Re: Japanese Army Navy

[Keith Willshaw]

"JDupre5762" > wrote in message
...
> Did the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force and the Imperial Japanese Navy
Air
> Force operate any of the same make of aircraft? It seems to me that that
at
> least with some combat aircraft the two services might have economically
> ordered from the same production lines and saved some money and opened up
some
> factories for producing more of other types of aircraft?
>
> John Dupre'

The IJN and the Japanese Army were deadly rivals in the power
struggles that characterised Japanese politcs of the 20's, 30's and
40's its unlikley they would ever co-operate on anything.

That said the requirements of shipborne aircraft tend to vary from those
of land based aircraft and the USN and USAAF used different aircraft
too as did the RAF and FAA.

Keith

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"The Blue Max" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> Well, there was the Zero for one.
>

Nope.

[Keith Willshaw]

"The Blue Max" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "JDupre5762" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Did the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force and the Imperial Japanese Navy
> Air
> > Force operate any of the same make of aircraft? It seems to me that
that
> at
> > least with some combat aircraft the two services might have economically
> > ordered from the same production lines and saved some money and opened
up
> some
> > factories for producing more of other types of aircraft?
>
> Well, there was the Zero for one.
>

I rather thought the Japanese Army preferred the Nakajima Ki-43 Oscar
perhaps you could let us know which Japanese Army units used the Zero

Keith

[The Blue Max]

"JDupre5762" > wrote in message
...
> Did the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force and the Imperial Japanese Navy
Air
> Force operate any of the same make of aircraft? It seems to me that that
at
> least with some combat aircraft the two services might have economically
> ordered from the same production lines and saved some money and opened up
some
> factories for producing more of other types of aircraft?

Well, there was the Zero for one.


--
Et qui rit des cures d'Oc?
De Meuse raines, houp! de cloques.
De quelles loques ce turqe coin.
Et ne d'anes ni rennes,
Ecuries des cures d'Oc.

[av8r]

>
> The IJN and the Japanese Army were deadly rivals in the power
> struggles that characterised Japanese politcs of the 20's, 30's and
> 40's its unlikley they would ever co-operate on anything.

Hi Keith

The J.N.A.F. and J.A.A.F. did in fact co-operate out of necessity. The
Mitsubishi J8M1 Shusui (Rigorous Sword) short-range interceptor was a
prime example. The rocket propelled aircraft was based broadly on the
Messerschmitt Me-163B Komet design, as the Japanese only had one simple
instruction manual to use as a guide.

The J.A.A.F. recieved a samll number of MXY7 Akigusa (Autumn Grass)
gliders that had been built by the Maeda Koku Kenkyusho company to be
used as trainers for the J8M1.

The J.A.A.F. designation for their development of the J8M1 was Ki.200.
After the Army Aero-Technical Research Institue (Rikugan Kokugijutsu
Kenkyujo)got involved, it was developed as the Ki.202.

There were five prototypes of the J8M1 built, but only the first one
built flew. It made its maiden flight at Yokosuka Naval Aeronautical
Engineering Arsenal on the 7th of July 1945. It crashed after reaching
an altitude of 1,300 feet in a steep climb. It was determined that the
accident was a result of the rocket motor failing. The hydrogen
peroxide shifted to the rear of the partially empty tank which in turn
cut off the fuel supply, and owing to air entering a fuel pipe and
causing a blockage.

Although the J.A.A.F. chose the aircraft as the priority interceptor
project, no prototype was completed by the time Japan surrendered.

Cheers...Chris

[Eric Moore]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "JDupre5762" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Did the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force and the Imperial Japanese Navy
> Air
> > Force operate any of the same make of aircraft? It seems to me that that
> at
> > least with some combat aircraft the two services might have economically
> > ordered from the same production lines and saved some money and opened up
> some
> > factories for producing more of other types of aircraft?
> >
> > John Dupre'
>
> The IJN and the Japanese Army were deadly rivals in the power
> struggles that characterised Japanese politcs of the 20's, 30's and
> 40's its unlikley they would ever co-operate on anything.
>
> That said the requirements of shipborne aircraft tend to vary from those
> of land based aircraft and the USN and USAAF used different aircraft
> too as did the RAF and FAA.
>
> Keith


"Deadly rivals"? Did the Army and IJN do assassinations on each other
or something?

