Fairchild, Pratt & Whitney, and Chevy too!

[Colonel Sanders]

Recently my government class got to meet a Libertarian. The man in person seemed amazingly smart, and he brought up three specific issues about World War Two.

1) He said that Chevrolet trucks were used by Japan to invade China.

2) He said that Pratt & Whitney engines were used in early Japanese fighter planes.

3) Perhaps worst of all, he claimed that Fairchild made a design for a fighter, the U.S. department of defense didn't want to buy the plane, so they told Fairchild they could sale the design to anyone they wanted to... And Fairchild, not knowing much about the war about to start, sold the design to Japan where it was renamed the "Mitsubishi Zero".

These to me, seem like impressive offenses. So far, I have found nothing supporting this on the internet, but I do trust the source(I also know the man personally). I was wondering if anyone here had heard any such facts about history, or what your opinion of these facts are, truth or lies?

TIA, L J

[crjdriver]

Early Imperial Japanese Naval aircraft used Hispano-Suiza engines. I have no knowledge of whether or not Chevy trucks were used to invade China. It must be remembered that Japan was an ally of the U.S in the First World War It is normal for allies to trade with each other. It was not until the early 1930s that relations were strained with the Japanese [due to the aforementioned China “Incident”]

The A6M [Zero] was designed for a specific purpose and I doubt that the design was copied by Mitsubishi. I have no direct knowledge of this however.

[Blakhart]

He should have said something about the Ford involvement with Germany in WWII.

[Colonel Sanders]

lol, maybe that is why he drives a dodge pick-up?

So Blakhart, have you heard any of the things I listed above, or do you think they might have occured?

crjdriver- I didn't say the design was stolen, I said that it was purchased from a U.S. company because the U.S. didn't buy the design. I also doubt trade continued till near the beginning of WW2, possible but I doubt it.

L J

[Blakhart]

I doubt the zero was designed by Fairchild, I think they (Fairchild) were into metal skins long before then. The fabric and wood construction of the zero lent itself to good performance, at the beginning of the war.

I am more interested in why "they" "let" Pearl Harbor happen when they had broken the Japanese code some time before...

[crjdriver]

[i]
crjdriver- I didn't say the design was stolen, I said that it was purchased from a U.S. company because the U.S. didn't buy the design. I also doubt trade continued till near the beginning of WW2, possible but I doubt it.

L J [/B]

Trade with the Japanese actually continued [in a ever decreasing amount] until July 1941 when FDR cut off oil shipments to the Japan. His intent was to cut off the shipment of high octane fuel for aviation use, however the order was misunderstood and all fuel shipments were halted. After the mix up it was thought that backpedaling and allowing the shipment of say heating oil would make us look weak in the eyes of the Japanese. It was the lack of oil [among many other things] that solidified the decision for war [on the part of the Japanese]

Want to guess what country did the most trade with France in the late 1930s? The answer is Germany.

WWII [and its causes] is an extremely complex subject. In order to study WWII one needs to understand why wars are fought. No country ever fought a war for a moral purpose, it just does not happen. Even the Civil war was not fought to free the slaves; it was fought to decide political sovereignty ie states or federal govt. It was fought to decide if we would have an agrarian economy with low tariffs or a manufacturing economy with high tariffs. In short wars are fought for political power, territory, trade, and the most common cause of all, money.

[Prew]

This site has info on Japanese WWII aircraft: http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/ijnaf.htm

I didn't see anything here to support the speakers views. Looks like most of the powerplants were made by Mitsubishi. However, at the very beginning of the war, it would be possible that the Japanese had American made engines- but after the war started the Japanese made their own.

[glc]

Without knowing any specific facts, I can make a supposition. The Japanese are, and always have been, excellent copycats (as are the Chinese and Koreans - but that's a whole other story). They can take someone else's design and find a way to build it better than the original designer can.

I would believe that they used Toyota (Nissan, whatever) trucks based on a GM (Ford, Dodge, whatever) design. I'd also believe that they used Mitsubishi aircraft engines based on a P&W (or Hispano-Suiza, for that matter) design. Same goes for the Fairchild design - I doubt that it was sold to Mitsubishi - I'd bet that it was "obtained" and copied. The United States and Germany were at the forefront of mechanical design in that era.

I support Libertarian principles, but I'm going to guess that this person is just stirring up conspiracy theories for whatever reason - personal political gain, maybe?

[mbossman2]

its funny, the Zero, while being highly manueverable, was a diffirent in design philosophy than the USA fighters of the time.

the Zero lacked the armor and resealable fuel tanks that american designs called for.

The contemporaries of the Zero were the american P-40 Warhawk and Grumman Wilcat F4F. Compared to the Zero, they were slow in level filght, had a poor climbing rate, not very manueverable and underarmed, but in the hands of the right pilots and with correct tactics, they outclassed the zero in plane and pilot survivability.

History has shown that, if true that a US company sold the design to Nakajima and/or Mitsubishi, the US was correct in not accepting the design into the Air Corp or Naval arsenals.

this theory probably came into being based on the fact that US intelligence had the plans for this plane several years prior to WWII and did not provide any indication that the Japanese had such an advanced aircraft.

[bailey]

and you can take what glc and mossmas says to the bank, as they were there at that time.

[Colonel Sanders]

Originally posted by mbossman2
The contemporaries of the Zero were the american P-40 Warhawk and Grumman Wilcat F4F. Compared to the Zero, they were slow in level filght, had a poor climbing rate, not very manueverable and underarmed, but in the hands of the right pilots and with correct tactics, they outclassed the zero in plane and pilot survivability.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Zero un-matched during the first years of the war?

A lot of interesting points, I still wander about the design of the Zero.

Trade right up until the beginning of a war is something I wouldn't do, especially if you can listen to your trading partner talk about attacking you. But I guess that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

L J

[TwoRails]

If I remember correctly a TV show I saw on WWII aircraft, the Zero was indeed a handful for American fighters, and it was all Japanese in design.

Here's a history link on the Zero:

http://www.aviation-history.com/mitsubishi/zero.html

[glc]

Speak for yourself, bailey, ya old fart!

[Blakhart]

Cmon g, you know you flew with Bush Sr.
:D

[bailey]

LOL

[crjdriver]

Originally posted by Colonel Sanders
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Zero un-matched during the first years of the war?

L J
The A6M was an able dogfighter; a very maneuverable aircraft at low to middle altitudes. At high altitudes [above 25,000] and high indicated speeds it became difficult to maneuver. That is why U.S. tactics were to take the fight into the vertical. Its main advantage was its dogfighting ability and very good range. I have read of some missions were A6Ms escorted bombers over 500 miles; this at a time when a normal combat radius was <350 miles.

To say it was “unmatched” is an error. You must remember that the Japanese had been flying and fighting since the mid 1930s in China. Nothing takes the place of combat experience. Nothing. The Japanese A6M pilot had ample combat experience in the early part of the war. As the conflict lengthened the experience level decreased and with it the supposed “invincibility” of the A6M. That was evident after Midway when most of the experienced Japanese pilots died. From the battle of Midway [June 4-5 1942] until early to mid 1943 the same aircraft [F4Fs P40s] faced the A6M; the A6M was hardly “invincible” during this period. When the second generation fighters [F4U, F6F, P-38, P-51] came into use the A6M was hopelessly outclassed.

[Blakhart]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm f4u p38 p51...

[Colonel Sanders]

Woops, sorry about the hyphon... I knew there was something wrong with the way I said they were unmatched.

My point is that during the early years of WW2 the A6M was a VERY capable opponent, because of both the plane and the pilot.

[bailey]

man, I am amazed with all this knowledge based on the experience from having been there.

and I am a old fart ?

LOL

[mbossman2]

Early on in the war, the only "seasoned" combat pilots we had were a small group who fought in China as mercenaries (altho they were snactioned by FDR) in mid 1941(the American Volunteer Group, under the command of Claire Lee Chennault, better known as the Flying Tigers).

While in China prior to Pearl Harbor, the superior tactics they developed by General Chennault allowed them to hand the Japanese several stunning air losses (The AVG had several early losses as well until the pilots were able to "unlearn" their US combat training). Unfortunately their experience was not made available to the Air Corps until several months after Pearl Harbor as the existing USA commanders viewed these pilots as piriahs.

Very quickly after early air losses (caused mainly be inexperienced pilots and the focus on the weakness of the aircraft), the command structure of the Army Air Corps and Navy "saw the light" and swiftly included these pilots in their training and shortened up the learning curve and allowed the US to produce pilots who used the strengths of their aircraft, namely the heavier weight and increased diving speeds to their decisive advantage rather than view other flight characteristics as disadvantages.

Now of course, as the war progressed, the USA was able to develop planes that were more than a match for the Zeros, which effectively stopped any additional improvements just after the 2nd year of the war. At the end of the war, it was not only technical and numerical superiority, but also the overall quality of the pilots, that won the day.

[mbossman2]

Originally posted by Colonel Sanders
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Zero un-matched during the first years of the war?

A lot of interesting points, I still wander about the design of the Zero.

Trade right up until the beginning of a war is something I wouldn't do, especially if you can listen to your trading partner talk about attacking you. But I guess that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

L J

the main technical issue with the Zero was it's almost complete lack of armor over critical parts and pilot. While the plane itself was extremely fast and highly manueverable, the plan was a death trap for the pilot who got his plane caught in the blast of gun fire. With no armor around the gas tanks and minimal armor around the pilot, a well placed coconut could bring down the zero. the trick, of course, was to hit the zero.

[Colonel Sanders]

I don't think this shopuld be a question of which plane is better, just like Shermans took out Tigers, the A6M was a very tough opponent in the early years of WW2.

I still wander how it was really designed, I will have to talk some more to the person in question.

L J