Mitsubishi A6M2, IJN aircraft carriers "Jun'yo" and "Zuiho" - video

A nice clip today featuring Zeros and other aircraft types on the IJN aircraft carriers "Jun'yo" and "Zuiho". At first glance, it looks quite straightforward, but let's examine the various challenges regarding the date, place, and the depictions of the aircraft in the video.

We have identified the first aircraft carrier that appears in the video as "Jun'yo". She can't be "Jun'yo's" sister "Hiyo" because the aircraft tail markings don't indicate that as we will see in the following images. 

And the second as the carrier "Zuiho". The two carriers operated together in two instances: during the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands and during Operation "KE" - The Evacuation of Guadalcanal .

She can't be "Zuiho's" sister "Shoho" as she was sunk by American carrier aircraft on her first combat operation during the Battle of the Coral Sea on May 7, 1942.

The second Zero that takes off from "Jun'yo" has tail number "A2-2-157". Note the presence of the two red fuselage bands and that the fuselage hinomaru has a white border while the wing hinomaru don't. This detail indicates that it is a Nakajima-built Zero. Note the absence of IFF stripes.

Sidnei E. Maneta has depicted the aircraft like so (illustration from here) but unfortunately added IFF stripes.

The first A6M2 that takes off from "Jun'yo" also has some interesting features. The absence of a white border on the fuselage hinomaru indicates that it is a Mitsubishi-built A6M2. The tail marking is "A2-2-102", it has two red fuselage bands like the previously mentioned Zero and very importantly thick IFF stripes. As we saw in a post dedicated to them, all Japanese published sources agree that the official order to apply Identification Friendly or Foe (IFF) stripes on the wing leading edges of the Japanese aircraft, was given on October 5, 1942. Nevertheless, some aviation researcers/historians including Sidnei Maneta and the late David Aiken mention earlier dates like September 1942. According to "comninedfleet" "Jun'yo’s" air group was part of a major training exercise from September 14 until October 4, 1942 when it departed for Truk with a compliment of 21 A6M2s, 18 D3A1s and 9 B5N2s. In my opinion, if the IFF order was given in September, the crews would have plenty of time to apply IFF stripes to all their Zeros, not just to some.

HMM Ninomiya has included an illustration of that Zero in the 2010 Dai Nippon Kaiga book "The Imperial Japanese Navy Group" by Hata & Izawa but unfortunately he neglected to add the IFF stripes.

Akimoto and initially Hata & Izawa were not aware of the "A2-2-xxx" marking as having been adopted by the "Jun'yo" air group and the latter in their older publications (including the English version released by the "Naval Institute Press") mention only the tail marking "DII-xxx" as belonging to the carrier's group. As we saw, in the DNK publication above, Hata & Izawa have included the "A2-2-xxx" marking and mention that it was adopted in November 1942.

In his forum, Sidnei Maneta agrees and explains:

"On the 1st of November 1942 the tail codes and fuselage markings of 3rd Fleet were again revised.

Tail codes for the 1st Carrier Division were:

Shokaku A1-1-xxx with one white fuselage band with red edges.

Zuikaku A1-2-xxx with two white fuselage bands with red edges.

Zuiho A1-3-xxx without fuselage bands.

Tail codes for the 2nd Carrier Division were:

Hiyo A2-1-xxx with one red fuselage band.

Junyo A2-2-xxx with two red fuselage bands."

I'm afraid I have not found so far any other Japanese publication that mentions the November 1 date and the attached photo from Koku Fan Illustrated #53 complicates things. 

According to the caption, the pilot on the right is Ace PO2C Banno Takao (we can't read properly the name of the pilot on the left), the date is October 1942 and the location is Saeki. This fits perfectly with the previously mentioned date and place from the combined fleet, when "Jun'yo" took part in "a major training exercise" off Saeki before leaving for Truk. Therefore, based on this information, the conclusion is that the "Jun'yo" air group adopted the "A2-2-xxx" tail marking at least a month earlier, from October 1942.

Taking all into account, the video was shot either right before the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands October 25, and therefore the November 1 date for the marking change is questionable, or during Operation "KE" - The Evacuation of Guadalcanal January 14 which fits with the November 1 date but not with the photo caption and the fact that by then all Zeros would have IFF stripes.

Another possibility could be that the video was shot during the Naval exercise off Saeki. That would also put the November 1 date in doubt, would explain the IFF stripe applied only on some aircraft, although the exercise ended on October 4 and the IFF order was given the next day October 5. It also more possible the news crew to visit the ships during excercises than right before a major battle of which they shot nothing.

Finally, it could also have been shot in Truk. According to combinedfleet, "Jun'yo":

"9 October 1942: Arrives at Truk. Assigned to Main Unit Advance Force (CarDiv 2, Third Fleet).

11 October 1942: Departs Truk in the preliminaries to the Battle of Santa Cruz"

And so, the October 5 date for the application of IFF stripes can be explained and the setting of the video fits but then the November 1 date for the tail markings is in doubt.

Zbyszek Malicki noticed that the Zeros have small bombs under their wings.

Training bombs and further evidence for the Saeki exercise date?

Artist - Vladimir Martinicky (11)

Vladimir Martinicky from Slovakia, sent over artwork he created for the Tainan Kokutai Mitsubishi A6M3 "Hamp" we featured in the Ferbuary 10 post.

Moc ďakujem.

Half-and-half China Zeros - follow up

Last Friday, 13, I posted the "Half-and-half China Zeros, The "Third Way"" on our Facebook page and there was a heated debate in the comments. Allow me to recap and evaluate the various hypotheses regarding these Zeros, some put forward by the commentators. A big shout-out to our friend Shawn Lydic whose passion, knowledge and dedication I’m sure we all respect and appreciate even if we don’t always agree on everything.

So, in Friday’s post I mentioned that reasons that have been put forward at various times for the “half-and-half Zeros” include experiments with colors and the application of primer on the front section only. Although entirely plausible, these hypotheses rely on no material evidence to corroborate these claims. They are only attempts to explain a phenomenon (“it could be this or that or something else”). There are no relics, official manufacturer reports, veteran memoirs or other evidence to confirm either of the two explanations. It doesn't mean they are not valid, it's just that they are only conjectures.

The other hypothesis was put forward by Asano-san and was supported by Shawn Lydic in Friday’s comments. The suggestion is that the repeated shielding of the aircraft's most delicate areas, such as the cockpit and the engine, with tarpaulins led to an uneven fading of the color across the other top surfaces. Unlike the previously mentioned explanations, this hypothesis relies on photographic material that may or may not prove its validity. Asano-san clearly explained that the same photos in different publications with less contrast, suggest that the fading was not excessive as has been depicted in artwork and that the lines between the two different “shades” are not “sharp edged and perfect”.

The "tarpaulin proposal" has several advantages but also presents numerous challenges. To begin with, as you can see in the attached photos

various kinds of tarpaulin were used by the IJNAF to protect the aircraft, which means we would expect to see Zeros with a variety of fading patterns. Not to mention that many other IJNAF aircraft types were protected by tarpaulins but do not show any paint differences. Another strong argument is that no Zeros on other fronts show this different pattern. Half-and-half Zeros could be found only in China. Although we can’t exclude completely the fact that such aircraft may have existed, there is simply no photographic evidence to support this claim.

But note the port wingtip of this Zero. Why the difference? Is it a replacement part or something else is going on here?

I would also like to put forward the fact that aircraft carrier based Zeros also used tarps to protect them from the elements

but, again, we have no photos of half-and-half carrier based Zeros. We don’t even have half-and-half later type Zeros or even half-and-half green-top Zeros during the last years of the war when we know the paint quality had degraded and tarps were still in use. In other words, the locality and the limited range of the phenomenon suggest that it is not a naturally occurring and widespread one.

On top of that, photos included in Sakai Saburo's "Ozora no Samurai - The photo story of Japan's greatest living Zero fighter" show clear demarkation and sharp edges.

Shawn mentioned in some of his comments that the pilot and ground crew members when they got in contact with these areas they naturally buffeted the paint and therefore we see this contrast between the buffeted and un-buffeted areas. Although again plausible, this suggestion cannot be supported by the fact that almost the whole inner half of the wing looks to be darker than the rest (see again top photo) and Shawn very strongly explained that the ground crews did not step on these areas. In other words, we would expect only the front edge of the wing to have been buffeted. Also, the area behind the canopy is also suspicious since crews rarely touched it. In any case, if this was a common occurrence, we would expect to see more Zero photos with buffeted areas around the cockpit, which is not the case.

One of my all time favorite Zero photos. One that gives and keeps on giving. Why the rear of "R3-116" look like that? Compare it with "R3-132" in the background.

Another explanation that Shawn mentioned in a comment is that perhaps the rear part of the fuselage was a replacement from a different aircraft. Again, this suggestion cannot be thrown out of the window without further consideration since indeed the demarcation line between the front and rear “fading” falls exactly on the part where the front and rear fuselage could be separated for transportation etc. But, unfortunately, this suggestion cannot account for the color differences on the wing areas since the wing could not be separated on the demarcation line.

Is "3-176" a half-and-half Zero? Comparing it with the top photo, it looks like it could be one. Note the demarcation lines. Why is the fuselage line in different position than the other half-and-half Zeros?

On Friday, I put forward another hypothesis that was relayed to me by a Japanese researcher, that the front of these Zeros was a testbed for some short of anti-slippery application, either something in the paint or a top coat. Regrettably some commentators rushed to fixate on the “top coat” wording and completely or partially dismissed this suggestion. Some suggested that if there was a “top coat” it would have been already found on the surviving relics. First of all, I’m not sure if anyone has ever checked their “surviving relics” to see if the paint had any anti-slippery properties and second, AFAIK unfortunately no relics have survived of these half-and-half Zeros based in China; so I fail to understand what relics they refer to. Furthermore, I can’t even imagine how poor our Japanese aviation history would be if we relied exclusively on relics. But I guess that’s just me.

Contrary to this rather negative approach, Jacek Makarewicz, posted the following more constructive comment, which made this suggestion even more plausible:　

“The anti-skid layer is definitely the most logical justification for the Zero's two-tone color scheme. But only in combination with the type of exhaust manifold used. In early versions of the A6M, exhaust gases were directed OVER the wing, and because the engine “spat oil,” the area around the wings near the fuselage and the sides of the fuselage near the cockpit were “more than slippery,” which was dangerous for the pilot and maintenance personnel. Therefore, paint with an “anti-slip additive” was used in these areas. The exhaust was quickly redesigned and the exhaust gases were directed UNDER the wing, thus cleverly solving the problem and completely removing the “anti-slip additive” from use.”

I would also like to add that contrary to what was relayed to me, an official adaptation of such an “anti-slippery” coat or addition to the paint to cover the whole of the aircraft, would make areas not in need of such properties covered with such paint, like the wing under surfaces or the tail of the aircraft. And the whole exercise would end up being a waste of resources. 

In conclusion, the "anti-slippery suggestion" is the only one that has the potential to receive some official confirmation and perhaps become a theory (in the scientific sense) IF we ever see an article by Wataki-san explaining in great detail exactly who said what or perhaps some other kind of evidence that would support this claim.  (and, yes, in case you didn't get it, this is a call for him or other Japanese researchers to share with us their knowledge) For the moment, for me, it is just another hypothesis like all the previous ones and I leave it to our readers to judge if “someone is pulling someone's chain” (as someone exclaimed in the comments) or not.

Half-and-half China Zeros, The "Third Way"

In a small number of early production Zeros that operated on the China front, the front half appears darker when compared with the rest of the fuselage. This can also be observed on about half of the wing top surfaces.

A case of a half-and-half Zero, where the contrast between the front and back sections of the fuselage is more apparent. In the majority of the other pictures, the difference is more subtle. According to the caption, the aircraft belonged to the 2nd Kokutai and the tail number was “3-I 82”.

An illustration by Nohara Shigeru featured in FAOW #55, shows the Zero flown by many pilots including Lt. Suzuki Minoru having this half-and-half effect.

Reasons that have been put forward at various times include experiments with colors and the application of primer on the front section only. Asano Yuichiro in Issue #5 of our Arawasi Magazine, offered a different explanation. After having seen photos of Zeros covered by protective tarpaulins, he proposed that the repeated shielding of the aircraft's most delicate areas, such as the cockpit and the engine, led to an uneven fading of the color across the other top surfaces.

A 3rd Kokutai Zero with some areas of the fuselage covered with tarpaulins. Koepang Airfield, Timor, March 1942.

A couple years ago, I had the privilege of having a casual discussion with an elderly Japanese aviation researcher. He spoke in a formal and somewhat technical manner in Japanese, but my proficiency in the language allowed me to grasp most of what he said.

During our conversation about this and that, he explained that after he saw Asano-san's article on a Japanese blog, he conducted a "Mitsubishi guy" (a part I couldn't understand, likely someone connected to the manufacturing or painting of the Zero) he knew and asked for his thoughts on the subject. The "Mitsubishi guy" clearly stated that none of these explanations were accurate (the original Japanese word he used was a lot more "colorful" and dismissive) and clarified that on a limited number of Zeros, a paint element or a top layer (another part I didn't get) with anti-slip characteristics was used in areas that were more frequently accessed by ground crews. These Zeros were dispatched to frontline units for evaluation, and given the positive outcomes, this anti-slippery..."thing" was officially applied on all surfaces of every Zero; hence, no more half-and-half Zeros can be seen afterward.

I asked the Japanese researcher if he would be willing to detail all this for our magazine in an article, in Japanese... even just a single page, but he responded, "I'll think about it" (which typically in Japanese means "no"). Now that I think about it, perhaps he was reluctant to reveal the name of his source.

So, there you have it. Another explanation, quite official I would say. I know it's rough information, not properly documented and substantiated, but I would just like to put it out there, hoping someone might provide additional insights.

Mitsubishi A6M3 "Hamp", Tainan Kokutai - follow up

Since I'm not a color expert, in a previous post I raised a certain question and Shawn Lydic took the time to answer it in a most clear and thorough manner. 

Our comment exchange was interesting enough to justify a separate post, and yes, I'm fully aware that to all "Zero Maniacs" out there this is a dead horse that has been beaten too many times; nevertheless, I believe there are many who would benefit from some clarification and new, to them, information.

Regardless you agree or not, please, appreciate Shawn's effort to share his knowledge with us and be respectful and polite in your comments, as you always are.

Here's my original photo caption and question:

Mitsubishi A6M3 Model 32, serial number 3028, tail code is "V-187", "Hokoku-870 Kogen-go", Tainan Kokutai. Buna Airfield, New Guinea.

Color, not colorized, photos by Lawrence J. Hickey.

Here's a question for the color experts (I'm not): if the overall "light mustard" or "gray green" or whatever, color has faded to look almost white in this photo, how come the yellow band or the "hokoku" inscription haven't faded too? (the hinomaru are known to be thoroughly painted and stay well-preserved, so I won't mention it)

Shawn Lydic replied:

To show you the true original A6M3 Zero model 32 paint color. Here is some original skin sections that were cut from this exact airframe.

Shawn continued:

Here is another example here in my collection of the original A6M3 Zero "J3 leaning towards Ameiro" exterior surface color. This section is from A6M3 Zero model 32 m/n.3148.

And I asked:

Any idea why the overall color looks like this in the color photo?

To which Shawn replied:

The "J3 leaning towards Ameiro" paint color, is the original A6M2/3 exterior paint color. This paint "oxidizes" quickly in sunlight and sea salt air environments. Which leaves a "whitish/grey" color haze, rough feeling texture to the paint surface. This "whitish" haze could be "buffed" off, back to a shine returning the "J3 leaning towards Amerio" paint color to it's original color.

I can turn this example I have here at a slightly different angle and you can see 👀 the whitish oxidation haze on a portion of my example. Once you hold an example in your hands. This oxidation that is a rough feeling "whitish/grey" haze, will be apparent. Then you will understand the misunderstanding created by this paint that quickly oxidized "whitish/grey".

Here is a photo taken with the flash, to capture the "whitish/grey" oxidation haze that has lead to a common misconception of the original true paint color.

Nicholas Millman wrote a very good book 📖 on the "Early A6M Zero paint color". Even showing how a section of this paint color appears before and after being "buffed" to remove the "whitish/grey" oxidation haze. I hope this explains this very misunderstood Early A6M Zero paint color.

Then I asked Shawn:

I see. So, if I understood you correctly, the original paint ""oxidizes" quickly in sunlight and sea salt air environments" and therefore it looks white-ish in the photo. This doesn't explain the condition of the yellow paint, though. The yellow paint didn't oxidize? And then what is the process to "buff off" the oxidized top layer(?) to show the "original" color? Rub it? Clean it with a solvent? Something else?

