Japanese Army Navy

"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

"The Blue Max" wrote in message
s.com...

Well, there was the Zero for one.


Nope.

"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

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.

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.

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

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

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 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

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..)