Talk:Kawanishi N1K

message: The line "in one encounter a N1K2-J shot down four Hellcats and forced another eight to retire" is incorrect. It refers to 16 February 1945. Four Hellcats from VF-82 were lost, but to a squadron of N1K2s, not a single plane. The Japanese press credited all four victories to WO Kaneyoshi Muto acting alone. See Henry Sakaida's Aces of the Rising Sun, pp. 184-185, . ANA607 05:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four Hellcats single-handed 

message: Towards the end of the article it speculates about the effect the N1K might have had if it were available in 1944: "they could have been a serious challenge for the Americans at the Marianas and Leyte".  While it is true that the Japanese Navy suffered for a lack of new fighter craft, and it wouldn't have hurt to have that fixed, they suffered even more for the lack of experienced pilots.  Midway and Guadalcanal had bled the Japanese Navy air corps white, their losing roughly 1000 aircraft (I don't have pilot loss data).  The performance of their pilots plummeted between Midway to Marianas.  The US Navy had the reverse.  As time went on their aircraft and training improved and their numbers grew. --Schwern (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, it's true, trained pilots were needed to use well the new aircrafts. But if you have not new plane at all, then your pilots will have no chances either. So, given the good performances showed by Shiden in 1945 against Corsair and Hellcats, expecially Hellcats, one year before they could have fought far better in 1944. The mere fact is that USN had Hellcats in place of Wildcats on attack carriers, this made a difference. Now i agree, well trained pilots with A6M3 whipped even Spitfires over Australia (in 1943), maybe the same pilots could did the same against Hellcats in 1944 (why not?). But let me say, 'with a Shiden-KAI it was easier'. The great number of Zeros, produced even when its design was cleary obsolescent, shows how Japan failed to give to them a proper successor. When this happened (same with Ki-43/84) it was too late. And we will agree, maybe there were still more experienced pilots in 1944 than in 1945. So the impact of new fighters should had been even greater than in 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.104.204.222 (talk) 
shouldn't 強風 be glossed as "strong wind?"  I would guess that "moderate gale" is an accurate translation in the narrow technical context of meteorology, such as the Beaufort scale.  However, the name of a plane would more likely be something to inspire the troups and citizenry and I'd be suprised if the name was meant in the technical meteorological sense. 116.48.69.49 (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable speculation 

message: About this historical unit it is here said: The premier unit flying the Shiden, 343 Kokutai remained operational until the overwhelming unit losses led to the eventual retirement of the unit. The 343° was disbanded on 14 August 1945, when the Emperor ordered surrender.
Well, the first sentence ([...] remained operational until the overwhelming unit losses led to the eventual retirement of the unit) is in fact about the first unit called "343 kokutai", formed on January 1944 and disbanded on July 1944 (this 343 kokutai was equiped with A6M5 zeroes, and the losses where mainly due to massive carpet bombing on the 343 kokutai's base of that time: Yap). The unit was created again, by Minoru Genda, on January 1945 (with the same number and group type: "343 kokutai", but with new planes, this time the famous N1K2 Shiden-kais). It was this 343 kokutai that was disbanded when the Emperor ordered surrender, on August 1945, and not the former one, not the one from 1944. The 1945's reorganisation of the 343 kokutai is the one which belongs to the legend, the Minoru Genda unit, the Tsurugi... A Japanese, friend of mine, told me all of this after having read it on his own specialized Japanese History books. I could ask him to bring me some references... Kintaro (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  343 kokutai 

message: All three seem to be in the article. Odd that. 82.8.52.22 (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  415, 435, or 1435 produced? 

message: The aircraft's cannon are described as 'synchronized to converge at 200m'. Actually, I believe the term here is 'harmonized'. See, for instance, AAF Manual 200-1, 30th January 1945, "Fighter Gun Harmonization" (available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30868555/Fighter-Gun-Harmonization) for details.
The term 'synchronized' usually refers to interrupting guns which are mounted to fire through the arc of a propeller.
24.218.138.217 (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specs. Description of Type 99 cannon.  

message: It claims that "A second encounter took place when pilots flying Shidens initially mistook Corsairs from Marine Fighter Squadron 123 (VMF-123) for Hellcats and attacked". How is this known? Is this based on the recollections of the Japanese pilots themselves, or is this post-war speculation by someone who figures they'd never dare attack a mighty Corsair? Did one of the VMF-123 pilots write it? Are they well-informed as to the thought processes of their Japanese counterparts? I think it is quite clear that many if not most Japanese pilots were prepared to fight whatever the Americans sent, Corsair or not, even when they were flying something as obsolescent as the A6M. I see no reason to think that N1K pilots would hesitate to attack Corsairs unless they were mistaken for Hellcats instead. Unless this is based on an actual anecdote told by the Japanese pilots who were there, I think that sentence ought to be changed. Right now it sounds like it was written by a Corsair fan trying to make sure everyone remembers how good his/her favorite plane is, whether that was intentional or not.
64.222.158.24 (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mistook for Hellcats" 

message: I've re-arranged the text of the introduction: the three variants of this aircraft were jumbled up and needed separating a bit. I trust everyone is OK with the result. Xyl 54 (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction