japanese pilots flying slower, lighter armed and much more fragile Zeros, Nates and Oscars (which were often confused with Zeros in the first 18 months) would be at least as prone to firing from too far away, and being unable to press their attacks properly. Late war Japanese fighter pilots were of VERY uneven skill and experience levels, and would make this even more likely.

They'd run out of cannon rounds early and sieve the bomber with their LMGs, but might do little to actually damage the plane while still chewing up a few crewmen before running out of ammo and RTBing.

cheers

horseback

R_Target
05-11-2009, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
One of those Dogfights shows talked about an photo-recon B-17 with extra guns and crew that fought off 17 Zeros
and got back with the pics before the invasion. Not all of the Zeros made attack runs and quit a few got shot
down. Pilot and many crew were badly wounded and one dead who crawled back to the nose MG to kill an attacker
after he was shot up bad in a previous run. This B-17 had fixed nose guns for the pilot even.

Real or Legend? Supposed to have been the B-17 known as "Old 666".

Real deal, but I can't say how accurately "Dogfights" depicted it. Joe Sarnosky was the one who crawled back to his station after being about cut in half by 20mm fragments, winning the MOH but losing his life. The pilot, Jay Zeamer, was also awarded MOH after flying the B-17 back to Moresby and landing it without the use of his legs.

Apparently the A6Ms were making a coordinated frontal attack and weren't expecting heavy armament in the nose of a B-17. Zeamer and Sarnosky claimed 2 A6M, 1 Ki-46. The tail or turret gunner may have claimed an additional A6M after the Fortress put away the cameras and dove away from Bougainville.

ElAurens
05-11-2009, 05:18 PM
The "Old 666" story from the USAF Museum website...

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.m...ctsheet.asp?id=12571 (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=12571)

Bremspropeller
05-11-2009, 05:25 PM
Bear in mind that early in the war, the B-17 was MUCH larger than anything the average fighter pilot of any nation had run into, and its many gunners' stations spitting out lots of tracer could be quite intimidating.

German pilots reported tremendous early difficulty estimating range on the things and great apprehension about colliding with it on attack runs in late 1942/early 1943.

The B-17s scared the sh1t out of them!
Some Luftwaffe-bases had an originally-scaled frontal B-17 silouhette painted on their hangar-doors, so pilots could fly mock-attacks and get used to the bomber's size.


The best chance of taking a bomber down has ever-since been a frontal attack, slightly angled down from above.
I think the RAF was the first air-force to actually make a procedure out of that.

I wonder how Zero or even Oscar-pilots must have felt while attacking those heavyly armed "porcupine" B-17s.

R_Target
05-11-2009, 05:37 PM
Some perspective from Mitsugu Ko***uda, commander of IJN 6th AG at Buin during the Solomon Islands campaign:


"The four-engine B-17 and B-24 bombers were, generally speaking, the most difficult aircraft for the Zeros to shoot down.
Because of their excellent self-sealing fuel tanks, they were extremely difficult to set afire with the Zero's 20mm cannon
shells. Our fighter pilots soon learned that the B-17s and B-24s could rarely be destroyed unless the pilots or vital parts
of the aircraft were hit and rendered useless. The fierce resistance with which the American heavy bombers opposed our
fighters, unlike that of our own land-based medium attack bombers which too often fell easy prey to enemy fighters, was a
most serious problem. In my opinion, which is shared by many Japanese combat officers, the ability of the B-17 and B-24 to
defend themselves and carry out their intended mission despite enemy fighter opposition was a deciding factor in the outcome
of the war."

stalkervision
05-11-2009, 05:49 PM
actually it was the b-29 that caused the most problems for Japanese defense forces. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Gibbage1
05-11-2009, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
actually it was the b-29 that caused the most problems for Japanese defense forces. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

By the time the B-29 rolled it, there was no Japanese defense force. Just a few stubborn politicization that needed "convincing" that they had lost.

WTE_Galway
05-12-2009, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
[Heard many similar stories over the years, and I'm just going to say that bomber gunners made a lot of claims that are not reflected on enemy loss statistics. Chances are excellent that the History Channel show did not mention Japanese loss reports for that location and date...


This was part of the problem ...

http://warrelics.eu/forum/military_photos/ussr-western-allies-forum/32098d1238518051t-us-ww2-air-medal-pic_0331.jpg

... awarded for 5 kills by an airgunner (ace) and aside from any miltary benefits conferred was an awesome chick puller when on R&R.

Fighter aces btw recieved a DFC instead.

R_Target
05-12-2009, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
actually it was the b-29 that caused the most problems for Japanese defense forces. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

By the time the B-29 rolled it, there was no Japanese defense force. Just a few stubborn politicization that needed "convincing" that they had lost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not strictly true. The Japanese were conserving and dispersing a lot of planes in anticipation of the expected invasion and Kyushu was being heavily reinforced. By August 1945, there were around 10,000 planes in the Home Islands.

What was lacking in comparison to Europe was years of building up a flak and fighter network, coupled with the difficulty of any interceptor getting at a B-29 at 30,000 feet.

stalkervision
05-12-2009, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
actually it was the b-29 that caused the most problems for Japanese defense forces. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

By the time the B-29 rolled it, there was no Japanese defense force. Just a few stubborn politicization that needed "convincing" that they had lost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, there is a excellent little Osprey aviation book...

"Japanese Army Air Force Aces 1937 -45" where they go into some detail about fighting the B-29

Do you know there were actually a few B-29 Japanese aces! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

R_Target
05-12-2009, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
Nope, there is a excellent little Osprey aviation book...

"Japanese Army Air Force Aces 1937 -45" where they go into some detail about fighting the B-29

Do you know there were actually a few B-29 Japanese aces! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

They knocked down more than a couple, but the biggest source of B-29 losses by far was the newness and complexity of a plane hurried into action and the vast distances traveled to get to the Home Islands.