This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to
participate, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project, participate in
relevant discussions, and see
lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 13:34, August 1, 2024 (
JST,
Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
"In the 1939 Battle of Halhin Gol against USSR in Mongolia, Ki-27 faced I-15 biplanes and I-16 monoplanes, and dominated them with its maneuverability, downing a total of 1,252 enemy aircraft."
Soviet data (skewed for sure) had Soviet air losses at 207 planes and Japanese - 660 planes. Data taken from Soviet Military Encyclopedia (8 volumes).
Total of Soviet Fighters shot down (I-16, I-15, I-153) = 156 of the 207 planes shot down.
Compared to the Japanese 62. Thats still a pretty good 2.5/1 ratio.
Asiaticus05:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)reply
The US could not bomb Japan during WWII until it possessed a superbomber; This was done when the
B-29 Superfortress entered service. Conversely, Japan couldn't conquer nations at great distances unless they too had "long range" aircraft; nearly all IJA/IJN aircraft were long range aircraft. One, the A6M Zero, an "antique" by 1943 had longer range than the P51 Mustang or the Lockheed P38 Lightning. Reason? Because Japan and their enemies were fighting a long range war. Long range was attained by removing weight from their aircraft...e.g. ARMOR. Long range was the priority, maneuverabilty was a bonus! It does no good to have a maneuverable airplane if it CANNOT reach it's objective. A warplane must reach it's target before it can fight.
The
ETO was a short range war, in which fighters & bombers could be heavily armored; they did not have far to fly. The escorts needed drop tanks to extend their flights. This couldn't be done in the
PTO however; the Pacific Theater was a long range war; a naval war. As the allies closed in on Japan and their conquest days were over, then IJA/IJN aircraft could be armored, because by then, they too didn't have far to fly...just interception like Germany did against the US 8th Air Force. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
173.160.17.205 (
talk)
16:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)reply
You are correct for Japanese Navy aircraft certainly, however the Army did not have a similar need for long range fighters as they were focussed on the Chinese and Burma theatres. In any case it is irrelevant - you have been misreading the numbers you have as the 1000km is Ferry range - as I just fixed, and you broke again. Wieliczko, Leszek A. and Zygmunt Szeremeta. Nakajima Ki 27 Nate (bilingual Polish/English). Lublin, Poland: Kagero, 2004.
ISBN83-89088-51-7. has the numbers as they were in the article. What is your source?
NiD.29 (
talk)
17:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)reply
The Japanese book "Famous Airplanes of the World, 29, 1991 - Army Type 97 fighter" also gives a range of 627km so regardless of how much you have trouble believing what you see, the FAotW series are unimpeachable sources with access to a lot more information than anything published in English and are therefore very much likely to trump whatever source you got your numbers from.
NiD.29 (
talk)
17:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)reply
"Long range was the priority, maneuverabilty was a bonus!" Well, no. Maneuverability was the objective, for Army & Navy specifications both. Long range was achieved by omitting (not removing...) armor. If you don't know that much, I'm not surprised you're mistaking ferry range for combat radius. The 627km figure looks about what I'd expect for that (a bit low, maybe), based on the ferry range you cite, too.
TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 20:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)reply