[IBM]

"The Blue Max" > wrote in
s.com:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> arthlink.net...
>>
>> "The Blue Max" > wrote in message
>> s.com...
>> >
>> > Well, there was the Zero for one.
>> >
>>
>> Nope.
>
> The IJA didn't use the Zero? Crumbs. I stand corrected.

Their equivalent timeline wise was the Nakajima Ki-43
Hayabusa. Not something you'd want to dogfight either
but less heavily armed than the Zero.
Speedwise I think the Hurricane was marginally faster.

IBM

__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Thomas Schoene]

"Eric Moore" > wrote in message
om
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
> message >...
> > "JDupre5762" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Did the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force and the Imperial
> > > Japanese Navy
> > Air
> > > Force operate any of the same make of aircraft? It seems to me
> > > that that
> > at
> > > least with some combat aircraft the two services might have
> > > economically
> > > ordered from the same production lines and saved some money and
> > > opened up
> > some
> > > factories for producing more of other types of aircraft?
> > >
> > > John Dupre'
> >
> > The IJN and the Japanese Army were deadly rivals in the power
> > struggles that characterised Japanese politcs of the 20's, 30's and
> > 40's its unlikley they would ever co-operate on anything.
> >
> > That said the requirements of shipborne aircraft tend to vary from
> > those
> > of land based aircraft and the USN and USAAF used different aircraft
> > too as did the RAF and FAA.
> >
> > Keith
>
>
> "Deadly rivals"? Did the Army and IJN do assassinations on each
> other
> or something?

Something fairly close to it. Right-wing Japanese nationalists aligned with
parts of the Imperial Japanese Army had been using assasination and threats
of violence against political leaders thoughout the 1930s. In roughly
1940-41, Admiral Yamamoto was rumored to be a target of assasination
efforts for arguing against war with the United States. In some versions of
the story, that's how he ended up in command of the Japanese fleet in
December 1941; his bosses decided he was safer at sea than in a Tokyo
office.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Yann D]

Only a handful of acft were used by navy and army :
Mitsubishi Ki-15=C5M and another one I can't remember.
But they used many weapons and engines together even if called differently
(Nakajima NK1 Sakae = Ha-25 etc)
By the end of the war, at least engine numbering was standardized.

> Did the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force and the Imperial Japanese Navy
Air
> Force operate any of the same make of aircraft? It seems to me that that
at
> least with some combat aircraft the two services might have economically
> ordered from the same production lines and saved some money and opened up
some
> factories for producing more of other types of aircraft?

They should have and the war would have probably lasted longer.. 'hopefully'
rivalry was huge btw navy and army.

[Yann D]

The Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa 'oscar' was very similar in shape, and also used
the same engines but was lighter an carried very light armament.
Even the military intelligence thought for a long time they were the same,
but they are not, definitely !


> > Did the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force and the Imperial Japanese Navy
> Air
> > Force operate any of the same make of aircraft? It seems to me that
that
> at
> > least with some combat aircraft the two services might have economically
> > ordered from the same production lines and saved some money and opened
up
> some
> > factories for producing more of other types of aircraft?
>
> Well, there was the Zero for one.

[Cub Driver]

>Did the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force and the Imperial Japanese Navy Air
>Force operate any of the same make of aircraft?

As a rule, no. The requirements were quite different up to 1941, when
they sudden moved closer together. (That's why the Nakjima Ki-43
Hayabusa was suddenly yanked off the shelf and put into service: the
army was told that it required a 500-mile-range fighter for the Malaya
invasion.)

I think both services operated Japan-built DC-2s and 3s, but even here
I think of the Douglases as navy planes. The army used a Japan-built
Lockheed Super Electra for dropping paratroops, and used bombers for
heavy cargo.

Army planes had French throttles: you pulled the throttle toward you
for full power; the navy followed English-American style. So it would
take some retraining before a pilot could fly an airplane from the
other service.

Army and navy radios couldn't communicate with one another. An army
machine-gun bullet wouldn't fit a navy machine gun nominally of the
same caliber. They made the famously contentious U.S. army and navy
look like models of interservice cooperation.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Cub Driver]

>Well, there was the Zero for one.

The A6M Zero wasn't in service with the Japanese army air force.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Cub Driver]

>The Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa 'oscar' was very similar in shape, and also used
>the same engines

In fairness to the army plane, the Hayabusa came first. The army
turned it down because of its perceived weaknesses in dogfighting.

Then the Zero was having trouble meeting specifications. So Mitsubishi
ditched its engine and borrowed the one Nakajima had developed for the
Hayabusa, and which of course was available since the Ki-43 wasn't
going into production.

Then came 1941 and the Malaya invasion plans. The army dusted off the
Ki-43, solved its slow-speed maneuver problem with "butterfly" flaps,
and put it into production. Only 100 had been built by Dec 7/8, and
only two fighter groups had been equipped with it.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Leadfoot]

>
> Something fairly close to it. Right-wing Japanese nationalists aligned
with
> parts of the Imperial Japanese Army had been using assasination and
threats
> of violence against political leaders thoughout the 1930s. In roughly
> 1940-41, Admiral Yamamoto was rumored to be a target of assasination
> efforts for arguing against war with the United States. In some versions
of
> the story, that's how he ended up in command of the Japanese fleet in
> December 1941; his bosses decided he was safer at sea than in a Tokyo
> office.
>

To be precise. safer on the Battleship Yamato, which he used as his HQ



> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
>
>
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"av8r" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > The IJN and the Japanese Army were deadly rivals in the power
> > struggles that characterised Japanese politcs of the 20's, 30's and
> > 40's its unlikley they would ever co-operate on anything.
>
> Hi Keith
>
> The J.N.A.F. and J.A.A.F. did in fact co-operate out of necessity. The
> Mitsubishi J8M1 Shusui (Rigorous Sword) short-range interceptor was a
> prime example. The rocket propelled aircraft was based broadly on the
> Messerschmitt Me-163B Komet design, as the Japanese only had one simple
> instruction manual to use as a guide.
>
> The J.A.A.F. recieved a samll number of MXY7 Akigusa (Autumn Grass)
> gliders that had been built by the Maeda Koku Kenkyusho company to be
> used as trainers for the J8M1.
>
> The J.A.A.F. designation for their development of the J8M1 was Ki.200.
> After the Army Aero-Technical Research Institue (Rikugan Kokugijutsu
> Kenkyujo)got involved, it was developed as the Ki.202.
>
> There were five prototypes of the J8M1 built, but only the first one
> built flew. It made its maiden flight at Yokosuka Naval Aeronautical
> Engineering Arsenal on the 7th of July 1945. It crashed after reaching
> an altitude of 1,300 feet in a steep climb. It was determined that the
> accident was a result of the rocket motor failing. The hydrogen
> peroxide shifted to the rear of the partially empty tank which in turn
> cut off the fuel supply, and owing to air entering a fuel pipe and
> causing a blockage.
>
> Although the J.A.A.F. chose the aircraft as the priority interceptor
> project, no prototype was completed by the time Japan surrendered.
>
> Cheers...Chris
>

Right but that was at the end of the war when all else had failed
for most of the time they were deadly rivals. Yamamoto had to
be sent back to sea in 1941 to avoid assassination by the army !

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eric Moore" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "JDupre5762" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Did the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force and the Imperial Japanese
Navy
> > Air
> > > Force operate any of the same make of aircraft? It seems to me that
that
> > at
> > > least with some combat aircraft the two services might have
economically
> > > ordered from the same production lines and saved some money and opened
up
> > some
> > > factories for producing more of other types of aircraft?
> > >
> > > John Dupre'
> >
> > The IJN and the Japanese Army were deadly rivals in the power
> > struggles that characterised Japanese politcs of the 20's, 30's and
> > 40's its unlikley they would ever co-operate on anything.
> >
> > That said the requirements of shipborne aircraft tend to vary from those
> > of land based aircraft and the USN and USAAF used different aircraft
> > too as did the RAF and FAA.
> >
> > Keith
>
>
> "Deadly rivals"? Did the Army and IJN do assassinations on each
other
> or something?

Yes indeed they did, assassination was a prime tool of Japanese
politics of the time. Here are just a few incidents

May 15 "May Incident" (5.15)<Assassination of Prime Minister
Inukai Tsuyoshi by Navy-inspired extremists.

1934 Nov. "Military Academy Incident"<assassination and coup plot by cadets
discovered

1935 August General Nagata Tetsuzan cut down by a young army officer
1936 Feb. "February 26th Incident" (2.26)<led by junior field grade officers
in capital area with strong civilian inspiration seize area around Imperial
Palace and downtown Tokyo. PM Okada escaped, Grand Chamberlain Suzuki
wounded, Lord Privy Seal and former-PM Saitô and Finance Min. Takahashi
killed. Collapses after the Emperor demands they be labeled rebels and loyal
army units and the navy's big guns are arrayed against them. Most rebels
executed without public trial.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:qHOUa.18168$u51.6146@fed1read05...
> >
> > Something fairly close to it. Right-wing Japanese nationalists aligned
> with
> > parts of the Imperial Japanese Army had been using assasination and
> threats
> > of violence against political leaders thoughout the 1930s. In roughly
> > 1940-41, Admiral Yamamoto was rumored to be a target of assasination
> > efforts for arguing against war with the United States. In some
versions
> of
> > the story, that's how he ended up in command of the Japanese fleet in
> > December 1941; his bosses decided he was safer at sea than in a Tokyo
> > office.
> >
>
> To be precise. safer on the Battleship Yamato, which he used as his HQ
>

IRC his first flagship on returning to sea was the Nagato as the Yamato
was still fitting out.

Keith

[av8r]

Hi Keith

I realize this was a last ditch effort but it counters your claim that
they did not co-operate on anything.

Cheers...Chris

[Keith Willshaw]

"av8r" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Keith
>
> I realize this was a last ditch effort but it counters your claim that
> they did not co-operate on anything.
>
> Cheers...Chris
>

There are exceptions to every rule.

Keith

[av8r]

>
>
> There are exceptions to every rule.
>
> Keith

"Absolutely!!!"

[Vaughn]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> There are exceptions to every rule.

Even this one?


Vaughn

[Guy Alcala]

Cub Driver wrote:

> >The Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa 'oscar' was very similar in shape, and also used
> >the same engines
>
> In fairness to the army plane, the Hayabusa came first. The army
> turned it down because of its perceived weaknesses in dogfighting.
>
> Then the Zero was having trouble meeting specifications. So Mitsubishi
> ditched its engine and borrowed the one Nakajima had developed for the
> Hayabusa, and which of course was available since the Ki-43 wasn't
> going into production.

Dan, I recall reading an account by IIRR Horikoshi, who said that it was strongly
implied to them by the navy that they should use the Nakajima engine, if they
wanted to see the a/c put in production. Mitsubishi was planning to use their
own (slightly less powerful, but IIRR lighter) engine in the a/c, but the
Japanese had a military-industrial-political complex too. It didn't have
anything to do with a lack of performance according to him. I'll try and find
the book and refresh my memory.

Guy

[Keith Willshaw]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > There are exceptions to every rule.
>
> Even this one?
>

Especially this one :)

Keith

[KDR]

A small number of the Army's Type 4 Heavy Bomber 'Hiryu' was used by
the Navy under the name 'Yasukuni'.

http://www.wwiitech.net/main/japan/aircraft/ki-67/
http://www.214th.com/ww2/japan/ki-67/



(JDupre5762) wrote in message >...
> Did the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force and the Imperial Japanese Navy Air
> Force operate any of the same make of aircraft? It seems to me that that at
> least with some combat aircraft the two services might have economically
> ordered from the same production lines and saved some money and opened up some
> factories for producing more of other types of aircraft?
>
> John Dupre'

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

I am surprised no-one mentioned the Ki-100 (Dinah) - used by both
services although in small numbers, and also the Ki-49 Hiryu (Peggy),
used by both. Unless my memory is hideously deformed....
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Robert Inkol]

(JDupre5762) wrote in message >...
> Did the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force and the Imperial Japanese Navy Air
> Force operate any of the same make of aircraft? It seems to me that that at
> least with some combat aircraft the two services might have economically
> ordered from the same production lines and saved some money and opened up some
> factories for producing more of other types of aircraft?
>
> John Dupre'

I believe the Navy did use some of the Army's Ki-46 recce aircraft.
Also, the Ki-67 bomber was used as a torpedo bomber by the navy.
However, these were the exceptions to the rule. A further example of
inefficient duplication was that the two services had separate
programs for radar development.

Robert Inkol

[Bill Shatzer]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Gernot Hassenpflug wrote:

> I am surprised no-one mentioned the Ki-100 (Dinah) - used by both
> services although in small numbers,

The Ki.100 was NOT the "Dinah" - the "Dinah" was the Ki.46 and the
Ki.100 never received an allied code name although the Ki.100 was
a radial-engined development of the Ki.61 "Tony"

Neither the Ki.46, the Ki.61, or the Ki.100 was ever operated by
IJNAF units however. They were all IJAAF aircraft.

> and also the Ki-49 Hiryu (Peggy),
> used by both. Unless my memory is hideously deformed....

The Ki.49 had the allied code name "Helen". And was used exclusively
by IJAAF units.

The "Peggy" was the Ki.67 which -was- used in small numbers under
the designation "Yakakuhi" by the IJNAF. So far as I can tell,
all the aircraft operated by the IJNAF were transfers from the IJAAF
and none were purpose-built for the IJNAF

Cheers and all,

[Tony Williams]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> An army
> machine-gun bullet wouldn't fit a navy machine gun nominally of the
> same caliber.

There was just one exception; both services used the licence-built
German 7.92mm MG 15 flexible gun (although they used different
designations...).

What is even more suprising is the lack of standardisation WITHIN each
service. I put a photo in 'Flying Guns: WW2' showing all of the
different aircraft ammo of up to 20mm which they used in service; the
IJN used five different calibres, the IJA used six, and the only
common element was the 7.92x57. There were also three different 30mm,
three different 37mm...

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[Keith Willshaw]

"Gernot Hassenpflug" > wrote in message
...
> I am surprised no-one mentioned the Ki-100 (Dinah) - used by both
> services although in small numbers, and also the Ki-49 Hiryu (Peggy),
> used by both. Unless my memory is hideously deformed....
> --
> G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan


It is

The Ki-100 was a Ki-61-II with a 1500 hp Mitsubishi Ha-112-II
radial engine and was definitely an army aircraft

The Ki-46 Dinah was also an army aircraft as was the
Ki-49 Helen

The Ki-67 Peggy was designed for the Japanese air force
but was used by the IJN albeit in small numbers, first being
used by them in the attacks against the US 3rd fleet off
Formosa in late 1944.

Keith

[Yann D]

> Then the Zero was having trouble meeting specifications. So Mitsubishi
> ditched its engine and borrowed the one Nakajima had developed for the
> Hayabusa, and which of course was available since the Ki-43 wasn't
> going into production.

Well, this engine was also used by many other aircrafts (Ki-45 Kai b/c,
B5N2, J1N1 etc..)

[Cub Driver]

Well, it was BuAer that decided, of course. But BuAer's first engine
for the Zero was the Mitsubishi Zuisei 13. It had so many problems
that after the first two prototypes the Nakajima Sakae 12 was
substituted for it. The decision was made on May 1, 1939, according to
MIkesh's book on the Zero. The first flight had been a month earlier.

