Japanese ability to analyze American aircraft

The Japanese were counting on their superior pilots beating the decadent west.

 

It worked well against the Prince of Wales and Repulse. But, the Japanese bombers got a "reality check" when they attacked the USS Lexington's task force on February 20, 1942.

 

The Betty had a huge fuel load at the expense of not having protection for the fuel tanks and other weight savings though it carried a pretty heavy defensive armament in the later models. As consequence it's survivability in the face of strong opposition was iffy. I think the idea was that range would force the opponents to spread the defence too thin as there would be too many targets giving the numerically inferior Japanese a chance. In practice it didn't work as te island hopping strategy allowed for concentrating the targets in very strongly defended forces.

The Japanese could produce good very long range planes, witness the Kawanishi flying boats, they didn't need to examine US designs to do it, but couldn't really afford a strategic bomber force and probably even the infrastructure required to support operation of planes much larger than the Betty.

The US approach was usually to build heavier planes with a lot less range for a given horsepower and take off weight, the Merlin engined P51 being the exception to the rule. The hugely better engineering capability and ability to replace non combat losses is probably not given it's due in most analisys.

 

Im not saying it was a realistic assumption, but it was an assumption

 

at least in saburo sakai's book, they didn't need first-hand information from captured B-17's to develop tactics against them. they figured out the "weak chin" feature of the forts pretty well and developed head-on tactics against them.

 

I hope that was not from Caidin's "Samurai!"...

 

I'm pretty sure that's where I read it. Unfortunately don't have a copy of the more accurate biography of his so I don't know if it appears there as well.

 

^^
it was.

 

Is it a bad book? I liked it and assumed it was accurate. Is Caidin a phony researcher loose with the facts?

 

Yes, Caidin was very very loose with facts.

 

It was a good read IMO but Caidin was a bit too creative. Here's an interesting link I found on him while looking for the better biography:
http://acesofww2.com/japan/aces/sakai/
Here it is:
http://www.amazon.com/Winged-Samurai-Saburo-Fighter-Pilots/dp/091217305X
It's suppose to be quite a bit better. Unfortunatly the book has not been reprinted. Here's a link that goes into details on the situation.
http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=724.0
In this thread there's a bit more on the creativity issue. It may not have been Caidin's fault see inparticular reply 8.
http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=9721.30

 

This passage in that link is distressing. Why weren't all involved arrested or otherwise held accountable? I assume they were not, were they?

After 7 years and some 200 combat missions resulting in an estimated 64 (some sources go as low as 20) kills, Saburo Sakai flew his last one on August 17, 1945. (Japan surrendered August 14, 1945) "I had a chance to combat the B-29 formations, and I must say that their speed and altitude were incredible, and their defensive fire was very accurate and heavy. I assisted in the destruction of one bomber that crashed in the ocean. This mission was launched after we were ordered to stand down and surrender, so it never went into the official records, but the USAF records recorded the loss over Tokyo Bay."

 

Japanese soldiers who continued fighting well after the war ended weren't charged or held accountable at least for the most part (I could be wrong about this). Looking at the time line at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_World_War_II_in_Asia
There was still quite a bit of fighting going on indeed the next day a US airman was killed on a photo recon mission and several days later the Russians shot down a B-29.

In other discussions of Sakai his memory for dates wasn't the best although the mentione that the USAF records confirm the loss suggest that wasn't t he issue here. I doubt there was much interest or effort put into looking into incidents like this. Especially considering how many Japanese records were destroyed. No formal surrender had been taken for his unit at that point either.

 

It has been a matter of discussion if not this, the August 18th attack, is the attack that Sakai is actually describing, and not the attack on the 17th. It has also been a matter of discussion as to which days Sakai was flying; the 17th, 18th, or both days.

and

Oh, but it is an issue here.

Just to be clear...USAAF records do not confirm the loss of a B-32(yes, that is the type of aircraft attacked by Sakai - on both days) over Tokyo Bay. USAAF records do confirm that B-32-20-CF s/n# 42-108539 was written off due to battle damage on 8/17/45.



As always, this, the actions on the 17th & 18th, hav been told several times over to various extents.
Sakai's(not Caidin's) version:
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/stories/b32.html
U.S. Army photographer Sgt. Anthony J. Marchione:
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-last-american-to-die-in-world-war-ii/
A better more fleshed out version:
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/the-last-to-die-10099776/?no-ist
and his book "Last to Die: A Defeated Empire, a Forgotten Mission, and the Last American Killed in World War II"
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Die-Defeated-Forgotten-American/dp/0306823381

A few PacificWrecks pages about the B-32s involved.
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b-32/42-108578.html
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b-32/42-108532.html
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b-32/42-108539.html

 

a lot of sakai's interesting disclosures in the caidin book were verified. is it a bad idea to assume most of it were true?
1. letting go a transport plane loaded with women and children during the java campaign
2. the downing of capt. collin kelly's b-17
3. single combat with pug sutherland over guadalcanal ("There was a terrific man behind that stick!")
4. that lone lockheed hudson bomber that ran circles around the best zero aces (including sakai and nishizawa.)
5. a flight of 5 b-17's shot down in 7 firing passes by a force of 9 zeros.

 

Could you elaborate a bit on these points? Do you mean they were verified or that they have been proved false?

Thanks

 

Well, you are down to 4...As this claim is false.

5 B-17s were attacked by 9 A6M Zeroes on August 2, 1942. One, B-17E(s/n# 41-2435) was shot down and another was damaged.
See "Fortress against the Sun: The B-17 Flying Fortress in the Pacific" by Gene E. Salecker, pg. 236. Or consult the B-17 Fortress Master Log list found here: http://www.91stbombardmentgroup.com/Aircraft%20ID/FORTLOG.pdf

Pacific Wrecks webpage: http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b-17/41-2435.html

 

AFAIK...

#1 Letting the DC-3 with women and children aboard go - Sakai told of this elsewhere rather than just in Caiden's book.

#2, #3, and #4 - Can all be verified elsewhere.

#5 - As I just mentioned, is false.

 

that's a percentage i can live with, thanks.

incidentally, sakai/caidin made some claims which he qualified, so it wasn't an outright lie. for instance, he was seriously injured when he attacked 8 avenger torpedo planes over guadalcanal. his companions saw two torpedo planes trailing smoke and descending along with the crippled zero. they credited those as a double-kill. but the book also mentioned a US source that no avengers were lost that day.

 

It's going down quickly as you continue...

Of course whatever source that Caiden consulted will not show any Avengers lost that day...It proves nothing, because Sakai and his squadron mates attacked SBDs of VS-71, and shortly thereafter, SBDs of VB-6 & VS-5. Sakai did shoot down one SBD of VS-71(SBD 71-S-10 piloted by Dudley H. Adams(WIA) with rear gunner ARM3c Harry E. Elliott(KIA)). After which Sakai and his team attacked other SBDs of VB-6 and VS-5, during this later action is when Sakai was severely wounded. Aside of the VS-71 SBD shot down by Sakai earlier, neither side suffered losses, but, claimed an additional SBD shot down in return for a claimed Zero shot down(Sakai's A6M).

John B. Lundstrom, in his book "First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign: Naval Fighter Combat from August to November 1942", covers this action in detail.

Not a failure on Sakai's part(he did think that they were Avengers and it was not until years later that he found out they were SBDs), but poor research work by Caiden.