A6M2b Gray-Green color

A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help

 

Posted By: Roachie <mailto:roachdas@dingoblue.net.au?subject=A6M2(a) Type 11 - 'grey' scheme help>
Date: Friday, 27 July 2001, at 1:15 a.m.

 

The perennial question! In researching the paint scheme for the Hasegawa kit I have commenced, including FAQs on J-Aircraft, I seem to have stumbled across the belief/fact that these early Zeros were painted a light grey-green? If this is the case, I am seeking a suitable Gunze Mix to achieve this colour. I have read about the Polly S Concrete and so on and these remain an option.

 

Do I also understand that the Type 11 (and indeed the Grey) scheme has been misinterpreted all this time?

 

Thanks to all

Roachie

 

Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help

 

Posted By: Joern Leckscheid <mailto:Joern.Leckscheid@t-online.de?subject=Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - 'grey' scheme help>
Date: Sunday, 29 July 2001, at 1:39 p.m.

 

In Response To: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help (Roachie)

 

Roachie,

An excellent Gunze Acrylics mix for "Hairyokushoku J 3", FS 16350 is 51% of H-70 and 49% of H 336. I´ve tried it myself and it looks excellent.

 

Regards from Germany,

Joern

 

Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help

 

Posted By: John Dillon <mailto:john.dillon@wachovia.com?subject=Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - 'grey' scheme help>
Date: Friday, 27 July 2001, at 6:23 a.m.

 

In Response To: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help (Roachie)

 

Roachie

Yep, research (done in many cases by contributors to this site) has pretty much confirmed that the light grey scheme you see in paintings, color profiles and box art is incorrect.

 

John

 

Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help

 

Posted By: Joey Stebanuk <mailto:stebanuk@sk.sympatico.ca?subject=Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - 'grey' scheme help>
Date: Thursday, 2 August 2001, at 2:17 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help (Joern Leckscheid)

 

Hi Joern,

Could that Gunze mix [H-70/H-336]also be used for the A6m2-N Rufe? H-336 is Hemp ,correct? Also, should any white be added to tone this color down for scale effect or just use as is ? Thanks Joern, your help would be much appreciated. Take care.

 

Joey

 

Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help

 

Posted By: Joern Leckscheid <mailto:Joern.Leckscheid@t-online.de?subject=Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - 'grey' scheme help>
Date: Friday, 3 August 2001, at 4:51 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help (Joey Stebanuk)

 

Hi Joey,
Nakajima used a slightly different version of "Hairyokushoku" on their products, and for early A6M´s manufactured by that company FS 14255 is usually the quoted shade.

I have a close mix for this one:
H 70 - 28 %, H 52 - 25 %, H 34 - 25 %, H 11 - 22 %.

The resulting colour is very close but not quite spot on, toy around with the proportions of H 34 and H 52 a bit if you´re in the mood.
Personally, I´m not a follower of the "toning down for scale effect" cult, I believe lighting of the model is more important, but this is just my personal opinion.

 

HTH,

Joern

 

Thanks Joern.Now regarding Jame's response?

 

Posted By: Joey Stebanuk <mailto:stebanuk@sk.sympatico.ca?subject=Thanks Joern.Now regarding Jame's response?>
Date: Saturday, 4 August 2001, at 2:04 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help (Joern Leckscheid)

 

Hi Joern,

Thanks for the response and paint mixture, much appreciated. Now regarding Mr.Lansdale's response do you happen to have a mixture for "ameiro"? as you seem to have great insight into color mixing.I've read about "ameiro" but there seems to be many different views on the actual color.This is very interesting and educational so I hope you don't mind me taking this a bit further. Thanks Joern and James . Hope to hear from you again. Take care.

 

Joey

 

Re: A6M2 Color Schemes

 

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: A6M2 Color Schemes>
Date: Saturday, 4 August 2001, at 9:58 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: A6M2(a) Type 11 - "grey" scheme help (Joern Leckscheid)

 

Hi Joern

You write: "Nakajima used a slightly different version of "Hairyokushoku" on their products, and for early A6M´s manufactured by that company FS 14255 is usually the quoted shade."

Since my original publication of Zero fighter schemes much research and forensic analyses has transpired. I have been able to add many new samples of Mitsubishi and Nakajima constructed A6M remains, both pristine and weathered. Perhaps, the most significant additions have been the contributions of Tom MATLOSZ, Greg SPRINGER and Ryan TOEWS.

Ryan TOEWS will shortly publish on this web site the results of his corroborative and followup research of many A6M2 remains at the Blayd Corporation.

This research has led to substantive evidence that:

 

1) Mitsubishi A6M Zero production aircraft, from the very start of manufacture and continuing until mid-1944 (and perhaps beyond), left the factory production line in an olive-gray color most like hairyokushoku (close to FS-x4201) overall or on the lower surfaces (for the two color variation camouflage scheme). Weathering soon rendered this finish more like FS-x6350, eventually going to an chalky-gray after years of exposure.

2) Nakajima production A6M2 Zeros left the factory line in a more brown shade of finish (I3) or almost identical to FS-x6160, which is often called "ameiro." This also weathered to a finish close to FS-x6350 and also turned chalky gray after many years of exposure.

 

IHTH

Jim Lansdale

 

Re: A6M2 Color Schemes

 

Posted By: Joern Leckscheid <mailto:Joern.Leckscheid@t-online.de?subject=Re: A6M2 Color Schemes>
Date: Saturday, 4 August 2001, at 1:46 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: A6M2 Color Schemes (James F. Lansdale)

 

Hi Jim,

thanks for giving us an advanced glimpse at those fascinating new findings. I recall that you once quoted that a relic from a Ki-46 found at Clark Field was also matched to FS x4201. In the list provided by Owaki-san (am I really the only one who is sorely missing his input in this site?!?) this is identified as I 3. So am I right presuming that Mitsubishi applied this colour to planes manufactured for both services at their Nagoya plant?

Have relics from other Mistusbishi-build types surfaced that were also painted in this particular colour?

For those interested, a close mix for FS x4201 with Gunze paint is:

 

H 70 - 74 %, H 52 - 19 %, H 11 - 7 %.

I guess I´ll have to start working on a mix for FS FS-x6350 now...

 

Best regards,

Joern

 

Re: A6M2 Color Schemes

 

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: A6M2 Color Schemes>
Date: Saturday, 4 August 2001, at 8:12 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: A6M2 Color Schemes (Joern Leckscheid)

 

Joern

I have recorded color analyses for several Mitsubishi constructed aircraft relics including the Ki-46 Dinah and the F1M Pete. The color of hairyokushoku on these samples is nearly identical (close to FS-x4201/x6350). Therefore, it is probable that this was a standard Mitsubishi applied finish and color as provided by their paint supplier.

I cannot, at this time, speculate if this is a variation of so-called I3 or J3. I am almost certain that the Aichi and Nakajima finish/color close to FS-16160 is I3 and it is very probably the paint color labeled "ameiro" in YoKu Report No.0266.

 

IHTH

Jim Lansdale

 

A6M2B Zero

 

Posted By: Bill Misco <mailto:billmisc59@aol.com?subject=A6M2B Zero>
Date: Monday, 2 April 2001, at 5:04 p.m.

 

I'm starting work on an A6M2B and the kit instructions call for the interior to be painted "cockpit color Mitsubishi". Does anyone know what that color is, and if there is any available paint that would closely match it? Preferably Model Master. Also, do the early Zeros have shoulder harnesses,( single harness )? Or just the lap belts? Thanks.

 

Re: A6M2B Zero

 

Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re: A6M2B Zero>
Date: Tuesday, 3 April 2001, at 9:53 a.m.

 

In Response To: A6M2B Zero (Bill Misco)

 

Hello Bill,
The Zero had a lap belt and a single shoulder belt that went from behind the seat, over the left shoulder and to the right side of the seat. The lap and shoulder straps were not connected and each closed with a buckle instead of a quick release.

Ryan

 

Re: A6M2B Zero

 

Posted By: Greg Springer <mailto:gspring@ix.netcom.com?subject=Re: A6M2B Zero>
Date: Monday, 2 April 2001, at 10:23 p.m.

 

In Response To: A6M2B Zero (Bill Misco)

 

Hi Bill,

I was recently able to examine an artifact from an A6M2b which crashed during the Pearl Harbor attack. Testor's Model Master 'Medium Field Green' FS 34095 is the color of the interior.

 

Cheers!

Greg

 

Re: A6M2B Zero

 

Posted By: Dave Pluth <mailto:dave@j-aircraft.com?subject=Re: A6M2B Zero>
Date: Monday, 2 April 2001, at 8:44 p.m.

 

In Response To: A6M2B Zero (Bill Misco)

 

Hi Bill,

You would probably be pretty close with US Interior green. Mitsubishi green is a bit darker than it (depending on what you use for scale effect), maybe just add a bit of black to darken it.

 

Hope this helps.

Dave

 

CV based fighter bomber A6M2's in 1944

 

Posted By: Dan Salamone <mailto:heroncreek@qwest.net?subject=CV based fighter bomber A6M2's in 1944>
Date: Saturday, 17 March 2001, at 3:05 p.m.

 

Hello all,

I was wondering if anyone could shed light on how common it was for CV's in 1944 to carry fighter bomber Model 21's- and if there is specific information for certain ships such as Zuikaku.

 

Also if the tail code numbers were still in the 1xx series common for fighter types of if they were numbered as attack aircraft.

 

Thanks in advance,

Dan

 

Re: CV based fighter bomber A6M2's in 1944

 

Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000gt-b@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=Re: CV based fighter bomber A6M2's in 1944>
Date: Sunday, 18 March 2001, at 3:24 a.m.

 

In Response To: CV based fighter bomber A6M2's in 1944 (Dan Salamone)

 

Hello Dan,

As far as I know, Zero bombers were carrierd on rather "slow" or "small" carriers like Junyo, Hiyo, Chitose, Chiyoda, Zuiho, Ryuho...
Main reason was that D4Y1 needed strong wind and long flight deck to take off. Zero did not need long deck and high speed like D4Y.

According to "Kido Butai" by Fuchida and Okumiya (PHP Co.), Lt. Cdr. Okumiya (aviation staff officer of 2nd Carrier Division) asked Naval General Head Quarters (Tokyo) for brand new D4Y1 at least nine for Junyo and Hiyo.

But as you know, they could not train the bomber pilots at Tauitaui because of the threat of US submarines. So, Okumiya felt sorry for Lt. ABE, Zenji (Junyo Hiko-taicho of dive bombers). By the way, Zro bombers were called "Tokkoh-tai" (Special Attack Force). But this did not mean "suicidal force".

 

One more information...
It is said that tail codes of Zuikaku was "312-xxx" at the Battle of Marianas, not "601-xxx". "312" meant "3rd Fleet, 1st Carrier Division, 2nd ship".
I READ about it, but I did not SEE the example...
I saw B6N's picture with "312" tail code, but I am not sure when the picture was taken...
I would also like to know the precise information.

 

Thank you,
Katsuhiro

 

fighter bomber A6M2's

 

Posted By: Frank Chr. Berger <mailto:frank.chr.berger@web.de?subject=fighter bomber A6M2's>
Date: Monday, 19 March 2001, at 1:56 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: CV based fighter bomber A6M2's in 1944 (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)

 

Hi,

this and the type 99 discussion brings me to a problem I brood over since some time.The bombs used at 19.th June by the Japanese planes! Since the Zero bombers were called "Tokkoh-tai" like you correctly mentioned and their mission wasn't suicidal,I'm not sure what bombs they carried on their attacks! With the background in mind that pilot and plane should be able to return,we have to think about the available fuel.Til now I've only seen pics of A6M5a with racks under the wings and the early style tank under their fuselage (taken in June).As far as I know the first pics of Zeros with "big" bombs under their belly were taken in October.(Kamikazes have no need for enough fuel for the return!). The drop tanks for the wings were only used with the later A6M5s.Could the Japanese hope to do any damage with 60kg bombs?Important for this is to explain the term "Special Attack Force"and their task in the attack.Although it's absolutely unjustified I claim that there are only two real logical explanations.One is that "special" simply mean improvised, since there was no adopted range of XXX-XXX codes for the A6M2 "fighter bombers" which should only have a guest performance until the shortcomings were overcome and better suited solutions would have been available (A6M7 Type 63,.). The other is that these "hybrid"-bombers which couldn't be seen as effective (too little loading,no sight,ill-trained crews) weapons should only split the defence of the TF to allow the Jills and Judys to score some hits.

 

What's your opinion ??

Frank

 

Zero Bombers on Carrier. *PIC*

 

Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000gt-b@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=Zero Bombers on Carrier. *PIC*>
Date: Monday, 19 March 2001, at 10:01 a.m.

 

In Response To: fighter bomber A6M2's (Frank Chr. Berger)

 

Hi,

As I wrote on upper posting about this "Baku-sen" (Bakugeki Sento-ki = Bomber Fighter), this Zero bomber was just like the substitute for the brand new dive bomber (D4Y1 Suisei). Suisei needed long flight deck and strong wind.

Zero bomber (NOT usual type, of course!) carried ONE 250kg bomb. But Zero could not do that "DIVE" bombing (nearly 60 angle) like D3A and D4Y.
In 1944, before the official suicidal attack force was formed, skip bombing by Zero bomber was tested in the Phillipines.

As you wrote, A6M2 bomber (with one 250kg bomb) could not be equipped with detachable fuel tank, so this plane was rather hard to operate. (Sorce: "Kido Butai" by Fuchida and Okumiya)

Is my answer OK?

 

Thank you!!
Katsuhiro

 

Picture: "Kido Butai" by Fuchida and Okumiya (PHP) acrrier's name unknown...(Is there anyone who knows her name??)

 

Information needed

 

Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000gt-b@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=Information needed>
Date: Tuesday, 20 March 2001, at 1:53 a.m.

 

In Response To: Zero Bombers on Carrier. *PIC* (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)

 

Hi all,

I was asked about those Zero bombers operated on carriers at Marianas by one of the people on this website.
I think they were hybrid of A6M2 model 21. Am I correct???

 

TIA,
Katsuhiro

 

Re: Information needed

 

Posted By: Joern Leckscheid <mailto:Joern.Leckscheid@t-online.de?subject=Re: Information needed>
Date: Tuesday, 20 March 2001, at 4:24 a.m.

 

In Response To:  (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)

 

In all sources I´ve read these "improvised" dive-ombers are indeed said to be Model 21s, as these were manufactured until Feb. ´44 by Nakajima (Mitsubishi had phased out Model 22s in Aug. ´43) this seems a logical assumption.

 

Joern

 

Re: Zero Bombers on Carrier.

 

Posted By: Frank Chr. Berger <mailto:frank.chr.berger@web.de?subject=Re: Zero Bombers on Carrier.>
Date: Monday, 19 March 2001, at 3:05 p.m.

 

In Response To:  (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)

 

Hi,

Thanks! But the facts aren't new to me ! I knew the pic. The limited range is the sole problem for me. A heavy loaden Zero without drop tank and most certainly with a pilot,who did not have the same experience (like a man like Sakai) on a long flight over water and the method of saving fuel while doing this. And I have doubts that this are bombs! The one on the right looks just like a old style tank. Size and shape (cover of connection between tank and fuselage).

 

Frank

 

Operation "A-go" Chiyoda!

 

Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000gt-b@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=Operation 'A-go' Chiyoda!>
Date: Monday, 19 March 2001, at 12:49 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero Bombers on Carrier. *PIC* (Joern Leckscheid)

 

Thank you for the sentences, Joern!
Now I have got precise information!

"These are the Zeros on Chiyoda, June 19, Showa 19 (1944). After this ship and Chiyoda converted into carriers, they carried planes to Truk, Singapore and Saipan.
They joined 3rd Carrier Division in Feb. 1944 and went to Tauitaui in May 1944 to prepare for the Operation "A-go".
At first, each ship was supposed to carry twenty one Zeros and nine 97 Kankoh (B5N2).
At this Operation, Chiyoda carried Zeros, Rei-senbaku (= Bakusen = Zero Bombers) and 97 Kankoh. Chitose even carried brand new Tenzan Kankoh (B6N).
On June 19 and 20, planes from these two ships attacked "Teki Kido Butai" (enemy Task Force), but gave no damage to enemy and lost many planes. Chiyoda was bombed and got slight damage. Thirteen crew men were KIA."

 

Again I would like to thank Joern for the information!

 

Best regards,
Katsuhiro

Reisen drop tank production question

 

Posted By: Dan Salamone <mailto:heroncreek@qwest.net?subject=Reisen drop tank production question>
Date: Wednesday, 28 March 2001, at 11:32 p.m.

 

Hello all,

Were the drop tanks built by Mitsubishi/Nakajima or were they built by another contractor? If by another contractor, I'm wondering if they would have been built to Mitsubishi or Nakajima color specs- or both?

Thanks in advance,

 

Dan

P.S. Do any drop tanks exist today (other than those still attached to display aircraft)?

 

Re: Reisen drop tank production question

 

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Reisen drop tank production question>
Date: Saturday, 31 March 2001, at 7:37 a.m.

 

In Response To: Reisen drop tank production question (Dan Salamone)

 

Dan

The JISWC research on Japanese aircraft issued their "Preliminary Report on Japanese Fighter Plane Production," 1 June 1943.

On page 6 of the report is contained the following statement regarding Mitsubishi A6M Zero drop tanks:

 

"Available plates indicate jettisonable fuel tanks are manufactured by three companies, Nippon Kentetsu Kogyo, Osaka Arminiyumu and Hiro (Naval Arsenal). We find a high production rate for this part but this can be attributed to the fact so many are lost."

 

Colors of the drop tanks have been reported as the same general finish as the overall color of the mainframe in various tech intelligence reports.

"The finish is particularly smooth and possesses a high gloss, and is a type similar to that employed for the finishing of the fabric and metal parts." ("Examination of Surface Finishes On the Type 0 S.S.F. 'Zeke,'" by Frank T. McCOY, ATIS Report, via Bob MIKESH, NASM).

 

This report, and others, make it clear that the color was probably a glossy version of paint in the FS-16350 to FS-16357 range depending on manufacturer and/or weathering.

 

IHTH

Jim Lansdale

 

Re: Reisen drop tank production question

 

Posted By: rick dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Reisen drop tank production question>
Date: Thursday, 29 March 2001, at 6:12 p.m.

 

In Response To: Reisen drop tank production question (Dan Salamone)

 

Dan

The tanks were of two types dural and plywood. As I recall neither type was built by the prime contractors. I've got a reference to the manufacturer of the metal type somewhere but have been unable to find it. It's something mundane like Nippon Ironworks or some such.

 

Rick

Re: Zero Wing Hinomaru White Outlines?

 

Posted By: François P. WEILL <mailto:frpawe@wanadoo.fr?subject=Re: Zero Wing Hinomaru White Outlines?>
Date: Saturday, 24 February 2001, at 12:27 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero Wing Hinomaru White Outlines? (Rob Graham)

 

Dear Rob,

You wrote:

>> This is the first I've read about the IJNAF ordering Nakajima to paint the white surrounds to distinguish their planes from Mitsubishi craft. This seems rather odd, as the stencils show it well enough. I'll buy into it, but this is NEWS to me. <<

This is a quote from Aero Detail #7 and it has been confirmed right here through the studies of Jim Lansdale and Ryan Toews...

>> In addition, I have seen photos of Mitsubishi Zeros with white surrounds, though I'd need to look back and verify their authenticity. I am pretty sure they were factory-painted Mitsubishi planes with white surrounds, though. <<

I think you did'nt fully understand what I wrote, perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. Of course many Mitsubishi Zeros were factory painted with white brim to fuselage Hinomaru (and by the way wing Hinomarus on the upper surface too) but it was AFTER June 1943 and the adoption of the two tone camouflage ! ... Mitsubishi Zeros leaving factory in the offensive "Hairyokushoku" scheme NEVER carried a fuselage Hinomaru white brim ... And all such Zeros (which included Model 21's, 32's and 22's but NOT 22 Ko's and later)didn't have such white brims as a factory marking. Another proof it was a peculiar marking for Nakajima birds is the fact that when the two tone camouflage went into use as a factory finish and the fuselage white brim was mandatory as a factory finish the IJNAF ordered Nakajima to use a different separation line between the two tones on the rear fuselage as a replacement of the immediate recognition feature once provided by the fuselage Hinomaru white brim... the only picture I know of an earlier Mitsubishi built Zero carrying what seems to be whitre brim to fuselage and wings Hinomarus (and they appeared to be of the thin variety) is an Model 32 of the 582nd Kokutai (code T2)in a dirty almost solid dk green field applied camouflage. So it might have been a unit level initiative (a rather odd one) or the pic tricks us into believing there were white brims and in fact it is the halo effect (re-inforced by the fact the lighter tone was glossy and the green paint matte) of a wider than necessary masking when the green paint was applied and this "brims" were in fact Hairyokushoku... (I believe this is the most probable).

 

>> Also, the A6M2-N spinner was probably the long type on later craft, as were factory 2-tone paint. I have documented some of these details and cited the photos and books.

 

 << Factory two tone scheme on A6M2-N might have been rather limited in number considering the prduction termination date of the bird (I have not the Mikesh's book at hand and on't remember exactly the mpnth of 1943 the lines were closed)... The fact remains many units repainted a solid Dk. green the uppersurface of their floatplanes, and this probably (at least partially) earlier than their landplane sable mates. In so doing they just followed the trend of other IJNAF flaotplanes camouflage despite their specific fighter role... I have seen many pics of Hairyokushoku (Nakajima version) A6M2-N's with long spinner and white brim to fuselage Hinomarus and I can safely say the adoption of the longer spinner (an indication it was the definitive variant of the plane) was earlier to June 1943 and in no case linked to the adoption of the two tone camouflage as a standard factory finish. I would rather believe that most of the planes were unit reconditionned after June 1943 to what would have been Nakajima standard factory finish including the separation line on the rear fuselage, but many earlier two tone birds had a rather odd and irregular separation line on the rear fuselage, clearly indicating a unit level paint job...

 

I hope it helps

François

 

Re: Zero Wing Hinomaru White Outlines?

 

Posted By: Rob Graham <mailto:reishikisenguy@aol.com?subject=Re: Zero Wing Hinomaru White Outlines?>
Date: Saturday, 24 February 2001, at 10:08 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero Wing Hinomaru White Outlines? (François P. WEILL)

 

François:

You wrote:
>>This is a quote from Aero Detail #7 and it has been confirmed right here through the studies of Jim Lansdale and Ryan Toews...

Wow. I must have missed the confirmation by Jim and Ryan. I figured the Aero Detail book was wrong, as it has some other inconsistencies.

I think we were in agreement on the other items, as you have explained it here.

 

Thanks,
--Rob

 

Re: Zero Hinomaru White Outlines

 

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Zero Hinomaru White Outlines>
Date: Sunday, 25 February 2001, at 7:18 a.m.

 

In Response To: (Rob Graham)

 

Whoa little dogies!!!

Rob/Francois

I have NEVER stated that Nakajima received orders to paint the fuselage hinomaru with a white outline in order to distinguish the Nakajima product from the Mitsubishi product!!!

We have two separate issues here.

1) Orders WERE given by Imperial GHQ (or "X" agency) to make the fuselage (and wing?) hinomaru more conspicuous with a white background around August 1942. The Nakajima factory began to apply this 75 mm outline to the A6M2 model 21 Zero fuselage hinomaru in compliance with the order at that time. It is apparent, from the photographic record, that Mitsubishi did not (I know not why!).

2) BECAUSE of this practice by Nakajima, it WAS POSSIBLE to distinguish the Nakajima product from the Mitsubishi product (particularly on the A6M2 model 21s in the overall hairyokushoku/g-p finish).

This practice was not meant to be a visual distinction (since the data stencil clearly provided the information as to manufacturer). It became a de facto recognition feature!!!

Wing hinomaru were not outlined at the factory level on Zeros by either manufacturer until the advent of the factory-applied two-color camouflage pattern.

 

IHTH

Jim Lansdale

 

Re: Zero Wing Hinomaru White Outlines?

 

Posted By: Rick Dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Zero Wing Hinomaru White Outlines?>
Date: Saturday, 24 February 2001, at 4:52 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero Wing Hinomaru White Outlines? (François P. WEILL)

 

Francois

First, I know little about hinomarus and brim. That's not my point. Your message seems to imply that model 22 ko followed in serial fashion from model 22. Don't believe that is true. Not sure whether you meant that. The mark II cannon (and aircraft equipped with it sometimes referred to as "ko") entered production with the last model 32s in Dec 42. A6M3 number 3305 was so equipped. Half the model 22s were so equipped until July 43 when all subsequent Mitsubishi A6Ms were so equipped.

There is both Japanese documentary evidence as well as Allied crashed aircraft report to confirm this.

I realize this was not the point of your post and may not even be inconsistent with your comments but thought I would pass it along.

 

Rick

Zero's vs Spitfires

 

Posted By: Paul Micklos <mailto:Paulmicklos@prodigy.net?subject=Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Friday, 13 April 2001, at 9:56 p.m.

 

Hi Guys

Maybe some one can help me, im trying to do some research on the Zero's vs Spitfires, I know that the 202nd battled the spitefire also known as the 3rd air group, Does any one else know how many other squadrons that battled the spitefire and what number they where. Also does any one know the name of the Britsh squadron that battled the Japanese, I have heard of one squadron called the Grey Mouse i believe. Any help would be appriciated.

 

Thanks for your time.

Paul

 

Re: Zero's vs Spitfires

 

Posted By: Deniz Karacay <mailto:denizkaracay@yahoo.com?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires *PIC*>
Date: Wednesday, 18 April 2001, at 4:31 p.m.

 

In Response To: Zero's vs Spitfires (Paul Micklos)

 

From Venturas: "Spitfire: The Anzacs"

NO81, Spitfire MkVIII flown by Fl.Lt. Alan Peart on March 17 1944.

On this day, Squadron Leader Whitemore and Peart was taking off to intercept four enemy a/c approaching to a satellite airfield named Broadway in Imphal Valley where 6 (5 servicable) NO81 SpitVIIs were sttioned. Bogeys happended to be 4 Oscars soon joined by 24 more.

Whitemore shotdown one before himself being shot down and killed whereas Peart shoot down 1 and survived. All four a/c on the ground was destroyed no more a/c were sent to Broadway as it is too exposed.

 

Nevertheless even outnumbered to 28 to 2 and caught while taking off, Spits downded 2 to 1 clearly shows how superior MkVIII was.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Re: Zero's vs Spitfires

 

Posted By: Deniz Karacay <mailto:denizkaracay@yahoo.com?subject=Spitfires *PIC*>
Date: Wednesday, 18 April 2001, at 4:10 p.m.

 

In Response To:  (Paul Micklos)

 

KW is the code for NO 615 squadron in India.

Below aircraft belongsd to No 452 RAAF took part in the defence of Darwin. Its code QY is yet to be applied.

Flt. Lt. Hall claimed one Zero and P.O. Goldsmith another one plus a Betty on March 15 1943. On June 30 1943 Hall shordown another Zero whuch did not see him coming and took no evasive action. On July 6 1943 He shoot down another Zero. He was already an experienced pilots claimed two kills in Europe.

 

Re: Zero's vs Spitfires

 

Posted By: Grant Elliott <mailto:guzzi@space.net.au?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Saturday, 14 April 2001, at 8:13 a.m.

 

In Response To: Zero's vs Spitfires (Paul Micklos)

 

G'day Paul.
I believe the Aussie squadron was 457 Sqn. RAAF "Grey Nurse" named for a voracious coastal shark. They were part of the Churchill wing consisting of 54(RAF)Sqn, 79 sqn, 452(ex BoB) and 453 (who battled in Malaya and Java) and 457.
In the Arakan and Imphal campaigns there were 81, 136, 607 and 615 (RAF) Squadrons.
Late in the piece, I believe the Royal Navy got stuck in with Seafires as well.
I am willing to stand corrected for any omissions. Please appraise us of the results of your research.

All the best,
Grant

 

Re: Zero's vs Spitfires

 

Posted By: Paul Micklos <mailto:Paulmicklos@prodigy.net?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Saturday, 14 April 2001, at 1:33 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires (Grant Elliott)

 

G'Day Grant

Well lucked out today, found a book called SpitFire the History by Eric B. Morgan and Edward Shacklady, around 650 pages long, in it i found some pics of spites that flew in the Pacific, not a lot of info but a start none the least. I dont know how to post pics so i can tell you about them, first pic has a pair of Mk VIIIs of the sqdn RAAF, Nearest aircraft was A58-614 and Named Grey Moose, you can read Grey Moose on the aircraft. Second Pic i found in the book which should intrest you too is plane A58-497, RG-V, Grey Nurse, flown by W/Cdr R.H. Gibbes, 80th Fighter Wing. Finally i have several pic's labeled, Far East War zone, and it says a number of these Spitfires in the area named "Grey Goose", now things get interesting, This book i have has the Serial numbers of all known spits and some even say where they went, how they where shot down or destroyed and so on. My big problem is now to identify Japanese aircraft that flew against them. I have read in a few books the battle between them and the Spitefire but of no pilot that has actually laided claim to shooting down a spitefire. So the search continues. I will try and keep you up to date, if you still like after this post, LOL maybe i should just right this all down as i find more info and send it to J-aircraft.

 

Any way Thanks for the info
Paul

 

Re: Zero's vs Spitfires

 

Posted By: Grant Elliott <mailto:guzzi@space.net.au?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 1:47 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires (Paul Micklos)

 

G'day again Paul.
I appreciate your information stated differently, however if you can find a book named 'Spitfire Mustang and Kittyhawk in Australian Service' by Stewart Wilson you will find much clearer versions of those same photos where the stencil "Grey Nurse" is apparent.
Additionally, Geoffrey Pentland compiled and illustrated a book 'RAAF comouflage and markings 1939-45' which have even more photos which show this stencil quite clearly. There is a good shot of A58-614 from which a colour profile was made. I shall email this to you separately.
These two books are much more specific to the Pacific War and are worth a look if you can locate them. In fact with the state of our south seas lira try http://www.ausaviation.com.au/ for a bargain.

Grant

 

Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires

 

Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires>
Date: Saturday, 14 April 2001, at 3:38 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires (Paul Micklos)

 

Hi Guys! I'll have to check which book it is, but I believe in Henry Sakaida's "Winged Samurai" there is a tally of Hiroyoshi Nishizawa's kills while he was with the Tainan wing, and there are several Spitfires listed there for 1942. I'll double check and get back to you, I don't have the book with me....

I have been told that when the Spit Pilots first got to the Pacific, they tried to dogfight with the Zeros and got severely hurt and soon learned to boom and Zoom! Anyone know anything more about that?

 

Cheers!

=Martin

 

Re: Zero's vs Spitfires

 

Posted By: Grant Elliott <mailto:guzzi@space.net.au?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Saturday, 14 April 2001, at 8:13 a.m.

 

In Response To: Zero's vs Spitfires (Paul Micklos)

 

G'day Paul.
I believe the Aussie squadron was 457 Sqn. RAAF "Grey Nurse" named for a voracious coastal shark. They were part of the Churchill wing consisting of 54(RAF)Sqn, 79 sqn, 452(ex BoB) and 453 (who battled in Malaya and Java) and 457.
In the Arakan and Imphal campaigns there were 81, 136, 607 and 615 (RAF) Squadrons.
Late in the piece, I believe the Royal Navy got stuck in with Seafires as well.
I am willing to stand corrected for any omissions. Please appraise us of the results of your research.

All the best,
Grant

 

Re: Zero's vs Spitfires

 

Posted By: Paul Micklos <mailto:Paulmicklos@prodigy.net?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Saturday, 14 April 2001, at 1:33 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires (Grant Elliott)

 

G'Day Grant

Well lucked out today, found a book called SpitFire the History by Eric B. Morgan and Edward Shacklady, around 650 pages long, in it i found some pics of spites that flew in the Pacific, not a lot of info but a start none the least. I dont know how to post pics so i can tell you about them, first pic has a pair of Mk VIIIs of the sqdn RAAF, Nearest aircraft was A58-614 and Named Grey Moose, you can read Grey Moose on the aircraft. Second Pic i found in the book which should intrest you too is plane A58-497, RG-V, Grey Nurse, flown by W/Cdr R.H. Gibbes, 80th Fighter Wing. Finally i have several pic's labeled, Far East War zone, and it says a number of these Spitfires in the area named "Grey Goose", now things get interesting, This book i have has the Serial numbers of all known spits and some even say where they went, how they where shot down or destroyed and so on. My big problem is now to identify Japanese aircraft that flew against them. I have read in a few books the battle between them and the Spitefire but of no pilot that has actually laided claim to shooting down a spitefire. So the search continues. I will try and keep you up to date, if you still like after this post, LOL maybe i should just right this all down as i find more info and send it to J-aircraft.

 

Any way Thanks for the info
Paul

 

Re: Zero's vs Spitfires

 

Posted By: Grant Elliott <mailto:guzzi@space.net.au?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 1:47 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires (Paul Micklos)

 

G'day again Paul.
I appreciate your information stated differently, however if you can find a book named 'Spitfire Mustang and Kittyhawk in Australian Service' by Stewart Wilson you will find much clearer versions of those same photos where the stencil "Grey Nurse" is apparent.
Additionally, Geoffrey Pentland compiled and illustrated a book 'RAAF comouflage and markings 1939-45' which have even more photos which show this stencil quite clearly. There is a good shot of A58-614 from which a colour profile was made. I shall email this to you separately.
These two books are much more specific to the Pacific War and are worth a look if you can locate them. In fact with the state of our south seas lira try http://www.ausaviation.com.au/ for a bargain.

Grant

 

Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires

 

Posted By: Allan Alsleben <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires>
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 7:47 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires (Martin)

 

Hello Martin,

Nishizawa never met any Spitfires during his tour in 1942 until evacuated in November 1942. He was assigned to the 4th Ku out of Gasmata and was later absorbed into the Tainan Ku. He remained with that group until November 1942. after that, he was an instructor, then returned to the South Pacific. He was never with the 202 Ku or the 331 Ku which escorted the 705 Ku on bombing raids of Calcutta in November 1943.

 

To my knowledge, Spitfires didn't start to show up until 1943 in Australia or India, and the only two units that I'm aquainted with, were the 331st and 202 fg.

 

HTH, Al

 

Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...

 

Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Monday, 16 April 2001, at 3:20 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires (Allan Alsleben)

 

Hi! You may well be right, but I'll give you a source of information that I got my opinion from....:
"Winged Samurai: Saburo Sakai and the Zero Fighter Pilots". On Page 96 there is a list of Nishizawa's victory claims while with the 4th and Tainan Kokutais. there are many types of Fighters and Bombers listed, as you can imagine, but it says regarding Spitfires, that he claimed one Spitfire on3/24/1942 at Moresby, and he and five other Pilots shared in shooting down 3 Spits on 3/28/1942 over Moresby. Also, some folks have told me he didn't knock any Corsairs down, as he didn't serve in any units opposing F4U's. Again, I'm not too sure (respectfully disagreeing here...) If you turn to Imperial Japanese Navy Aces 1937 - 1945 on Page 39 and I quote: "It was inevitable that sooner or Later Nishizwa would test his skill against the gull-winged Corsair - arguably the best fighter on either side of the region. This contest occurred on 7 June 1943 over the russels. when 81 Zeros tangled with USMC and RNZAF fighters. Four Corsairs of VMF-112 wer lost in this action, although three of the Pilots were saved - Nishizawa's claims for this mission were one Corsair and one P-40 destroyed. For the rest of the summer of 1943 he fought daily battles with Corsairs and P-40's in the areas of Rendova and Vella La Vella, the former being his toughest opponant. Marines from VMF-121, 122, 123, 124 and 221 all traded fire with "The Devil" but failed to bring him down, resulting in Nishizawa being awarded a coveted ceremonial sword from Adm.Kusaka, CO of the 11th Air Fleet." end quote.

 

The book aslo says elswhere (inside fly leaf) that "...from June (1943) to August 21, CPO Nisizawa engaged in numerous fierce actions with F4U's over Rendova, Buin and Vella Lavella. During this period, the Ace participated in the destruction of 45 Corsairs, which were attributed to the unit rather than him, as per the JNAF GHQ directive prohibiting individual victory scores...."

 

Food for thought...fascinating stuff, this Nishizawa. Our friend Katuhiro has a great pic of Nishizawa with his Sword. Maybe if he reads this, he'll re-post it?

 

Cheers!

=Martin

 

Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...

 

Posted By: Allan Alsleben <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Monday, 16 April 2001, at 8:26 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Martin)

 

Hello Martin,

The first Spitfire to be deployed in the New Guinea Area was at Manus in May of 1944 (#79 Sqn) and that was only briefly. They returned to Darwin in June. #54 Sqn was the first to see action, defending Darwin in January 1943, and that unit was hit hard by 202fg. The others, #452, #457 followed also in January and March the same year. These units never saw offensive action until December 1944 when they moved up to Pitoe Morotai to under take air support for the up coming actions in Borneo.

 

Now, as to meeting Spitfires in March 1942. It was not unusual for the Japanese to claim what they thought were Spitfires instead of P.40's. They didn't know what a P.40 was until the ones captured turned up. To them, the Curtiss was the P.36. The Japanese had profiles on most Allied aircraft. Updating the pilots as to newer aircraft took a long time for the Japanese.

The most common misidentification was the Ki 61, which was thought to be a Bf 109, until that was corrected. It was not uncommon for the VMF to jump on P.40's(Thought to be Ki 61) until the 13th AF devised a scheme for rapid ID. That was a white oblique stripe along the wings. This was used by the 44 FS then at Munda in September 1943. Misidentification of aircraft WAS commonplace on both sides of the fence.

 

Did Nishizawa bring down any F4U? The answer is yes! As to how many, I will not hazard a guess. But consider this, Nishizawa claim only what he thought he saw, according to the profiles he was aware of. While Nishizawa was surprised at the first F4U, it didn't bother him, it just took awhile longer to bring one down. 

Nothing surprises Nishizawa.

 

Lastly, the Japanese (IJA/IJN) never referred to USA aircraft by designation (P.40), but by manufacture ie: Bell instead of P.39, Curtiss instead of P.36 and so on. They also knew of all RAF aircraft, and those were correctly called by their collective names. The Germans did keep the Japanese updated on all current British aircraft.

 

I have a problem with publications when they attempt to keep a tally of aircraft types being brought down. Only intelligence, combined with monographs of units in the general area can determine what types were where. Rick Dunn and Larry deZeng have a treasure trove of information with regard to the above subject. I take publications with "A gain of salt" until verification is made.

 

Al

 

Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...

 

Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Wednesday, 18 April 2001, at 7:01 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Allan Alsleben)

 

I here you. IJN and fighter units places Nishizawa in Rabaul at the same time as VM 214 The Black Sheep and the Jolly Rogers. I would have to think that Nishizawa claimed more than a few Corsairs. He may be the IJN top Corsair killer. Tanimizu also claimed a good number as the latter war Air Group 343 pilots. As to Spitfires in the Pacific. I am going to have to do some serious research on this topic. I can't understand why the Brittish would wait so late to deploy there best fighter to the Pacific theatre. There is a book that I am now going to go find and buy that places a date on Zero and Spitfire combat.

 

Cruiser K

 

Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...

 

Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Thursday, 19 April 2001, at 7:24 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Cruiser K)

 

I have been told by some that Nishizawa claimed more F4U's than any other Japanese Pilot. Others say it was Tanimizu. Two great Pilots. Regardless, I imagine that many Jolly Roger and Black Sheep F4U's and RNAZF F4U's fell before these two Aces...would be interesting to know how they coped with such a powerful plane as the Corsair...

Good to hear from you Cruiser!

 

Cheers!

=Martin

 

Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...

 

Posted By: Barry <mailto:berry@operamail.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Thursday, 19 April 2001, at 5:47 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Cruiser K)

 

I think you answered your own question here

'I can't understand why the Brittish would wait so late to deploy there best fighter to the Pacific theatre' - because the Spitfire was the best British fighter and the British (indeed Allied) priority was defeating Hitler, who was seen as a much greater threat than the Japanese (to the US and Britain, that is). The order of priority seems to have been Europe, then the Middle East (oil - both to keep it for the allies and deny it to the Germans - and the Suez Canal) and lastly the Pacific. The ONLY allied fighters over Port Moresby in the period mentioned were No. 75 Squadron RAAF's P40s. At that time the RAAF and RAF roundels were identical.

Cheers,
Barry

 

Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...

 

Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Thursday, 19 April 2001, at 7:51 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Barry)

 

I understand all to well allied priority system in WWII.
I myself think it is rather silly not to deploy any of your best fighter units to the pacific theatre until 1943. If they had of deployed these units earlier however they would
have had the same faith early as there P-40's, Brewster Buffaloes, or whatever other obsolete fighter that went up prior. But they would also have a better mount to make adjustments with.

 

Cruiser K

 

Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...

 

Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Saturday, 21 April 2001, at 9:48 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Cruiser K)

 

I agree Cruiser! And the reason why they'd have had the same results early on with these other "better" fighters, is because the Jocks in them would have tried to get into a turning/twisting contest with the Zero at under 300 mph! They too would have learned not to do that....

 

Cheers!

=Martin

 

Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...

 

Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Monday, 16 April 2001, at 9:14 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Allan Alsleben)

 

HI Allan! Well, let me say this..I tip my hat to you as you obviously know far more about Spits in the Pacific, my friend! What you say makes perfect sense. I do want to point out one thing though, the "tally sheet" in Winged Samurai of Nishizawa's while with the 4th and Tainan Wings claims P-40's as well as the Spits. I'm not surewhere the confusion is, but what you say makes sense, and I also realize that there are things that are difficult to explain almost 60 years later. Yet, because of meticulous research and the internet putting the world at our fingertips, so much more info is available now.

 

I like your comments on Nishizawa. Can you imagine what he may have thought about the F4U when first encountering it? One can almost hear him thinking: "What now?" or "What the h..is THAT?" Yet, adapt he did, and his peers commented like you did. Nothing scared him. Nothing. Not even the Hellcat which probably shot down more JNAF Pilots than any other make of plane. He was something. I wonder if he was in the Rabaul area when Pappy Boyington lead the Black Sheep Squadron. Pappy has said in interviews that he told his guys all the time not to "Mix it up" with the Zeros. And if you had no choice, keep your speed up over 350. He said that more than once while watching a "scrap" he'd yell into his mike at one of his boys to "get the H...out of there before you get the s.... kicked out of you!" In other words, someone started twisting and turning with a Zero and was getting into trouble.(he also commented once that the Black Sheep Squadron knew there were some great Aces among the JNAF wing(s) that they were up against. Fascinating stuff. In his last interview before he died, he said one of the biggest lies was that the Japanese were not good pilots. He said they were "the best combat pilots ever, especially the Imperial Navy Pilots. They were no joke! If you screwed up, you were dead" or something very very close to that. I think that's a verbatim quote. May be off a word or two. Well, with Nishizawa and Tanimizu (Iwamoto?) there, they must have been something. And Pilots like Nishizawa were the superstars, but there were plenty of "average" Zero Pilots that knew what the heck they were doing.....

 

Cheers!
P.S. It must also have come as a shock how much damage a Corsair could take and get it's pilot home. It's been claimed by some that only a P-47 could take more damage and keep going. That adds credibility to the claim that Zero Pilots had a nasty hapit of shooting up the cockpit area of Corsairs. They had to, as that thing could take a lot of damage, especially from rifle caliber guns. .

 

Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...

 

Posted By: Ryan Boerema <mailto:ryann1k2j@aol.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Monday, 16 April 2001, at 10:57 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Martin)

 

Hi, Martin. Here's a theory. I believe during March 1942 there were only Australian fighter units in Port Moresby, 75th and 76th Squadrons, IIRC. They were flying P-40Es, yup, but with Australian/British markings (still had the red dot at center at this time). British markings: British planes (Spitfire). When the US units showed up (and I beleive some of the US P-40s claimed were actually P-39s -- I'd have to dig out my unit histories to compare dates again) the same conclusion: American markings: American planes (P-40s).

 

Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...

 

Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Wednesday, 18 April 2001, at 6:49 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Ryan Boerema)

 

I am sure that some American planes, and some Hurricanes were occasionaly mistaken for Spitfires. But I have read accounts of the early exchanges between Spitfires and Zeroes and the Zeroes taught the Brittish the same lesson they taught the Americans. Like Martin stated earlier the IJN pilot and his Zero may go down in history as the best Dogfighting combination ever. Boom and Zoom saves the day for the allies, a lot must be said for pilots and warplanes that force opponents into alternative strategies.

 

Cruiser K

 

Re: RAF in India

 

Posted By: Allan Alsleben <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: RAF in India>
Date: Wednesday, 18 April 2001, at 8:32 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Cruiser K)

 

Hello Cruiser,

Well, as far as the RAF were in the CBI, according to S.W. Kirby, the first Spitfire units were:
136, 607 and 617 Sqns sent to Chittagong in December 12th, 1943. These three squadrons were attached to the 224 Wing. I would hazard a guess that these three units were from the MTO. As to the what marks they were flying, probably Vc.

 

Both the U.S. and UK considered this area lastly..... the end of the line, very low priority.

The Royal Navy had just concluded a very disastrous affair in the Aegean (Operation Accolade) where they suffered heavy losses and pulled backed to Egypt. Shortly after that, they began to funnel units to India, as did the U.S. If I remember correctly, the U.S. sent three air groups to India during that time frame and Britain began to do the same. From the date noted above, it would increase dramaticly well into 1944.

 

It should also be noted, That there were no IJN air units in Burma at that time or any other time after November 1943. It was all strictly Japanese Army Air.

 

Re: RAF in India

 

Posted By: rick dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: RAF in India>
Date: Friday, 20 April 2001, at 5:28 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: RAF in India (Allan Alsleben)

 

Al

The official history of the RAAF says the first two Spitfire squadrons arrived in Bengal in early November 43. They were 607 and 615. No. 136 was also so equipped. An Aussie of 615 shot down a recon Ki 46 on 16 November. Spitfires were also scrambled from Chittagong during the Dec 5th Calcutta raid. They got one Army bomber with one loss. This all prior to Dec 12th.

 

Rick

 

Re: RAF in India

 

Posted By: Graham Boak <mailto:graham@boak98.freeserve.co.uk?subject=Re: RAF in India>
Date: Thursday, 19 April 2001, at 3:00 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: RAF in India (Allan Alsleben)

 

These units were ex-Hurricane units - and 617 should be 67, I suspect, without checking (617 is definitely wrong, being the Dam Busters....). So the pilots who introduced the Spitfire to India were pilots who had been fighting the Oscar and knew what was required, now they were given an aircraft capable of outclimbing and out-accelerating the Oscar. Not that the tropicalised Spit Vc was perfect, but it was good enough to reverse the balance of kills.

 

This was also linked to established Hurricane Ace (BoB and Burma) Frank Carey forming the Armament Training Camp at Armada Road, Calcutta, where the hard-earned tactical lessons were passed on to the newer pilots.

 

More importantly, the Vc was good enough to destroy any Dinah that attempted photoreconnaissance missions over Bengal. Blinding the IJAAF was more effective than winning or losing a few dogfights.

 

The later introduction of the Spitfire VIII was an ex-desert unit (81?) who arrived in theatre as the experienced experts who would show the hicks from the sticks how to do things.....it didn't help that they were initially equipped with the extended wingtips, which were fine at high altitudes but resulted in permanently distorted wings when they tried turning at low-level with them. After an initial blooding they went on to do well.

 

The Spit VIII was far superior to the Oscar, and to the Tojos that also participated in the Burma battles. The few Franks that appeared do not seem to have been noticed....but by 1945 the IJAAF had disappeared from the skies.

 

RAF in India, 615 and 81 *PIC*

 

Posted By: Deniz Karacay <mailto:denizkaracay@yahoo.com?subject=RAF in India, 615 and 81 *PIC*>
Date: Friday, 20 April 2001, at 11:51 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: RAF in India (Graham Boak)

 

615 was an ex-Hurricane Squadron. Its code was KW.
No 81 served in Africa, in fact their Ace of Spades emblem was adopted after its fights with JG53. Its code were FL.

According to Venturas "Spitfire: The Anzacs" no Ki46s survived interception by Spitires over India. Profile comes from the same book.

Click on the link for all Spifire profiles I posted

 

Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...

 

Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Tuesday, 17 April 2001, at 3:07 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Ryan Boerema)

 

Another plausible idea. Makes sense! Thanks! either way, I think initially the British Pilots, having thwarted the mighty mighty Lufwaffe, went into the Pacific with a bit of a swagger and a cocky chip on their shoulders. And I don't mean that too harshly. Who wouldn't, in thier shoes! They'd stopped the LUFTWAFFE for pete's sake! They were really good Pilots, those British. And like the rest of Western Society, probably "poo pooed" the idea that the Japanese were any good. The Yanks are having a hard time with the Japanese? Let's show them how we British do it! The Spits jumped into combat and tried to dogfight with arguably the best dogfighting team of the war. A JNAF Pilot and his Zero! They got hurt. They got hurt bad. Boom and zoom became the rule of thumb. Amazing how that is only now starting to be acknowledged in Allied Pilots interviews and memoirs. I guess it lacks a little hollywood glory to admit that it was not wise to dogfight with he nimble Mitsubishi's, but thats the truth.

 

Cheers!

=Martin

 

Re: Pilot's memoirs

 

Posted By: Graham Boak <mailto:graham@boak98.freeserve.co.uk?subject=Re: Pilot's memoirs>
Date: Tuesday, 17 April 2001, at 2:01 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Martin)

 

I think it was acknowledged quite some time ago: indeed it has been common knowledge for at least the time since I've been reading about it (i.e. since the mid fifties). When I was a young performance aerodynamicist (1974) I went to a lecture by AVM Sir Neil Cameron, who flew Hurricanes against the Oscars, and he was stressing this very point. He felt that the Hurricanes could hold their own against the Oscars providing they kept their speed up and didn't try to dogfight. I think it is fair to add that he probably wasn't aware, at the time, of the real exchange rate between the two types: but perhaps this just shows how few Hurricane pilots followed instructions. Though it should also be added that he flew in the later stages of the campaigns: there had been time to learn the lessons the hard way.

 

Re: Pilot's memoirs

 

Posted By: Mark Haselden <mailto:mark_rae@msn.com?subject=Re: Pilot's memoirs>
Date: Wednesday, 18 April 2001, at 3:14 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Pilot's memoirs (Graham Boak)

 

Geoff Fisken, one of the few Buffalo aces (6 confirmed over Malaya and Singapore) acknowledged that the only way to fight the Japanese aircraft was to use speed and, whenever possible, a height advantage. Commonwealth pilots in Singapore did recognise that any attempt get into a turning fight with a Zero or Oscar was going to end in severe problems (at least for the Commonwealth). However, pilots who kept their speed up were able to attack and get away from the Japanese fighters - even in the Buffalo!! Unfortunately, it seems that after the Singapore debacle, the experienced pilots were sent to different units and there was no conference on tactics as had been held in the UK post Battle of Britain until later in the war - and even then, Commonwealth pilots accustomed to the European/African theatres still came unstuck.

 

FWIW,

Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...

 

Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs...>
Date: Monday, 16 April 2001, at 3:39 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Hiroyoshi Nishizawa vs Spitfires / Corsairs... (Martin)

 

Hi Allan! In reading my abouve post about Nishizawa and Spits, in the middle of my message, where I go into Nishizawa vs Corsairs, I said: " (respectfully disagreeing here)" I wasn't disagreeing with you, just the Gent who told me Nishizawa probably didn't oppose any F4U's. Just wanted to make that clear. Again, I'd like to say I state my opinions and things I've read and agree with. I could be wrong and welcome all opinions..regardless if they agree or disagree with me! Thanks for your postings!

 

Cheers!

=Martin

 

Re: Zero's vs Spitfires

 

Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Friday, 13 April 2001, at 11:43 p.m.

 

In Response To: Zero's vs Spitfires (Paul Micklos)

 

For some reason I believe Tainan Air Group also battled
Spitfires. I can't prove this. I saw it on the Japanese film based on the story of Sakai-san called Zero Pilots.

 

Sincerely,

Cruiser K

 

Re: Zero's vs Spitfires

 

Posted By: Barry <mailto:berry@operamail.com?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 3:05 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires (Cruiser K)

 

Backtracking a little here, but I think it's most unlikely Saburo Sakai ever engaged spitfires. The Churchill wing did not go into action until long after Sakai was wounded, while I think all the early Pacific war RAF units in Malaya and NEI were equipped with Hurricanes (?). As for Nishizawa, where and when, and against which units?

Cheers,
Barry

 

Re: Zero's vs Spitfires

 

Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Monday, 16 April 2001, at 4:06 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires (Barry)

 

Hi Barry! I answered this question minutes ago somewhere else, but will repeat myself here...and correct me if my source is wrong. But according to "Winged Samurai: Saburo Sakai and the Zero Fighter Pilots" Nishizawa shot down a Spitfire at or near Moresby on 3/24/1942, and he and 3 other Zero Pilots shot down 3 Spits on 3 28 1942 in the same area. Now there may not have been Spits BASED at Moresby. To my knowledge, that is, maybe there really were...but that does not mean they were not in the area or based a few days at Moresby...

 

Any way, what's your opinion?

 

Aloha

=Martin

 

Re: Zero's vs Spitfires

 

Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 9:40 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires (Barry)

 

Say Barry,
I did say I wasn't certain. It was based on a movie I saw. I also stated Tainan Air Group but not any specific dates. Nishizawa flew with Tainan until it was reorganized and turned into another airgroup he flew with that one and many others. Tainain engaged Brittish, Dutch, and Australian Airgroups early in the conflict. This is why the movie probably showed them as engaging Spits. (This quite possibly is dated as Jun-ichi Sasai's first aerial victory Feb. 3,1942)I didn't quite know when the first Spits were sent to the Pacific. I do know they were dominated when they tried to turn with the Zeroes in combat.

 

Cruiser K

 

Re: Zero's vs Spitfires

 

Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 9:40 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires (Barry)

 

Say Barry,
I did say I wasn't certain. It was based on a movie I saw. I also stated Tainan Air Group but not any specific dates. Nishizawa flew with Tainan until it was reorganized and turned into another airgroup he flew with that one and many others. Tainain engaged Brittish, Dutch, and Australian Airgroups early in the conflict. This is why the movie probably showed them as engaging Spits. (This quite possibly is dated as Jun-ichi Sasai's first aerial victory Feb. 3,1942)I didn't quite know when the first Spits were sent to the Pacific. I do know they were dominated when they tried to turn with the Zeroes in combat.

 

Cruiser K

 

Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters

 

Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters>
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 11:03 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters (Graham Boak)

 

It maybe that the encounter you mentioned was in fact the one I have read about. The zeroes bested the spitfires and
Spitfire pilots were told not to engage zeroes using turning tacticts in combat. I am not going to discuss combat at the wars end where Spits could exceed over +420 mph and the best Zeroes could achive maybe only 360mph. This will also not be discussed because of pilot quality towards war end. Unless they were battling Air Group 343 with that 6:1 kill ratio it is irrelevant. What is more relevant to me is the earlier combat between the Zeroes and the Spits. Where the performance and pilot quality were more evenly matched. I have read in one such source that Zeroes bested the Spits in these engagements.

 

Cruiser K

 

Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters

 

Posted By: Jim Broshot
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 11:37 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters (Cruiser K)

 

"...and it was on August 15, 1945, that the Seafires [NOTE: IIIs] of Nos. 887 and 894 Squadrons were engaged in the last combat of the war involving fighter aircraft. Twelve Japanese Zero fighters were intercepted and in the ensuing battle eight were shot down for the loss of one Seafire."

from AIRCRAFT IN PROFILE NO. 221, "Supermarine Seafires (Merlins)" (Len Bachelor)

AND another version

"Four days later [after 11 Aug 1945], in the Fleet Air Arm's final fighter combat of the war, eight of a formation of twelve Japanese fighters were shot down by Seafires of the 24th Naval Fighter Wing which was escorting an Avenger strike. A Seafire and an Avenger were lost, the gunner of the latter disposing of another Japanese fighter before ditching. At 0700 that day, 15 August 1945, all further strikes were cancelled, the Japanese having surrendered."

from BRITISH NAVAL AVIATION THE FLEET AIR ARM, 1917 - 1990 (Ray Sturtivant)

 

Aircraft were from HMS Indefatigable

Just for interest, first source says "Seafires had been credited with 39 confirmed enemy 'kills' in all theatres of operations," and "the highest scoring FAA Seafire pilot was Sub-Lieutenant R H Reynols of No. 894 Squadron with 3 1/2 enemy aircraft to his credit, two of these being destroyed on one day - on April 1, 1945."

 

Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters

 

Posted By: Graham Boak <mailto:graham@boak98.freeserve.co.uk?subject=Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters>
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 11:24 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters (Cruiser K)

 

Your comment about the tactics is basically correct, if simplified, and I suggest that you chase up Richard Dunn's earlier postings for more details.

However, my point about the 1945 encounter was that the Seafire III would have had a basically similar performance to that of the tropicalised Spitfire Vc over Darwin two years earlier: in fact little better overall than that of the lighter Battle of Britain Spitfire Mk1 of 1940, before the Zero ever entered service. (Though to be fair, the late war Seafire L.III had the low-altitude rated Merlin 45 which was more powerful at low-level. The armament was also improved.)

 

The IJN never encountered the later war Spifires, not even the Merlin 60 series aircraft at 408 mph, let alone the Griffon variants. The IJAAF did encounter the Mk.VIII, and came off the worse for it, but that is another story, and even then a fairly brief and limited one.

 

The point about the respective pilot quality is valid but could be overstated - the BPF's fighter pilots were generally fairly raw, as indeed were most of the Churchill Wing's pilots. Without knowing just which Zero unit was involved, it is impossible to be definitive.

 

Seafire III

 

Posted By: Deniz Kararacay <mailto:denizkaracay@yahoo.com?subject=Seafire III>
Date: Tuesday, 17 April 2001, at 2:24 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters (Graham Boak)

 

Seafire MkIII had low altitude Merlins (45?) and four blade prop and without that draggy vokes filter. Infact its top speed was 348mph but this is deceiving because it could do it at 6000ft and its max sea level speed was a little over 330mph. Thus as far as I know this makes it the best low level bird of WWII excluding very late war a/c. It was certainly superior to any Zero at lower altitudes.

 

Down and Under, Spitfire MkVIIIs only met with Ki46s and with great success . If I remember right most Aussi Spit VIIIs ended up being scrapped after stored for replacements.

 

In India, Spit MkVIII completely dominated IJAAF.

 

Re: Seafire III

 

Posted By: Graham Boak <mailto:graham@boak98.freeserve.co.uk?subject=Re: Seafire III>
Date: Tuesday, 17 April 2001, at 3:08 p.m.

 

In Response To: Seafire III (Deniz Kararacay)

 

Agreed, but...it was still an heavy (navalised) version of a heavy (Vc) version of what was not the finest fighter in the world at the time of its introduction in 1941. (This is granting that the 109F - if nothing else pre-190 - was somewhat, if not very, superior.) For 1945 this was not a good recipe. That it could outpace and outclimb the current US Navy fighters (though never outrange!) is little compliment to the Seafire but one hell of a comment on the USN fighters' true performance......with over 30% more power.

 

Even granting that the Zero was little improved since 1943, this is still a two year advantage over a Spit V!

Don't get me wrong - I like the Seafire, but let's keep it in proportion. Even the Mk.XV, had it not just missed the war, would have been two years behind its closest RAF equivalent, the Mk.XII. Yet Faireys were churning out Fireflies for over a year, which can only be described a terrible waste of a good Griffon. They would even have been better in Barracudas! Just imagine Griffon Seafires in the BPF.... (but never too far away from it!)

 

Re: Seafire III

 

Posted By: Deniz Kararacay <mailto:denizkaracay@yahoo.com?subject=Re: Seafire III>
Date: Tuesday, 17 April 2001, at 4:11 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Seafire III (Graham Boak)

 

I agree with you about SpitV. 109F could outclimb and outdive it but perhaps they match evenly enough. Fw190 was much superior only when Luftwaffe was able fly them without burning the engine. I also think that Reginald Mitchell turned in his grave when Spitfire was fitted with Vokes filter. What a retro-step? A standard Spit V could easily fight with any Zero or Hayate version. Ki84 is another story superior to Spit MkVIII in climb and maneuverability but still only 15mph faster than a Spit V. and 20mph slower than a VIII.

 

The point about Seafire is it could only operate as CAP patrols over the Task Force (and very succesful in that) whereas American fighters could bring the fight to the enemy with their excellent range where no Seafire could go.

 

I beleive development of naval aircraft were under the responsibility of the Air ministry before the war. So it is understandable that no good British Naval Design appeared for the war despite having excellent engines.

 

Re: Seafire III

 

Posted By: Graham Boak <mailto:graham@boak98.freeserve.co.uk?subject=Myth!>
Date: Wednesday, 18 April 2001, at 12:02 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Seafire III (Deniz Kararacay)

 

Whilst the Air Ministry ran the FAA as part of the RAF, the aircraft provided were directly comparable to equivalent land-based types: Fury/Nimrod, Hart/Osprey, Swordfish/Vildebeeste or even more advanced: Skua. Once the Admiralty took over they lacked imagination and forced their own unrealistic desires: the comfortable Swordfish as the Albacore, the observer visibilty on the Barracuda, the two-seat fighter Fulmar..... Can you really believe that the Hurricane or Spitfire would have taken so long to get on a carrier deck if the Air Ministry were in control?

 

This last can partly be blamed on Richard Fairey, who refused to build a Sea Spitfire pre-war. Though what a Fairey Seafire would have looked like does not bear too much investigation.....

 

RN enthusiasts have blamed the Air Ministry to cover up the Admiralty's incompetence. The evidence suggests otherwise.

 

Re: Seafire III

 

Posted By: Jim Broshot
Date: Tuesday, 17 April 2001, at 10:49 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Seafire III (Deniz Kararacay)

 

Deniz:

UMR library has UP IN HARM'S WAY FLYING WITH THE FLEET AIR ARM (Cdr R M "Mike" Crosley) which deals mainly with Crosley's post war career (as a test pilot) BUT has interesting discussion and critique of prewar and wartime RN aircraft procurement policies. I have checked out right now but will have back in a week or so

Call number is UG 626.2 .C76 A3 1995

Note: Crosley flew Seafire L.IIIs with the British Pacific Fleet.

 

Re: 202 fg v #54 Sqn

 

Posted By: Allan Alsleben <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: 202 fg v #54 Sqn>
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 10:27 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Spitfires: 3 known encounters (Graham Boak)

 

Hello Graham,

Perhaps it would be better to list those units that were in the Northern Territory.
#54 Sqn - January 1943 (Hit hard by 202fg)
#452 Sqn - January 1943
#457 Sqn - March 1943

 

These were the only units to see action with the 202fg. Out of India, there was the 331fg in November of 1943, but those probably ran into the RAF, not RAAF. As to the Seafire's, I don't recall any such intercepts, but then anything was possible if it were over Japan proper.

Of #452 and #457, they were later deployed on Morotai and were used in the ground support role and also played a part in the Borneo operations.

#79 Sqn was formed in New Guinea in April 1943 and was in the Admiralties after it's occupation, then later at Morotai in 1945.

These units had very little opportunity for air to air combat, and those that did, were against IJA aircraft.

ATAIU-SEA Rufe - previous unit?

 

Posted By: Mike Yeo <mailto:mikeyeo@bigpond.com?subject=ATAIU-SEA Rufe - previous unit?>
Date: Monday, 4 June 2001, at 3:45 a.m.

 

I was just wondering about the (rather) famous ATAIU-SEA Rufe photo which shows it on the ramp at Seletar, Singapore after the war. My references show no Rufe units in Singapore at the end of the war. Is it a gap in my knowledge, and there was a Rufe unit based in Singapore or was the aircraft brought there from somewhere else? Thanks

 

Mike

 

Re: ATAIU-SEA Rufe - previous unit?

 

Posted By: Allan <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: ATAIU-SEA Rufe - previous unit?>
Date: Monday, 4 June 2001, at 8:33 a.m.

 

In Response To: ATAIU-SEA Rufe - previous unit? (Mike Yeo)

 

Hello Mike,

Originally, there were no Rufe units at Singapore. Those aircraft were former 934 Ku (Ambon) after that unit disbanded and the aircraft sent to Surabaya. Then sent on to the 936 Ku. This augmented the other aircraft then in use by the 936 Ku. There is a very good article in AE #31 on those Rufe units and very accurate in detail.

 

Al

 

Zero's vs Spitfires pt2

 

Posted By: Paul Micklos <mailto:Paulmicklos@prodigy.net?subject=Zero's vs Spitfires>
Date: Friday, 13 April 2001, at 9:56 p.m.

 

Hi Guys

Maybe some one can help me, im trying to do some research on the Zero's vs Spitfires, I know that the 202nd battled the spitefire also known as the 3rd air group, Does any one else know how many other squadrons that battled the spitefire and what number they where. Also does any one know the name of the Britsh squadron that battled the Japanese, I have heard of one squadron called the Grey Mouse i believe. Any help would be appriciated.

 

Thanks for your time.

 

Zero's vs Clive Caldwell

 

Posted By: Deniz Karacay <mailto:denizkaracay@yahoo.com?subject=Zero's vs Clive Caldwell>
Date: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 8:15 a.m.

 

In Response To: Zero's vs Spitfires (Paul Micklos)

 

Famous desert ace Clive Caldwell got a Zero and a Kate on March 2 1943 and tw months later he destroyed two more (can anybody tell what kind of a/c? and date) and on June 30, 1943 he shot down another Zero for his final and 28.5 kill.

From "Allied Aces of WWII" by William N. Hess

 

Re: Zero's vs Clive Caldwell

 

Posted By: rick dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Zero's vs Clive Caldwell>
Date: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 2:40 p.m.

 

In Response To: Zero's vs Clive Caldwell (Deniz Karacay)

 

Deniz

On March 2d no Kates were present though one was claimed as you report. The Spitfires clashed with A6M2s of 202 Ku. Caldwell claimed the Kate and one of the fighters. None were lost.

 

On May 2d he flew with 452 Squadron and again engaged fighters (A6Ms of 202). He claimed a HAP and a ZEKE. None were lost though seven were damaged.

I believe Caldwell's claim on the 30th may have been a bomber as six bombers but only two fighters were claimed that day. The bombers were type 1 attack bombers from 753 Ku and none were shotdown outright but one bomber crashed near its base. I'll double check and let you know later if this claim is for a fighter.

 

Rick

 

Re: Zero's vs Clive Caldwell

 

Posted By: rick dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Zero's vs Clive Caldwell>
Date: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 3:59 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero's vs Clive Caldwell (Deniz Karacay)

 

Deniz

Your comment reminded me that I have a copy of Price's Spit 5 book. It doesn't say much about Caldwell. But it does say his last (27th indivdual) victory was on August 17th 43 -- a 202 ku Ki 46. Says he claimed 8 victories at Darwin.

 

Rick

 

Nakajima A6M2-N

 

Posted By: Andrew Monroe <mailto:amonroe@spp.org?subject=Nakajima A6M2-N>
Date: Monday, 25 June 2001, at 6:14 p.m.

 

This may be a shot in the dark, but does anyone know what the tail marking and plane color of NAP3/C Yoshiichi Sasaki's Nakajima A6M2-N are? (by the way, what does NAP3/C mean?) He flew a Rufe in the Aleutians campaign and I would like to replicate his plane

TIA
Andrew

 

Re: Nakajima A6M2-N

 

Posted By: Andrew Monroe <mailto:amonroe@spp.org?subject=Re: Nakajima A6M2-N>
Date: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 7:30 a.m.

 

In Response To: Nakajima A6M2-N (Andrew Monroe)

 

Is there anyway I can research the tail markings of Yoshiichi Sasaki. Did the tail markings of the 452nd have the tail marking prefix of 52? Is there anyway someone might know Sasaki's marking with the 52 prefix. Also does anyone know if his plane was gray or green and if he had any special tail or fusalage markings

THX
Andrew

 

Re: Nakajima A6M2-N

 

Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: Nakajima A6M2-N>
Date: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 2:32 a.m.

 

In Response To: Nakajima A6M2-N (Andrew Monroe)

 

Hi Anderew! "Naval Air Pilot 3rd Class". An enlisted rank. Japanese Pilots were often enlisted, not all were Officer's like the US Pilots...

 

Cheers!

=Martin

 

Re: A6M2-N of 452 Ku (Shumushu Isle., Chishima Isl *PIC*

 

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: A6M2-N of 452 Ku (Shumushu Isle., Chishima Isl *PIC*>
Date: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 6:24 a.m.

 

In Response To: A6M2-N of 452 Ku (Shumushu Isle., Chishima Isles.) *PIC* (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)

 

Thank you Uchida-san for re-posting this photograph. I have never seen it before. For another view of some of No.452 ku A6M2-N Rufes [M1-113] and [M1-119] after capture at Kiska, see below.

 

The two float planes of No.452 Kaugun Kokutai you posted carry the unit codes of [M1-107] and [M1-103]. The Japanese forces evacuated Kiska in late July 1943 and Attu had been re-occupied by the Allies earlier in May.

 

Is it certain that your photo of [M1-107] and [M1-103] was taken after a few Rufes were withdrawn to Chishima or could this photograph have been taken earlier in the Aleutians?

 

Jim Lansdale

 

452 Ku Officers

 

Posted By: Andrew Obluski <mailto:aoba41@yahoo.com?subject=452 Ku Officers>
Date: Thursday, 28 June 2001, at 12:04 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: A6M2-N of 452 Ku (Shumushu Isle., Chishima Isl *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

 

I just would like to know if somebody knows the names of senior officers of 452 Ku stationed in the Aleutians. I have Capt Nobukichi Takahashi as CO of 452 Ku and Lt Kushichiro Yamada as hikotaicho of floatplane unit. Can you confirm it or add more names?

I just would like to know if somebody knows the names of senior officers of 452 Ku stationed in the Aleutians. I have Capt Nobukichi Takahashi as CO of 452 Ku and Lt Kushichiro Yamada as hikotaicho of floatplane unit. Can you confirm it or add more names?

Posted By: Dave Schemel <mailto:schemel@execpc.com?subject=Zero Model 52 paint schemes>
Date: Friday, 17 August 2001, at 5:47 a.m.

 

While attempting to talk myself out of the Tamiya Zero (or is it trying to convince myself to do it?), I looked through my meager Zero library. In the FAOW #9 on the late Zeros on page 92 it shows pictures of several Zeros on a USN carrier being brought to the USA. These aircraft appear to be camouflaged in similar schemes. I believe these planes are Model 52s (any comments?).

 

Does anyone have any information on these aircraft? What colors were used? Are the 2 colors made by applying fresh paint over the same badly faded paint? Any one have any more information about the schemes? Any history on these planes?

I apologize if this has been covered before.

 

Thanks---Dave

 

Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes

 

Posted By: John Dillon <mailto:john.dillon@wachovia.com?subject=Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes>
Date: Friday, 17 August 2001, at 5:55 a.m.

 

In Response To: Zero Model 52 paint schemes (Dave Schemel)

 

Dave

I don't have that FAOW, but I seem to remember a discussion about those pictures and what appears to be a camoflage scheme is actually the contrast between areas that the U.S. sailors had cleaned on the aircraft and those that they did not (if my memory is wrong I'm sure someone else will correct me). Unfortunately the IJNAF didn't see fit to use the interesting camoflage and graphics that their Army counterparts did.

 

HTH

John

 

Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes

 

Posted By: Dave Schemel <mailto:schemel@execpc.com?subject=Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes>
Date: Friday, 17 August 2001, at 8:43 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes (John Dillon)

 

John,

I am not afraid to admit my ignorance (some shout about my ignorance) but I don't understand why they would have choosen to have cleaned some areas on the airframes likee they did. Why clean them in a basic pattern from plane to plane but with no logical (to me anyway) pattern on an individual basis. For example this effect if it were created by a cleaning operation I would think would start at the tail and work forward or have straight lines. This pattern shows dark over much of the front fuselage and wing Hinomarus. All of the planes seem to have the areas around the Hinomarus dark. The planes look pretty darn scruffey in general.---

 

Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes

 

Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes>
Date: Friday, 17 August 2001, at 12:30 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes (Dave Schemel)

 

Dave -

There were several photos on this site about a year ago that were close ups of the US sailors washing the Zeros. They did start from the front in the photos. They appeared to be washing up to the panel lines. I do not know about the wings. It is quite possible that some photos of multi-coloured Zeros were taken part way through the process.

I do not know if these photos are still around. You might try setting your preferences to 24 months and look at these message boards along with some of the archived boards. I hope that you have a high speed 'net connection (cable DSL, or better).

 

HTH

- Grant

 

Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes *PIC*

 

Posted By: Jim Eyerdom <mailto:jheyerdom@aol.com?subject=Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes *PIC*>
Date: Wednesday, 22 August 2001, at 8:11 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Zero Model 52 paint schemes (Grant Goodale)

 

Grant,

One of the photos you referred to might be seen on page 189 of Model Art 510, the updated IJN fighter markings book.