So only the first two Zeros were A6M Model 11. The first number stands
for the engine, so the third prototype and the production models were
A6M Model 21. (As is so often the case with Japanese aircraft, you can
baffle folks even further by calling them A6M1 and A6M2.)

These prototypes went into service with the Japanese navy. Can you
imagine that happening today?

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:02:29 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>Cub Driver wrote:
>
>> >The Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa 'oscar' was very similar in shape, and also used
>> >the same engines
>>
>> In fairness to the army plane, the Hayabusa came first. The army
>> turned it down because of its perceived weaknesses in dogfighting.
>>
>> Then the Zero was having trouble meeting specifications. So Mitsubishi
>> ditched its engine and borrowed the one Nakajima had developed for the
>> Hayabusa, and which of course was available since the Ki-43 wasn't
>> going into production.
>
>Dan, I recall reading an account by IIRR Horikoshi, who said that it was strongly
>implied to them by the navy that they should use the Nakajima engine, if they
>wanted to see the a/c put in production. Mitsubishi was planning to use their
>own (slightly less powerful, but IIRR lighter) engine in the a/c, but the
>Japanese had a military-industrial-political complex too. It didn't have
>anything to do with a lack of performance according to him. I'll try and find
>the book and refresh my memory.
>
>Guy

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Cub Driver]

>A small number of the Army's Type 4 Heavy Bomber 'Hiryu' was used by
>the Navy under the name 'Yasukuni'.

That's the equivalent of naming an aircraft Arlington National
Cemetery! Not a very cheerful prospect for the crew.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Guy Alcala]

Cub Driver wrote:

> Well, it was BuAer that decided, of course. But BuAer's first engine
> for the Zero was the Mitsubishi Zuisei 13. It had so many problems
> that after the first two prototypes the Nakajima Sakae 12 was
> substituted for it. The decision was made on May 1, 1939, according to
> MIkesh's book on the Zero. The first flight had been a month earlier.
>
> So only the first two Zeros were A6M Model 11.

Should read A6M1 Model 11.

> The first number stands
> for the engine, so the third prototype and the production models were
> A6M Model 21.

According to my source (see below), they were A6M2 Model 11s. The engine doesn't
necessarily determine a change in "M" number: The A6M5 used the Sakae 21, the same as
the A6M3 Model 32 and 22.

> (As is so often the case with Japanese aircraft, you can
> baffle folks even further by calling them A6M1 and A6M2.)

The only source I have handy, Caidin's Ballantine Book "Zero Fighter" (so take it
FWIW), says that they built 64 A6M2 Model 11s. The Model 21, unlike the Model 11, had
folding tips. The Model 11 was the version used in China in 1940, and according to
him the last one rolled off the line in November 1940.

Guy

[KDR]

Wasn't it suicidal anyway?
A big, fat bomber with an underslung torpedo flying a steady course...
An excellent target for AA fire in late 1944.



Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >A small number of the Army's Type 4 Heavy Bomber 'Hiryu' was used by
> >the Navy under the name 'Yasukuni'.
>
> That's the equivalent of naming an aircraft Arlington National
> Cemetery! Not a very cheerful prospect for the crew.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
> Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Walt BJ]

FWIW the Japanese Army did have its own Navy - they even designed,
built, and operated submarines, albeit for supply, not combat. No
torpedos. Yu1 and Yu1001 classes. J-Army also had 28 LST-type ships.
Walt BJ

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Cub Driver > writes:

>>A small number of the Army's Type 4 Heavy Bomber 'Hiryu' was used by
>>the Navy under the name 'Yasukuni'.
>
> That's the equivalent of naming an aircraft Arlington National
> Cemetery! Not a very cheerful prospect for the crew.

I don't know, Yasukuni is a well-established name in Japanese history
and shinto, and the fact that one shrine is famous in its association
does not give it the same connotations as the ANC (which for me, as a
South African, has other associations too!). Yasukuni basically means
peaceful country, and it is a noble name. Japanese people nowadays
might associate Yasukuni-jinja with war criminals, but just yasukuni
is often found in literature, and in religious and historical texts.

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan