Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 2:54:51 AM   
BossGnome

 

Posts: 658
Joined: 5/29/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline 		The question says it all. The japs started facing B-17s in 1942... didn't they ever think of developping their own version of the plane? If so, why was the design scrapped? What was the Japanese "bomber philosophy" like? What was the IJA/IJN looking for in a bomber design? It seems to me most of their designs are heavily lacking in pretty much everything...

_____________________________

"Hard pressed on my right; my left is in retreat. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking."
-Gen. Joffre, before the battle of the Marne
Post #: 1
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 3:11:51 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Well, we eat big heavy potatoes and the Orientals like fluffy rice dishes?

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to BossGnome)
Post #: 2
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 3:12:26 AM   
BLUESBOB

 

Posts: 219
Joined: 8/27/2005
From: Fullerton, Ca.
Status: offline 		Probably has to do with a problem they faced prior to, and during the war...lack of fuel.

(in reply to BossGnome)
Post #: 3
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 4:45:36 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		They bought the Condor - but too late to get the prototypes to Japan before hostilities prevented delivery.

They bought the DC-5E and tried to convert it to a bomber - but the bad design and their inexperience combined to result only in a heavy transport (see G5N1 in RHS).

They did build the G8 - and it is in RHS - so there you are.

There was also an army 4 engine plane - and also a joint army-navy "Japanese B-36" - but they were too late for the war. These were atom bomb deliverers FYI.

(in reply to BossGnome)
Post #: 4
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 6:24:14 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

The question says it all. The japs started facing B-17s in 1942... didn't they ever think of developping their own version of the plane? If so, why was the design scrapped? What was the Japanese "bomber philosophy" like? What was the IJA/IJN looking for in a bomber design? It seems to me most of their designs are heavily lacking in pretty much everything...


WHAT were they going to bomb? They could never get in land-based range of Los Angeles, let alone Detroit. Also, they sufferred from a materials shortage, which made a long-ranged twin engined bomber a much better economic proposition.

(in reply to BossGnome)
Post #: 5
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 7:28:43 AM   
BossGnome

 

Posts: 658
Joined: 5/29/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline 		well, it seems from my own experience that bombing places like Tarawa with allied 4 engine bombers work really well. With no decent jap 4 engine bombers, counter bombing is very hard, nigh impossible. Also, what about bombing the Chinese cities? Or the indian ones?

_____________________________

"Hard pressed on my right; my left is in retreat. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking."
-Gen. Joffre, before the battle of the Marne

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 6
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 7:47:51 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline 		First of all we have to understand that "heavy bombers" = strategic bombing. The only country which truly assumed this military concept on WW2: the USA. Concept taken from the italian Dohuet, the father of the thing/creature.

Other countries just could not "predict" this new kind of war (to some extent, this is true for the USSR). Others just couldn't afford it: "materials shortage", "fuel", etc.: Japan.

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to BossGnome)
Post #: 7
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 3:37:33 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

First of all we have to understand that "heavy bombers" = strategic bombing. The only country which truly assumed this military concept on WW2: the USA. Concept taken from the italian Dohuet, the father of the thing/creature.

Other countries just could not "predict" this new kind of war (to some extent, this is true for the USSR). Others just couldn't afford it: "materials shortage", "fuel", etc.: Japan.


Well, UK was very much into Strategic bombing too. Just that their bad experiences about daylight bombing in 40-41 made them prefer night attacks. Air Marshal Harris and his Bomber Command were very active in the war.

One funny (at least too my sense of humour) thing I did read about "Bomber" Harris (he had quite dark sense of humour too)was: He was driving at night with his car during 1943 and speeding. He was stopped by a young bobby who said "Sir, if you drive like that you could kill someone!" He answered "Son, I kill thousands every night..". Bit exaggerating, but basicly true.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 8
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 5:20:12 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

WHAT were they going to bomb? They could never get in land-based range of Los Angeles, let alone Detroit. Also, they sufferred from a materials shortage, which made a long-ranged twin engined bomber a much better economic proposition.


For widely available English discussion of this, see Rene Francillion's Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War. The Japanese would not agree with the above. They felt range was paramount, and concluded after difinitive studies that to increase it, four engines were the solution (except for one case, where they went to six). What they wanted to bomb mainly was bases, before they were in range of enemy bombers. For an example of what they had in mind, consider the (long secret) raids on the B-29 airfields by the Ki-67s - amazing raids. Handfulls of bombers (by Allied standards) would (consistently) hit the massed, armed, fueled B-29s just before launch. [We did not understand until after the war how they knew what day that would be? They watched the weather planes, and we only sent them a fixed time before a raid!] They had to stage through Iwo - which is why we took the place - and they had to fly two days (nights actually) each way! But the raids were fantastically productive.

Another target considered was Boeing Renton - the biggest building in the World. For this, bases in Alaska were contemplated. [It is not well understood by people who look at Mercatur projections that the distances in the North are LESS, rather than MORE on a globe].

For atomic and other wmd (specifically including bw and cw weapons) the favorite targets were San Francisco and LA - and at one point New York City and Washington were in the loop (hence the range of the I-400 - able to make the round trip). We captured some 250 kg (551 pound) radiological bombs, and plans of a Japanese atom bomb were captured en route to a Soviet general in 1946. Since then, an academic has published a different copy. A Korea scholar also reports a Japanese "thorium bomb" - something just now beginning to make sense - with the discovery of an ALLIED "thorium bomb" - apparently tested in Australia (by UK - which seems not to have entirely trusted all its options to the US Manhattan Project). The problem is, this weapon turned out to be "too hot to handle" - and presumably the Japanese had the same problems. Nevertheless, the viability of some sort of atomic weapon was assurred enough that bombers to deliver it were designed, although the Japanese always believed atomic weapons were for "the next war." They got a lot farther with BW weapons - and had a variety of programs - including one to deliver baloon bombs from submarine aircraft carriers - and another to use high altitude winds trans Pacific (this being tested with incendiary bombs - to the tune of about 12,000 launched and over 3,000 falling as far East as Michigan - the tracked of these being Burt Webber, University of Oregon Press: Silent Seige - a horrible book which nevertheless has unique disclosures by Japanese in it). There were both army and navy CW programs, but Gen Sugiama (for IJA) and the Imperial General Staff (for IJN) ordered these destroyed in the summer of 1945 to PREVENT their use on invasion forces!

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 9
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 5:29:13 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline 		For all their plans, let us not forget that the only bobmbing of the mainland USA that Japan ever actually carried out was with ballons drifting in the jet stream.
It looks self evident that Japan lacked the capability to create and operate their own version of the "8th Air Force"...otherwise they simply would have done so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

WHAT were they going to bomb? They could never get in land-based range of Los Angeles, let alone Detroit. Also, they sufferred from a materials shortage, which made a long-ranged twin engined bomber a much better economic proposition.


For widely available English discussion of this, see Rene Francillion's Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War. The Japanese would not agree with the above. They felt range was paramount, and concluded after difinitive studies that to increase it, four engines were the solution (except for one case, where they went to six). What they wanted to bomb mainly was bases, before they were in range of enemy bombers. For an example of what they had in mind, consider the (long secret) raids on the B-29 airfields by the Ki-67s - amazing raids. Handfulls of bombers (by Allied standards) would (consistently) hit the massed, armed, fueled B-29s just before launch. [We did not understand until after the war how they knew what day that would be? They watched the weather planes, and we only sent them a fixed time before a raid!] They had to stage through Iwo - which is why we took the place - and they had to fly two days (nights actually) each way! But the raids were fantastically productive.

Another target considered was Boeing Renton - the biggest building in the World. For this, bases in Alaska were contemplated. [It is not well understood by people who look at Mercatur projections that the distances in the North are LESS, rather than MORE on a globe].

For atomic and other wmd (specifically including bw and cw weapons) the favorite targets were San Francisco and LA - and at one point New York City and Washington were in the loop (hence the range of the I-400 - able to make the round trip). We captured some 250 kg (551 pound) radiological bombs, and plans of a Japanese atom bomb were captured en route to a Soviet general in 1946. Since then, an academic has published a different copy. A Korea scholar also reports a Japanese "thorium bomb" - something just now beginning to make sense - with the discovery of an ALLIED "thorium bomb" - apparently tested in Australia (by UK - which seems not to have entirely trusted all its options to the US Manhattan Project). The problem is, this weapon turned out to be "too hot to handle" - and presumably the Japanese had the same problems. Nevertheless, the viability of some sort of atomic weapon was assurred enough that bombers to deliver it were designed, although the Japanese always believed atomic weapons were for "the next war." They got a lot farther with BW weapons - and had a variety of programs - including one to deliver baloon bombs from submarine aircraft carriers - and another to use high altitude winds trans Pacific (this being tested with incendiary bombs - to the tune of about 12,000 launched and over 3,000 falling as far East as Michigan - the tracked of these being Burt Webber, University of Oregon Press: Silent Seige - a horrible book which nevertheless has unique disclosures by Japanese in it). There were both army and navy CW programs, but Gen Sugiama (for IJA) and the Imperial General Staff (for IJN) ordered these destroyed in the summer of 1945 to PREVENT their use on invasion forces!


I have to agree more with these two:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

First of all we have to understand that "heavy bombers" = strategic bombing. The only country which truly assumed this military concept on WW2: the USA. Concept taken from the italian Dohuet, the father of the thing/creature.

Other countries just could not "predict" this new kind of war (to some extent, this is true for the USSR). Others just couldn't afford it: "materials shortage", "fuel", etc.: Japan.


Well, UK was very much into Strategic bombing too. Just that their bad experiences about daylight bombing in 40-41 made them prefer night attacks. Air Marshal Harris and his Bomber Command were very active in the war.




_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 10
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 5:29:20 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

First of all we have to understand that "heavy bombers" = strategic bombing. The only country which truly assumed this military concept on WW2: the USA. Concept taken from the italian Dohuet, the father of the thing/creature.

Other countries just could not "predict" this new kind of war (to some extent, this is true for the USSR). Others just couldn't afford it: "materials shortage", "fuel", etc.: Japan.


Partially correct, partially not. It is true the theory came from Dohuet. But he had advocates in all the great powers. And at least the Brits did make heavies (we never did have a plane that could lift what the Lancaster could during the war) and use them. There is a new book on German efforts (Luftwaffe Over Amerika) and it indicates the "just couldn't affort it" argument is also right.

But Japan did not consider a "heavy" bomber in the same sense we did. Their focus was either anti-naval (JNAF) or counter-air (JAAF). They did do bombing of cities in China, before what we considered to be the war (WWII rages for ten years, from 1935 to 1945, in Asia - and it was ALWAYS focused on China - from a Japanese point of view). These caused Japan to learn early things like "escort bombers or take unacceptable losses in daylight" and "bombers are not that effective against cities." [They are COUNTERPRODUCTIVE - they generate political support for the enemy!] Japan sought to achieve range at the expense of bomb load and, initially, armor (a choice, not ignorance - made by Adm Yamamoto as an air bureau chief). Later, they conceived of long range atomic bombers, but only designed them for one bomb, and nothing like US/UK bomb loads - again it was range that was the object. For Japan, the object was to take out major bases, particularly fleet bases - without ships we could not hope to invade places of interest. This was never anything like our concept of 'strategic bombing.'

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 11
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 5:34:13 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

For all their plans, let us not forget that the only bobmbing of the mainland USA that Japan ever actually carried out was with ballons drifting in the jet stream.


Oops! You don't know about the Glen!

Seems one Warrant Officer name Fuchida (no relation to the captain) took off - twice - from a submarine off the coast of Oregon - armed with incendiaries instead of an observer - and tried to start forest fires! He came back and dreamed up the idea of I-400 - a submarine able to carry a true bomber in numbers! [His exec forwarded the idea to Yamamoto, who backed it, planning 18 of these ships - in a version never built. After his death, a larger version was built - it carried 3 bombers instead of 2 - and also some other subs were enlarged to carry 2 bombers instead of 1 Glen.] Anyway, the Glen is the ONLY Axis aircraft ever to bomb the Continental USA during WWII! Fujida offers a personal account in Silent Seige by Burt Webber. He also apologized decades later.


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 12
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 5:37:31 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

For all their plans, let us not forget that the only bobmbing of the mainland USA that Japan ever actually carried out was with ballons drifting in the jet stream.


Oops! You don't know about the Glen!

Seems one Warrant Officer name Fuchida (no relation to the captain) took off - twice - from a submarine off the coast of Oregon - armed with incendiaries instead of an observer - and tried to start forest fires! He came back and dreamed up the idea of I-400 - a submarine able to carry a true bomber in numbers! [His exec forwarded the idea to Yamamoto, who backed it, planning 18 of these ships - in a version never built. After his death, a larger version was built - it carried 3 bombers instead of 2 - and also some other subs were enlarged to carry 2 bombers instead of 1 Glen.] Anyway, the Glen is the ONLY Axis aircraft ever to bomb the Continental USA during WWII! Fujida offers a personal account in Silent Seige by Burt Webber. He also apologized decades later.




Sorry I missed that - I bow to the Strategic capabilities of the Glen!

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 13
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 5:39:44 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

It looks self evident that Japan lacked the capability to create and operate their own version of the "8th Air Force"...otherwise they simply would have done so.


It is a different country, with different concepts, and a different strategic situation. They never thought in terms of an 8th Air Force. The nearest thing was those baloon bombs you deride so much. What if I told you Imperial Japan was the first country ever to have overkill? [The ability to, theoretically - no country ever had it practically - including us with strategic nuclear weapons - wipe out the entire population of the world]
They had 16 times as much anthrax as it would take, if it could be delivered. This they combined with a whole new class of bombs to deliver the anthrax and fleas (to "vector" them) - and while they could be delivered by aircraft (and were in China) - they were mostly to be delivered by baloon bombs. The incendiaries were to proove the bombs would reach the USA and Canada. And they did. When August Storm began, Gen Ichii (Unit 731) called the COS of Kwangtung Army (his daughter is a witness) and they decided not to launch the attack (on the USA) because "it would not do any good." They were right - it might have caused us to attempt to exterminate all Japanese - but it would not have defeated us.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 14
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 5:44:29 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline 		I would simply reply to you that Japan may have had plans for ANYTHING, but their ability to carry through and deliver said plans and inflict their will on the enemy was totally LACKING...otherwise Japan (in the life and death struggle she was in) would have carried through and delivered on her plans..


B
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

It looks self evident that Japan lacked the capability to create and operate their own version of the "8th Air Force"...otherwise they simply would have done so.


It is a different country, with different concepts, and a different strategic situation. They never thought in terms of an 8th Air Force. The nearest thing was those baloon bombs you deride so much. What if I told you Imperial Japan was the first country ever to have overkill? [The ability to, theoretically - no country ever had it practically - including us with strategic nuclear weapons - wipe out the entire population of the world]
They had 16 times as much anthrax as it would take, if it could be delivered. This they combined with a whole new class of bombs to deliver the anthrax and fleas (to "vector" them) - and while they could be delivered by aircraft (and were in China) - they were mostly to be delivered by baloon bombs. The incendiaries were to proove the bombs would reach the USA and Canada. And they did. When August Storm began, Gen Ichii (Unit 731) called the COS of Kwangtung Army (his daughter is a witness) and they decided not to launch the attack (on the USA) because "it would not do any good." They were right - it might have caused us to attempt to exterminate all Japanese - but it would not have defeated us.



_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 15
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 5:48:34 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		One other key point. Strategic Air warfare was the most expensive (in terms of cost per man involved) type of warfare any of the participants in the Second World War engaged in. Japan was a poor country with limited resources. They needed to get maximum return on their limited investment.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 16
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 6:49:17 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

One other key point. Strategic Air warfare was the most expensive (in terms of cost per man involved) type of warfare any of the participants in the Second World War engaged in. Japan was a poor country with limited resources. They needed to get maximum return on their limited investment.


Strategic bombing was extremely expensive in fuel.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 17
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 7:04:06 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline 		One would have to think that a little of it also comes from overall war strategy. Japan teneded to fight a military vs militray war on the US. Thus their paradigm was to beat us by decisevly beating our military. After all, we westerners were weak and undisciplined. Strategic bombing attacked civilians, which weren't really the prime target. Now, this is not to say that their wasn't discussion among Japanese leaders as to alternative strategies, but the basic paradigm was beat the US military, in particular the navy.

The US on the otherhand came from a paradigm of a nation vs nation war. They weren't going to win by a decisive battel, but by production and attrition. From this paradigm strategic war makes tremendous sense. Destroy the others ability to wage war upon you. That's not to say that the US didn't care about winning battles, but that wasn't the way that they were going to win the war. They were going to win the war even if they "lost" every battle along the way.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to BossGnome)
Post #: 18
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 8:38:51 PM   
MightyPaladin

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline 		I've always heard that the USAAF lost more people than any other service during the war. Something like 40,000 airframes and 120,000 people. Can anyone confirm or deny? I have to go to school, don't have time to look around the 'net for a good source.

Anyway, if the above is true, then very few countries could have sustained stratigic bombing.




Seems to me that alot of people on these forums assume that a different strategy by one side would not be met by a countering strategy on the other side. I wonder what kind of west coast air defense there would have been if Japan had tried some sort of mass formation stratigic bombing?


Cheers



MightyPaladin


(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 19
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 8:44:38 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

After all, we westerners were weak and undisciplined. Strategic bombing attacked civilians, which weren't really the prime target.


Well, they very clearly attacked "civilians" in China and in the PI. Including strategic bombing (twin engined) raids in Shanghai.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to MightyPaladin)
Post #: 20
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 9:04:59 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

What they wanted to bomb mainly was bases, before they were in range of enemy bombers. For an example of what they had in mind, consider the (long secret) raids on the B-29 airfields by the Ki-67s - amazing raids. Handfulls of bombers (by Allied standards) would (consistently) hit the massed, armed, fueled B-29s just before launch. [We did not understand until after the war how they knew what day that would be? They watched the weather planes, and we only sent them a fixed time before a raid!] They had to stage through Iwo - which is why we took the place - and they had to fly two days (nights actually) each way! But the raids were fantastically productive.


Very interesting (and I never heard of that)!

Can you, please, give some more info on this?


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 21
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 9:21:11 PM   
demonterico


Posts: 292
Joined: 10/16/2002
From: Seattle WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MightyPaladin

I've always heard that the USAAF lost more people than any other service during the war. Something like 40,000 airframes and 120,000 people.



When you say "any other service" I assume you must mean USA services, and are excluding the Russian Army.


_____________________________

The world has never seen a more impressive demonstration of the influence of sea power upon history. Those far distant, storm-beaten ships, upon which the Grand Army never looked, stood between it and the dominion of the world. -- Alfred Thayer Mahan

(in reply to MightyPaladin)
Post #: 22
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 10:37:38 PM   
Demosthenes


Posts: 525
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline 		The US Army lost 318,274 dead in WWII. That figure includes the USAAF.
I doubt the 120,000 dead figure for the USAAF is accurate (seems high) - though it may be.
Even so 120,000 USAAF dead is still considerably less than the remaining 200,000 US Army dead.

Demo

EDIT: Just found this..
U.S. Army Air Corps losses were about 55,000 killed and missing

So there you have it

quote:

ORIGINAL: MightyPaladin

I've always heard that the USAAF lost more people than any other service during the war. Something like 40,000 airframes and 120,000 people. Can anyone confirm or deny? I have to go to school, don't have time to look around the 'net for a good source.

Anyway, if the above is true, then very few countries could have sustained stratigic bombing.




Seems to me that alot of people on these forums assume that a different strategy by one side would not be met by a countering strategy on the other side. I wonder what kind of west coast air defense there would have been if Japan had tried some sort of mass formation stratigic bombing?


Cheers



MightyPaladin





< Message edited by Demosthenes -- 3/15/2006 10:38:49 PM >

(in reply to MightyPaladin)
Post #: 23
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 10:50:36 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

What they wanted to bomb mainly was bases, before they were in range of enemy bombers. For an example of what they had in mind, consider the (long secret) raids on the B-29 airfields by the Ki-67s - amazing raids. Handfulls of bombers (by Allied standards) would (consistently) hit the massed, armed, fueled B-29s just before launch. [We did not understand until after the war how they knew what day that would be? They watched the weather planes, and we only sent them a fixed time before a raid!] They had to stage through Iwo - which is why we took the place - and they had to fly two days (nights actually) each way! But the raids were fantastically productive.


Very interesting (and I never heard of that)!

Can you, please, give some more info on this?


Leo "Apollo11"


There's some information at the hyperwar site, chapter 19 on Iwo Jima.

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 24
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/15/2006 11:21:38 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline 		Sardaukar, yes, indeed, the british did use the strategic bombing. And germans, japanese, etc. Attacking cities (unless you are supporting the infantry which is about to assault them) is “strategic bombing” (and a big massacre. No, I don’t think Harris was exagerating). Even if they were using planes designed only for tactical attacks (I am talking about the germans here, not the british).

But when the war started, the british (along with the germans and french) used their airpower mostly as a tactical weapon. They changed their mind later. “Retaliation” was possibly the big factor: “you [germans] bomb our cities? We bomb yours!”

The americans on the other hand made the B-17 before the war. And during the conflict they conducted the “most pure” strategic bombing: you must attack the economic and political centers of the enemy. And that’s what they did.

The british, on the other hand, were attacking the cities most of the time. You can’t miss a city. Even at night. A concrete factory, installation, that’s another story. Correct me if I am wrong though.

In fact I wanted to say that the USA was the only country which assumed the very essence of the strategic bombing: the economic and political centers are the key. So my mistake, sorry.


_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 25
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/16/2006 3:09:31 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I would simply reply to you that Japan may have had plans for ANYTHING, but their ability to carry through and deliver said plans and inflict their will on the enemy was totally LACKING...otherwise Japan (in the life and death struggle she was in) would have carried through and delivered on her plans..


The official US high school version of the war:

It was never in doubt - on economic grounds alone - the Allies simply had to win. Comforting I guess. But, if you are interested in history, the truth is much more complicated. The outcome was in considerable doubt.

Key to this was the USSR. Stalin made a deal with both Germany and Japan - and he made other deals with us - none of which were ultimately honored completely - all of which were honored to a degree. To be certain what Stalin would or would not do - well that is an act of faith - but not knowledge. To be certain what the fate of the USSR must be - with both Germany and Japan plotting its end - again that is an act of faith, not knowledge. The seemingly obvious solution of a coordinated effort is not what occurred - but surely it could have. And the USSR was an empire - a place full of unhappy ruled peoples - willing to cooperate in exchange for some autonomy (willing even to fight, as the Ukranian National Army shows). IF the USSR fell, the economic situation changes, and the Allies are on the wrong end of the situation: the conclusion of Luftwaffe Over Amerika is that, with Soviet resources, Germany COULD HAVE mounted out a strategic bomber force.

There are other possibilities: Japan's late offensive in China could have run sooner. A rail connection all the way to Saigon matters - and you cannot torpedo trains! Build a tiny rail link from Saigon's western spur to Phnom Penh and you conntct to the Thai/Malay rail system - of the same gage! Then you run all the way to Singapore - Singaport to Pusan. No ships at risk. And India could have been neutralized.

Finally, you make a fundamental error if you believe no one ever makes a mistake. A capability is not always going to be used - even if it "should" be. Or the reason it was not might be different than that it would not work. We have several Japanese wmd programs, all stopped by different officials, for ostensably different reasons. Yet WE BELIEVED these were so valuable as capabilities we cut deals: for example Ichii and ALL his people went free (except those the Russians got) - in exchange for the technical stuff to give US that capability that "could not matter" in your view.

Real life is not always simple. Sometimes there are possibilities. History is not the story of what inevitably had to happen. It is the story of what did happen, even if it was unlikely at times, likely but not required at others.

The key characteristic about Japanese civilization - and you might say a weakness - something we almost always assume wrongly about - is that it is an extraordinairily divided society. It is anything but unified in purpose, on any subject, at any time. The form of government, and the drive for consensus, fools us often: the extent to which Japanese and Japanese institutions failed to cooperate and coordinate is amazing by our standards. But they remain essentially human, susceptable to the same forces that have always driven all societies - and different leadership could have provided a different set of drivers for what was acceptable conduct. Many things indeed changed in the direction of more effective institutions - but thank goodness for us too late to be decisive. The Grand Escort Command was created only mid-war, and never given enough resources. But it was CONCIEVED in the 1930s, and plans to build for it were also fully worked out - just not implemented (in favor of things like Musashi and Kii - each worth 150 escorts in terms of steel).
THIS is why Yamamoto said

"There are three great fallicies in history: the Great Wall of China, the Pyramids of Egypt, and the battleship Musashi." Clearly SOME Japanese leaders knew better that what others did.


Japan has an essential strategic advantage = position. Adm King felt he needed 2 ships to every Japanese one to be EVEN because of it. Japan had another strategic advantage it failed to fully capitalize on: hatred of colonial empires. What happened in Malaya and Indonesia might have happened many times - with better policy. And Japan finally got it right - just too late to affect anything but the Cold War. Good for us. The truth is it is harder to defeat the enemy than yourself - nations that lose usually defeat themselves. The other guys just win because of the screw ups.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/16/2006 3:17:48 AM >

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 26
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/16/2006 3:23:09 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

One other key point. Strategic Air warfare was the most expensive (in terms of cost per man involved) type of warfare any of the participants in the Second World War engaged in. Japan was a poor country with limited resources. They needed to get maximum return on their limited investment.


A better point might be that strategic air warfare does not work. See Weapons and Hope by Freeman Dyson - the statistical analyst for Bomber Command - the only person who knew all the data real time. He is caustic: "I knew how much we were failing to achieve our objectives. I knew how much the enemy was hurt less than the cost to us." [paraphrase - shortened up] Every strategic air campaign in history generated support for the bombed regime. This is not exactly bright. Germany needed 1/3 the resources to rebuild what was destroyed it cost us to destroy it. The production in target industries - Uboats and aircraft - increased through Feb 1945. Not very effective. The entire concept of high altitude bombing failed utterly against Japan, for technical reasons. We ended up using bombers entirely different than the way they were designed for.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 27
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/16/2006 3:27:27 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Very interesting (and I never heard of that)!

Can you, please, give some more info on this?


Get the Shiffer book

The Ki-67/Ki-109 in History

for an English discussion

probably also mentioned by Francillon in Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War (look up Ki-67 to see)

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 28
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/16/2006 3:31:02 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Sardaukar, yes, indeed, the british did use the strategic bombing. And germans, japanese, etc. Attacking cities (unless you are supporting the infantry which is about to assault them) is “strategic bombing” (and a big massacre. No, I don’t think Harris was exagerating). Even if they were using planes designed only for tactical attacks (I am talking about the germans here, not the british).


We tried German airmen for "terror bombing" of Rotterdam (it drove the country from the war) - and convicted them as criminals. But the tribunals had no authority over allied crimes - deliberately. Still, clearly formally we CLAIM the Germans bombed cities. And Japan surely bombed Chinese cities many times.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 29
RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? - 3/16/2006 3:33:25 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

In fact I wanted to say that the USA was the only country which assumed the very essence of the strategic bombing: the economic and political centers are the key. So my mistake, sorry.


The ORIGINAL idea was the enemy civilians would demand peace (see all the advocates in all countries). Their theories had tiny numbers of bombs and bombers. The theory failed - even with bigger numbers. Only atomic bombs might make it work - and that is not clear. It was a failed theory - and only the Americans insisted on applying it in spite of its failures. Church can be like that.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.766