And Shawn replied:

yes.... Physical buffing/polishing removed the oxidation haze. The yellow paint band wouldn't oxidize. The yellow paint color would be derived from "yellow zinc chromate" pigments. Which yellow and white zinc chromate is used as a corrosion inhibitor in aircraft grade paints for both WWII Allied and Axis powers aircraft. German 7122 f.flieglack single coat paints are based on yellow and white zinc chromate. These pigment colors have to be "offset" with opposing colors to create the final shade desired. Any Green color paint that would include 25% yellow zinc chromate would have to offset that yellow with "Blue N.C.B." pigments. So.... Yellow paint doesn't oxidize in aviation grade paints, because it is derived from yellow zinc chromate.

Also:

Below is my perfect 👌 condition original example of the "J3 leaning towards Ameiro" paint color. This section was taken from the underside wing/fuselage surface from A6M3 Zero model 32 m/n.3148. This fuselage section sat on neutral PH volcanic ash, devoid of any U.V. Sunlight or water degradation. This example still has the original polished shine of the "J3 leaning towards Ameiro" Early A6M2/3 Zero paint color. There are not many better condition original paint examples remaining today.

Shawn added:

below is the original frame from an 8mm color film 🎥 🎞 taken of this A6M3 Zero model 32 "870". This film was damaged on the left edge. However this is truly the clearest color photo there is of this aircraft.

And finally:

here is 2 photos from 2 different angles and different light sources to show the "whitish/grey" oxidation haze.

Mitsubishi A6M3 "Hamp", Tainan Kokutai

Recently, some "US Army" or "USAF" photos were for sale on eBay, prompting me to compile all the photos I could find in my files on this Mitsubishi A6M3 Model 32, serial number 3028, belonging to the Tainan Kokutai.

The tail code is "V-187" and, according to Japanese sources, the yellow band indicated that it was flown by a "shotai-cho" (section leader).

The aircraft also carries the "hokoku" inscription "Hokoku-870 Kogen-go". Kiri spent quite some time investigating the inscription and she's positive that the plane was donated by the citizens of Kowon County, in South Hamgyong province, North Korea; not "by a civilian volunteer group in Japan" as some online sources claim. It is worth noting that other known "hokoku" aircraft with numbers close to "870" were also donated by groups in Korea; a Japanese colony at the time.  

The aircraft was found abandoned at Buna Airfield, New Guinea, and after its engine was sent to Australia where it was used to build a single A6M3 with tail code "EB-201", the rest gradually fell pray to souvenir collectors.

According to the original caption:

"Members of the 41st Division looking over Japanese Zero which was wrecked on the Old Jap[sic] Air Strip, Buna, Papua, New Guinea by bombing. 11 March 1943."

Color, not colorized, photos by Lawrence J. Hickey.

Here's a question for the color experts (I'm not): if the overall "light mustard" or "gray green" or whatever, color has faded to look almost white in this photo, how come the yellow band or the "hokoku" inscription haven't faded too? (the hinomaru are known to be thoroughly painted and stay well-preserved, so I won't mention it)

The Model 32 had significantly reduced range compared to the Model 21, making round-trip offensive operations from Rabaul to Guadalcanal impossible. The Tainan Kokutai primarily used it for combat operations in eastern New Guinea, particularly around Lae and Buna. This explains why most of the Zero fighters abandoned at Buna were Model 32s.

Edward has released a kit in 1/48 of this specific aircraft; check here . Box artwork by Piotr Forkasiewicz. 

Mitsubishi A6M "Zero", 201 Kokutai, Peleliu - video

A short video in color (not colorized) today, courtesy of our friend Patrice Fresnel, features a Mitsubishi A6M "Zero" captured by US forces on Peleliu Island. Only the rudder part of the tail marking is visible, but I believe it's the same aircraft seen in the photos below.

Therefore, the whole marking should be "1-01." It is not a common marking. Various kokutai occasionally used the "01-" as their tail marking, like the 501 Ku , the 701 Ku, and the 1001 Ku. I spotted a photo of a "Zero" on p. 62 of the book "Tatakau Zero Sen" (Fighting Zero Fighter), and on the tail, it sports the marking "1-114." The caption makes it clear that it was flown by the 201 Kokutai, and as a result, my conclusion is that the aircraft in the video most probably belonged to the same unit. The 201Ku has been recorded as using the tail markings "WI-" and "01-" by Akimoto and others, but not "1-." As you can see from the unit history below (from the Japanese Wikipedia ), Peleliu was the main base of the unit, and it fits with the time and place of the video.

Thank you Patrice for the most interesting video.

On 1 October 1939, the Chitose Kokutai was organised as a land-based attack aircraft unit, simultaneously incorporating an escort fighter squadron. From early 1941, ChitoseKu deployed to the Marshall Islands, tasked with being the first line of defence against American fleets approaching from Pearl Harbor. The fighter unit remained attached to the land-based attack squadron for an extended period, undertaking air defence duties over the Marshall Islands and the Gilbert Islands. 

On November 16, 1942, the exhausted ChitoseKu land-based attack squadron was ordered to return to the home islands. However, the fighter unit, lacking replacement personnel, was decided to remain in the Marshalls. Taking this opportunity, the fighter squadron was detached from the ChitoseKu on December 1, 1942, establishing the 201st Kokutai. Operating with 45 aircraft against an authorised strength of 60, it was assigned to the 24th Koku Sentai (Air Squadron) of the 11 Koku Kantai (Air Fleet) and was deployed to Roi-Namur Island in the Kwajalein Atoll, Wake Island, and Taroa in the Maloelap Atoll, continuing air defence of the Marshals. On December 23, 1942, 26 B-24s attacked Wake Island; two were shot down. 

On January 29, 1943, the Taroa detachment advanced to Nauru Island. On February 27, the 252nd Kokutai arrived at Roi-Namur and replaced the 201Ku, which was ordered to return to the home islands. Up until that time the 201Ku was equipped with Mitsubishi A5M "Claude" fighters which was deemed obsolete. 

In March, the 201Ku abandoned its "Claudes" for "Zeros", personnel and equipment alone were transported aboard the Fujikawa Maru and Naruto Maru, returning to Kisarazu Airfield.

On May 18, the 201Ku was transferred to the 24 Koku Sentai (Air Squadron) of the Northern Force's 12 Koku Kantai (Air Fleet) and engaged in reorganisation work at Kisarazu. However, following the US landing on Rendova Island in the Solomon Islands on June 30, 1943, and their shift to full-scale counteroffensive operations, the unit was ordered on July 1, to advance rapidly to Rabaul. On July 15, it was incorporated into the 21 Koku Sentai of the 11 Koku Kantai and an advance party of 34 aircraft arrived at Rabaul. The next day it advanced to Bougainville. On August 1, it escorted a convoy bombing squadron towards Rendova Island, conducting 11 sorties throughout August. On August 4, encountered enemy fighter squadrons over Munda and engaged in aerial combat. Subsequently, engaged enemy fighter squadrons over Munda on three occasions. On August 25, launched a raid on the Biloa position, on Vella Lavella Island. Subsequently, conducted two sorties to bombard the Biloa position. On September 1, incorporated into the 26t Koku Sentai of the 11 Koku Kantai. On September 15, "Operation Se" (withdrawal from Kolombangara Island) commenced. During this period, resumed assault operations against Biloa positions. On September 22, the Battle of Finschhafen commenced. Assaulted enemy landing fleet. On October 12, first air raid on Rabaul. Deployed full strength for air defence. On October 22, advanced to Buka. On November 1, "Operation Ro" commenced. Engaged in air defence duties in the Buka area until its conclusion on the 12th. On December 15, enemy transport convoy attacked; sortie also launched the following day. On December 27, assaulted Cape Gloucester. By January 1944, operational aircraft had gradually dwindled to just over 30. With the defence of Rabaul deemed hopeless and the counteroffensive in the Inner South Seas commencing, the 201Ku was ordered to withdraw to the Truk Islands and Saipan for air defence of the Inner South Seas.

In January 1944, Kwajalein Atoll, the original base of the 201Ku, fell. During that month, the main force withdrew via Truk Atoll to Saipan Island, becoming part of the air defence force for Truk and the Mariana Islands. The Saipan main force comprised 29 aircraft, while the Truk detachment had 8 aircraft. 

February 17, 1944: Truk Island air raid. The 8-aircraft detachment intercepted with full force, losing all aircraft. The main force of 24 aircraft advanced to Truk in preparation for the next air raid. 22 February: Mariana Islands air raid. The four aircraft left behind intercepted with full force, all were lost. 

March 4: The Central Pacific Area Fleet and 14 Koku Kantai were newly formed and placed under their command. The strength was greatly increased to 96 aircraft. As the first phase, the 204 Kokutai was disbanded and incorporated. 

March 10: The main force withdrew from Truk to Peleliu Airfield in the Palau Islands and engaged in reinforcement work. Withdrawal was completed by the 23rd. Some personnel were dispatched to Davao for receiving new aircraft and training. On March 29, the Palau Air Raid occurred. The remaining force intercepted with all strength, losing every aircraft. The 201Ku met with the tragic fate of its remnant forces being annihilated three times at three different bases, each time exploiting the absence of the main force. The 201Ku was finally destroyed. However, the unit was to be rebuilt by personnel dispatched to Davao and Kisarazu while Peleliu was unguarded. When the main force at Peleliu was destroyed, 99 aircrew remained at Davao, and 14 aircraft with personnel remained at Kisarazu. The unit's headquarters requested training at Kisarazu, but the Combined Fleet refused. The remnants of the 201Ku assembled at Davao and prepared for the next operation...

Mitsubishi Zero-sen, 381 Kokutai - video

An unbelievably clear video today featuring pilots, ground crews and Mitsubishi Zero fighters. 

The original is here. The narator speaks Indonesian, we tried to translate what he says and we were able to come up with this: 

"In one of the airforce stations of Dainippon [Great Japan], from sunset to sunset, we always hear the sound of a plane flying. Which shows that the members of the Dainippon Navy keep training enthusiastically."

So, unfortunately no exact location is mentioned. The unit is the 381 Kokutai as indicated by the number "81" on the tail marking of one of the Zeros, let's try to figure out where the video might have been shot from the unit's history.

The 381 Kokutai was organised on October 1, 1943, in Tateyama Airfield, Chiba Prefecture, and was incorporated into the 13th Air Fleet, 23rd Air Squadron. The unit was to be assigned to the protection of the Balikpapan oil fields of Borneo so, in early January 1944, an advance party of 10 aircraft deployed to Balikpapan Airfield.

On February 20, received 36 Zero fighters and 12 Nakajima J1N "Gekko" (Irving) night fighters from the 202nd Kokutai, which relocated to the Inner South Seas.

Around that time, the main force of the 381 was based at Kendari Airfield, Celebes Island, with detachments at Sumba Island, and Ambon Island. 

In early March, former seaplane fighter pilots were incorporated into the 381 following the disbandment of the fighter squadron of the 934th Kokutai.

On March 31, the 381 suffered casualties during "Operation Desecrate One" and relocated to Davao, Philippines.

On April 1, the unit organized three hikotai: the 602 Hikotai with 48 fighter-bombers with c/o Lt Kurosawa Takeo, the 902 Hikotai with 24 night fighters with c/o Lt Matsumura Hideo and the 311 Hikotai with 48 Zero Model 52 fighters with c/o Lt Kanzaki Kunio. 

On May 15, abandoned Kendari and the main force withdrew to Balikpapan, Borneo. 

The publication "Nankai No Umiwashi-tachi" (The Imperial Japanese Navy Air Groups in the Southwest Pacific Theater) by DaiNipponKaiga, features 381 Kokutai photos taken by photographer Abe Tetsuo when he visited Sorong base, West Papua in May 1944. While the earlier photos of 381Ku Zeros show bigger and more visible tail markings like the Zeros seen seen in the video, those aircraft featured in "Nankai", show a smaller tail marking placed higher on the tail. So, if these different tail markings is any indication then the video was shot sometime between January and May 1944, probably at Kendari Airfield, the main base of the unit. 

Let's see some stills.

The begining of the video features a Model 52 Zero, fresh out of the Mitsubishi factories, with tail marking "81-165". The same aircraft can be seen in a photo taken when the unit was based in Toyohashi base, Aichi Prefecture, before the unit was dispatched to Borneo.

Another Mitsubishi-built Model 52 has tail marking "81-171" and again can also be seen in Toyohashi.

A third Model 52 with tail marking "81-163", also seen in Toyohashi. All these photos indicate that the video was shot on a date close to the relocation from Toyohashi to Borneo and Celebes.

Note the very very interesting white wing tips on these Zeros, and how irregular they have been applied.

From 00:44 two pilots are seen playing "shogi".

The sign at 00:54 says "Kaigun Sentoki-tai Shikisho" (Navy Fighter Unit Headquarters).

Air Battle over Kyushu

In the previous post of this series, we "briefly" discussed the fierce air battle over South Kyushu on March 18, 1945. Since then, more details have been found thanks to our good friend Patrice Fresnel. We also dug up quite some information from Japanese sources that put the events of the day into order, at least for the fighter units and the shot down Vought F4U Corsair we saw in the previous post.
Here we go.

From Patrice (original post by Mark Herber):
"18 March 1945 (Lucky Day)
Love Day-14
Seventy-eight years ago today, Carrier Air Group EIGHTY-THREE (CVG-83) made their combat debut.
Essex's first two air groups (Nine and Fifteen) had been initiated with hit-and-run raids on Marcus and Wake Atolls, gaining “lower-stress” combat experience before major operations against the toughest targets. Some aviators of Air Group Four had previous combat experience in North Africa and Norway in USS Ranger (CV-4), and in the Philippines on Bunker Hill before boarding Essex.
But CVG-83's first combat missions were strikes on the Japanese Home Islands...
The new or reformed groups joining Eighty-three on this day were Five (Franklin), Six (Hancock), Ten (Intrepid), and Eighty-six (Wasp)...
By design, and like all of the air groups making their debut, Eighty-three’s compliment was leavened with combat veterans, and they could share their experiences and lessons with the rookies to try and bring them home in one piece...
Approximately 17 percent of the pilots had previous combat experience, most as pilots, and a few as ship’s company on surface combatants. For many—but not all—their first combat after forming as a group about ten-and-a-half months earlier was today. All that training would be put to the test...."

Quoting the VBF-83 Unofficial Memoirs:
"Prior to dawn on 18 March 1945, pilots were undergoing an internal struggle of mixed emotions as they assembled in Ready Room One. Each pilot knew his assignment and each pilot also realized that he was going to parade his might and aggressiveness over the Japanese Homeland. But, he was well prepared and very eager. Spirit was high and the Squadron clowns were having a field day with little digs and witticisms. The Skipper, Lt . Cdr. F. A. PATRIARCA requested order as he gave us a last-minute fight speech and a few words of wisdom. Signal, "Pilots man planes", saw all pilots who weren't flying making a gala appearance on the Bridge to see the Corsairs off the deck and on the way. Our slogan was, "Good luck and good hunting."
...As mentioned for the 17th, tensions for the task force increased the night before, when snoopers located TF 58, and Stembel opened fire before midnight. After a lull, condition one was set in Essex’s at 0305 until 0355, and again at 0452!
The accelerated, aforementioned zipper mission consisting of VF-83’s four-plane night fighter contingent launched around 0415 initiated the day’s sorties. One Night Hellcat had to turn back due to a loose hood (canopy), but the other three headed to Nittagahara Airfield in the dark, arriving and strafing before sunrise. Because of the light (or lack thereof), no damage was assessable by the aviators."

So, the first raid against Japanese positions started at 04:52. Let's see what Japanese sources say about that.
In "The fierce battle of the Japanese Air Force over the mainland - B-29s vs. the Japanese Air Force", Bungeisunju 2001, p.372, Watanabe Yoji mentions:
"The first to penetrate were night-fighting F6Fs accompanying a Type 1 land attack plane [Mitsubishi G4M "Betty"] returning from a reconnaissance mission...In the blink of an eye, the land attack plane ["Betty"] was shot down in night combat."

Following this (from Patrice):
"At 0552, VBF-83's first missions were launched, consisting of a task group (TG) combat air patrol (CAP), submarine CAP (SubCAP), and a fighter sweep to Karasahara, Nittagahara, and Tomitaka airfields. Unfortunately, the mission was fouled up from the get go due to a number of factors, with most of the Corsairs forming up on Lt.(jg) Warren O. Sigman, and only three forming up on Patriarca. Over Tomitaka, the Japanese had aircraft aloft, and some wild dogfights ensued. Eight Japanese aircraft were claimed destroyed. However, Sigman and Lt.(jg) W. F. Garner were missing afterwards.
The first victor was Lt.(jg) James C. Sakellariades, who was taken to the bridge after trapping to shake Rear Admiral Frederick C. Sherman's hand. “The Greek” was so excited with the victory that he hugged the battle-hardened admiral! “Sakes’s” fellow officers in the junior officers' bunk room teased him about hugging the admiral!"

Let's see what Japanese sources say:
""Senshi Sosho #17" mentions that "at 05:50, over Kasanohara [only localy known as "Kasanbara"; not "Karasahara" as mentioned in the previous source], 25 Zeros belonging to the "Sento 312" (312 Fighter Squadron) of the "203 Kokutai" (203 Air Group) took off and fought against F4Us over Kushira and Sakurajima."

In his article in MARU magazine, issue 557, October 1992, CPO Tanimizu Takeo who was with the 312 Fighter Squadron, mentions the following regarding the events of the day:
"As March began, even the previously calm South Kyushu began receiving standby orders. On the early morning of 18 March, while preparing for a reconnaissance mission based on intelligence, at 05:50, the order to form the first line was given simultaneously with the sound of gunfire and flames rising in the direction of Kagoshima. ‘Air raid! Take off!’ I shouted loudly, drawing on my experience from the battlefield. As I later learned, this was due to a surprise attack by enemy night fighters targeting reconnaissance aircraft returning to Kagoshima [Note again the mention of enemy night fighters intercepting Japanese aircraft on a reconnaissance mission]. Immediately, 25 Zero fighters Model 52, which had been on standby, took off.
However, since they were not accustomed to emergency takeoffs as a training unit, three aircraft were severely damaged during takeoff (two crew members were injured). I was on leave for treatment of otitis, so I was excluded from the intercept formation and assigned to ground command. At dawn, I could see two aircraft scattered to the left and three to the right at an altitude of 5,000 to 6,000 metres. I thought we needed to gather quickly and form a formation, so I issued instructions to each aircraft by radio, but they could not gather easily."

From the above it is clear that Tanimizu-san did not fly and did not actively participate in the air combat that day. 
Watanabe Yoji in the previously mentioned book mentions:
"At 5:40 a.m., at Kasanohara Base in Kagoshima Prefecture, Lt Hayashi Yoshihiro, commander of the 203rd Air Group's 312th Fighter Squadron, was delivering a pre-mission briefing before taking off on a reconnaissance mission... All aircraft immediately took off, but before they could gain altitude, the first wave of approximately 150 F4U fighters swept in from above, overwhelming them. Captain Hayashi was hit and parachuted out, sustaining injuries and being taken to the underground bunker at the airfield. For the captain, who had previously served as a squadron leader in a training unit, this was his first aerial combat. He reportedly lamented to his right-hand man, CPO Tanimizu Takeo, ‘If this is how my first battle goes, I'm finished for life.’ "

So, from the above we can conclude that Tanimizu-san did not shoot down anyone that day. The two Corsairs flown  by "Sigman and Lt.(jg) W. F. Garner" were shot down over Tomitaka, so they do not seem to have been shot down by 312 Fighter Squadron Zeros. More about the "Tomitaka Zeros" later.

Moving on (from Patrice):
"By 0630, the first strike was off, consisting of 16 VF, 13 VB, and 15 VT, to hit Nittagahara again. There were three airborne Japanese aircraft in the area, but none approached. Unfortunately, the bombers were rusty and encountered strong (40 knot plus) winds, and results were not what was expected after their months of intense training (and lack of a "warm-up" strike). The pilots had to be impressed to "pick the specific hangar and then a specific nail in its roof."
Sadly, one of the VT-83 Avengers (BuNo 68388), flown by Ens. John L. Kiernan, with gunner William E. Parsons, Jr., ARM3c, lost its wings in a dive--a rare case of a structural failure by a licensed product of the Grumman Iron Works."

"Senshi Sosho #17" mentions that:
"At 06:25, 25 Zeros from the "Sento 303" (303 Fighter Squadron) of the "203 Kokutai" (203 Air Group), split into two groups took off from Kanoya on patrol, when they encountered 15-16 F6Fs ensuing in air battle. The Japanese forces claimed three F6F shot down while admiting to having seven of their own aircraft damaged."

Tanimizu-san remembers:
"Around 0700, a combined enemy fighter and bomber force of approximately 250 aircraft attacked, and our forces engaged in combat with about 30 enemy fighters over various areas including Kushira, Kasanohara, Sakurajima, and Kanoya. The results were one F6F shot down, but LTJG Yabe Yasuji, PO1c Yamaguchi Iwao, and CPO Yukitake Yoshihiro(?) were listed as missing in action. Additionally, during this intercept mission, Squadron Leader Hayashi was hit in aerial combat over Sakurajima, parachuted, but was admitted to the infirmary at Kasanohara Base with burns. The other interceptor aircraft landed at Izumi Base and Kokubu Base, and conducted air patrols over Kagoshima and Kasanohara. No aircraft returned to Kasanohara Base. The enemy's combined fighter-bomber attack destroyed the first barracks and the third and sixth hangars at Kasanohara Base, and fuel drums stored in the open were hit."

Pilots of the 312 Fighter Squadron, in February 1945. The 203 Kokutai was a newly reorganized unit with only a handful pilots having combat experience. Photo credit: MARU #557

Pilots of the 303 Fighter Squadron of the 203 Kokutai, in June 1945. Photo credit: MARU #557

Let's turn our attention to the "Tomitaka Zeros".
Tomitaka Airfield was the base of the "Sento 306" (306 Fighter Squadron) and "Sento 307" of the 712 Kokutai (712 Air Group) a.k.a. "Jinrai Butai", the famous unit equipped with "Ohka". But these fighter squadrons were equipped with Zeros and had altogether 64 aircraft on standby. As of this post, we have not found detailed accounts of the battles of these two fighter squadrons.

The Action Report of VBF83 mentions:
"Course was set for Tomitaka. At 1550 when about 30 miles from TOMITAKA; nine Zekes were called by the sweep leader. They were in 3-3 plane sections, 5000f above. A high speed climb was begun, to even the altitude. They apparently didn't see the F4U’s, as they continued level flight, not maneuvering for better visibility, and drifted away to the south. One bomb that had failed to release was directed at TOMITAKA hangars, while other planes strafed. Rendezvous was begun southeast to seaward. 
Lt. STEVEN’s plane was seen trailing a thin wisp of smoke, apparently having been hit by AA, and here the F4U’s were attacked by 25-30 Zekes. Lt. STEVENS’s plane was taken into the middle of the group and a tight know of weaving and maneuvering planes fought all around him. At high speed, the F4U's were able to maneuver with, and sometimes out-maneuver the Zeke 52’s. For 15 minutes there was continuous action. Lt. STEVENS’s plane was still smoking, and the fight was being maneuvered southward to a submarine position. This was accomplished by pilots who finding themselves on the outer fringe of the fight would rejoin on the south side. The F4U’s were able, because of greater firepower, to either blast or scare, the Zekes off their tails. The F4U pilots, by coming to the aid of one another when Zekes were on their tails escaped with 2 planes damaged by Zeke’s 50 calibre fire. Final score: destroyed nine, probably destroyed four, known to have damaged two….
Pilots feel certain that Lt. STEVENS’s plane was not hit again by Zekes. However, after the engagement, his plane was smoking more heavily. H, had been moved about 15 miles toward rescue sub, and was able to fly another 10 miles before ditching. He was seen to get out of his plane, but did not get his raft out. Three rafts were dropped near by, but he was not seen to have reached any of them. Rescue sub was contacted and given an accurate plot, and Ens. BOULDIN stayed till fuel forced him home. 
An interesting Jap[sic] tactic was observed prior to the ditching. After the fight had been broken off and the divisions were rendezvousing above Lt. STEVENS, the sweep leader remained behind Lt. STEVENS, awaiting the water lending. He looked behind and there at about 1000 yards, slightly above, were 3 Zekes. They made no effort to close, apparently waiting for some choice shots after the ditching. The sweep leader turned directly into them and fired at the leader at long range. They immediately scattered and were not seen again."

Japanese claims and losses:

After the March 18, 1945, air battles the two 203Ku fighter squadrons claimed three enemy aircraft shot down and three damaged. They admited losing: seven Zeros shot down, four failed to return, seven burned on the ground, one seriously damaged, four more slightly damaged and a total of eleven aircraft received hits.
The two 712Ku fighter squadrons claimed 19(!) F4U shot down, five damaged and three unconfirmed. Also three F6F shot down. They admited losing four Zeros shot down, 19(!) failed to return and eight Zeros received hits. 

US claims and losses (from Patrice):
"VBF-83 (flying F4U-1D Corsairs) claimed 18 kills over Japanese aircraft. These kills were claimed by 15 different pilots.... 
In addition to the pilot and air crew losses listed above, two Hellcats (one -5 & one -5N), five Corsairs, and one TBM* were lost."

I'm afraid this a bit confusing to me. So, total eight Corsairs were shot down? Five plus the three (Sigman, Garner and Stevens)?

In conclusion. If the three Corsairs (Sigman, Garner and Stevens) were indeed shot down over Tomitaka, on the "right side" of Kyushu, then they were all shot down by the two 712Ku fighter squadrons, not by the 203Ku fighter squadrons based and operating on the "left side or middle" of Kyushu Island.

Very special thanks to Patrice Fresnel!

"Toraware no Nihonki" #16 - Mitsubishi A6M "Zero with Green Crosses 零戦, 中支航空隊, 龍華飛行場 上海, 緑十字

At the end of the war a number of Zeros and other aircraft including Mitsubishi J2M "Raiden" (Jack), were found in Longhua airfield in Shanghai with an unusual tail marking. It's the kanji "中" which signified the unit "中支航空隊" (Chushi Kokutai - Central China Air Group) which was organized in February 20, 1945, with various IJNAF dispatched elements of various kokutai, that were based at the time in China. It was one of the Otsu kokutai meaning it was mainly assigned to airfield/base protection duties.

The first Zero is a Model 21. Behind it is a Mitsubishi K3M "Pine" crew trainer.

Although the marking "中1" can be seen in this photo, the rest of the marking is on the piece of fabric that has been removed. In the previous photo though, it should have been visible as it is written in the oposite direction. Unfortunately the previous photo is not of the best quality and therefore I can't be 100% sure of the complete tail marking. Note the fuselage hinomaru with the white surround.

Another photo of the Mitsubishi K3M "Pine" trainers.

A photo featuring on the left the tail of a "中133" Zero, the Model 21 of the first photo in the middle and the Mitsubishi K3M "Pine" of the first photo on the right.

Another Zero found in the same location was a Model 52 Otsu.

Although the "中" part of the tail marking is not visible, the location the aircraft was found confirms the unit. So tail marking for this Zero is "中132" (no hyphen).

Another photo of the "中132" Model 52 Otsu Zero, revealing that a part of the tail number "32" was repeated on the cowling lip.

This photo features a Nakajima built A6M7 Model 62 or 63.

Again the "中" part of the tail marking is missing but a closeup reveals that there is indeed a tail marking which I believe is "中153". Actually this can be confirmed by noticing that the two last digits of the tail number are repeated on the wheel cover of the original photo (thanks Martin). 

Of particular interest is the wing hinomaru with the darker green surround and the position of the white box with the cross. Note also the white lines on the cowling.

This one...I don't know. In the background are the three aircraft in the first five photos (the "中132" Model 52 Otsu Zero, the Model 21 and the Mitsubishi K3M "Pine") but I can't identify the model of the Zero in the foreground. Any ideas? And what's with the white patch on the fuselage next to the cockpit? And where is the green cross on the wing?