Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Apollo11 -> Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/20/2009 12:29:18 PM)

Hi all,

We all know that Japanese aircraft were extremely fragile under fire and without (or with insufficient) armor and protection.


By the time of Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941 the air war was raging in Europe for almost 24+ months (2+ years) and I wonder why didn't the Japanese learn anything from it (especially "Battle of Britain" from the summer of 1940)?

They did have their military attaches in all countries and they most certainly observed what was going on (not to mention that they had, at least on paper, alliance with Germany)...


Also, how much weight would proper armor for pilot and other vital parts of Japanese aircraft add?

How much would self-sealing gasoline tanks weight?

How much aircraft performance would suffer because of that?

Would center of mass shift so much to alter the aircraft behavior?

Would more powerful engines be needed or range would be sacrificed instead?


Does anyone have any info on that?

Thanks in advance!


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
The Japanese had defensive armament in the same category as for British / German / French (which were all, of course, severely undreamed compared to US)...



Terminus -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/20/2009 1:15:51 PM)

The Japs didn't think they had anything to learn. That's pretty normal for nations.



Tomo -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/20/2009 1:38:29 PM)

Need long legs from island to island.
Low spec engine needs lighter body.
You know why Hayabusa was produced instead of 97shiki.
Many early German aircrafts were imported and tested.
Almost of them were worthless for early pacific war.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/20/2009 2:02:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomo

Need long legs from island to island.
Low spec engine needs lighter body.
You know why Hayabusa was produced instead of 97shiki.
Many early German aircrafts were imported and tested.
Almost of them were worthless for early pacific war.




You pretty much "nailed it", Tomo. I'd only add that like all the other Axis nations, Japan built A/C to the specs demanded by her pilots, and in the numbers demanded by her military. Like the Italians (and to a lessor extent, the Germans) the A/C were maximized for "dogfighting" (which is why the Italians were still building biplanes)...., and none of them were thinking in the terms of a war of "attrition".

Basically the Axis Powers were still thinking in terms of winning through tactics and skill long after their opponants had shifted to numbers and organization. When Germany and Japan finally woke up to "mass production" it was 1944 and already far too late.



Apollo11 -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/20/2009 2:40:23 PM)

Hi all,

This is all OK and valid... but (there is always but)... [:D]

How much additional weight would 1 inch of armor behind pilot plus self-sealing tanks add to, for example, Zero and how less fuel / range would that be (or need for bigger engine)?

You know that they did it eventually (but it was all too late)... best pilots were almost all gone... [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"



spence -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/20/2009 2:48:28 PM)

The experience of the air war in China cut both ways for Japan. The entire Chinese military was more for show in the ongoing Chinese civil war than for fighting the Japanese in the first place. In that regard the outnumbered and obsolete planes flown by neophyte pilots counted more by just existing than they could ever count in the war against the Japanese. As a result there was relatively little air warfare in China. When engagements did take place they gave the Japanese the benefit of "seeing the elephant". But; with the engagements being so overwhelmingly one sided, there was absolutely nothing to prompt any change in tactics or organization. In Europe, where the air fighting was more balanced and nearly continuous, the air forces continually, day by day, strove for any small advantage (didn't mind big ones but those came only rarely). So the Japanese stood still while the Europeans moved forward.

(An Air Attache would have to really really be on the ball to effectively observe (and recognize from afar) the evolution of tactics and fighter organization taking place in SINGLE SEAT fighter combat. Perhaps but to my mind unlikely: did any IJA/IJN military aviators actually fly or observe in person combat missions with either side in Europe.



herwin -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/20/2009 3:24:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

This is all OK and valid... but (there is always but)... [:D]

How much additional weight would 1 inch of armor behind pilot plus self-sealing tanks add to, for example, Zero and how less fuel / range would that be (or need for bigger engine)?

You know that they did it eventually (but it was all too late)... best pilots were almost all gone... [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"


Look at the differences between the F4F3, F4F4, FM2, and F8F.



Charles2222 -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/20/2009 3:57:38 PM)

As far as the lack of self-sealing fuel tanks or armor, I don't think you could learn their deficiencies in the BoB, simply because neither side had those things at least in any aircraft that would expect to do battle with.



mlees -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/20/2009 4:49:35 PM)

Is the premise actually valid?

The "Tojo" & "Tony" were both in development prior to PH. But the Japanese were slow in "gearing up" their A/C industry, and these models were slow in reaching the front in numbers.

The Frank began development in early '42.

In parallel, the Germans had a good early war fighter (the Me-109), and were a touch slow in developing a replacement. Both nations counted on short wars.

I don't think the development of better generations of fighters was an issue, but getting them from drawing board to the front in numbers to do any good seemed to be the Japanese problem.

Possibly their industry was not as flexible as the German or Allied.



wesy -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/20/2009 5:15:20 PM)

the aircraft we're designed to certain operational requirements as well. The IJN thought the US/UK would be their probable enemies. Doing battle in the vast Pacific Theater was quite different than flying from German or French airfields - i.e. a much shorter operational radius allowing for heavier aircraft etc. Japan was the first country to mass carriers and coordinate mass airstrikes effectively - something even the USN couldn't do effectively till 1944. Arguably KB was the predecessor to the USN today to show up pretty much anywhere in the world for force projection. The range of Japanese aircraft to strike was unprecedented, however, when the tides of war changed those same virtues became big liabilities. Japan lacked the industrial capacity to make the swtich quickly in the numbers needed. However, if you look at the IJAA - their hypthetical enemy was the Soviet Union and they were far quicker to bring in heavier aircraft - Ki-44, Ki-61, Ki-84 etc - but were hampered by the industrial base. One has to remember that Japan had their "industrial revolution" around 1870.




mdiehl -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/20/2009 5:22:43 PM)

The Zero was strategically ideal for Japanese industrialists because its light weight economized on the use of strategic metals such as aluminum, and economized on fuel. It was also ideally suited to Japanese pilots demands for a maneuverable fighter. Japan knew about alternative designs and had some of them, in particular the Tony, on the drawing board. They might have deployed that type earlier, with great effort, but the result would have been a slower pace of operations and less success in the early war. The weakness of the Zero and the Oscar were also their early war strengths, because they had long operational radii, and were therefore able to strike and isolate allied airfields in Malaya and Indonesia before those airfields could be reinforced and made logistically secure.

Put a shorter range, heavier, higher horsepower engine on Japanese early war planes and the result would have been greater early war losses in the Japanese pilot corps, and more intense maintenance and logistical requirements in support of those planes.



Apollo11 -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/20/2009 5:25:41 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

As far as the lack of self-sealing fuel tanks or armor, I don't think you could learn their deficiencies in the BoB, simply because neither side had those things at least in any aircraft that would expect to do battle with.


Both Spitfire and Me109 had armour for pilot (behind seat and thick armoured windshield). At the time of "Battle of Britain" this become standard (fighters made before lacked it although some field modifications were made)...

As for self-sealing fuel tanks the German bombers most certainly had those.


Leo "Apollo11"



niceguy2005 -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/20/2009 7:18:41 PM)

The Japanese had not yet mastered mass production of sophisticated equipment on a mass scale.  IMO this played a critical part in plane design.  Because of production constraints, the amount of innovation that could go into a new design was limited.  While the US could test many unique prototypes and select many for production Japan had to be very careful about what designs it chose to develop and needed to leverage already existing production capacity.  Japan had some very good engineers, but not nearly enough of them to do what they really needed to do in their aviation industry.  All this leads to the idea that even had Japan wanted to incorporate new features into their designs they couldn't have produced them a lot of new planes.  



castor troy -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/20/2009 8:32:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

In parallel, the Germans had a good early war fighter (the Me-109), and were a touch slow in developing a replacement. Both nations counted on short wars.




what about the FW-190? 1940?



Mike Scholl -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/20/2009 9:19:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

The Japanese had not yet mastered mass production of sophisticated equipment on a mass scale.  IMO this played a critical part in plane design.  Because of production constraints, the amount of innovation that could go into a new design was limited.  While the US could test many unique prototypes and select many for production Japan had to be very careful about what designs it chose to develop and needed to leverage already existing production capacity.  Japan had some very good engineers, but not nearly enough of them to do what they really needed to do in their aviation industry.  All this leads to the idea that even had Japan wanted to incorporate new features into their designs they couldn't have produced them a lot of new planes.  



Again, a lot of accurate observations. Many things conspired against Axis Powers adopting "mass production", and lack of engineering capacity was certainly part of it. Also lack of Industrial Experiance, and a military that didn't want to deal with the constrictions of "mass production". They wanted to deal with small familiar firms that could give them some of what they wanted quickly. They didn't want to hear about "lead times" and "setting up facilities" and "simplifying the design" and other things needed to begin production on a mass basis---and they didn't want to hear about massive production stoppages every time they decided they wanted a new "widget" added to the product.

On the other side of the Ocean was the US.., where Eli Whitney had laid the groundwork for mass production around 1800, and Henry Ford had perfected the process about 1910. Huge industrial complexes had grown up around it's use.., and if theoretical science was a bit behind, practical engineering and industrial process was a decade ahead of the rest of the world. Americans had learned the art of "thinking big", and that's the attitude they took to war.



ChezDaJez -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/20/2009 9:44:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

The Japanese had not yet mastered mass production of sophisticated equipment on a mass scale.  IMO this played a critical part in plane design.  Because of production constraints, the amount of innovation that could go into a new design was limited.  While the US could test many unique prototypes and select many for production Japan had to be very careful about what designs it chose to develop and needed to leverage already existing production capacity.  Japan had some very good engineers, but not nearly enough of them to do what they really needed to do in their aviation industry.  All this leads to the idea that even had Japan wanted to incorporate new features into their designs they couldn't have produced them a lot of new planes.  



Again, a lot of accurate observations. Many things conspired against Axis Powers adopting "mass production", and lack of engineering capacity was certainly part of it. Also lack of Industrial Experiance, and a military that didn't want to deal with the constrictions of "mass production". They wanted to deal with small familiar firms that could give them some of what they wanted quickly. They didn't want to hear about "lead times" and "setting up facilities" and "simplifying the design" and other things needed to begin production on a mass basis---and they didn't want to hear about massive production stoppages every time they decided they wanted a new "widget" added to the product.

On the other side of the Ocean was the US.., where Eli Whitney had laid the groundwork for mass production around 1800, and Henry Ford had perfected the process about 1910. Huge industrial complexes had grown up around it's use.., and if theoretical science was a bit behind, practical engineering and industrial process was a decade ahead of the rest of the world. Americans had learned the art of "thinking big", and that's the attitude they took to war.



I agree... lots of very good and accurate observations. But also add in the rivalry between the IJ army and navy. That rivalry probably delayed production efforts as much as any shortage of strategic materials or lack of mass production ability. Both Mitsubishi and Nakajima were required to keep separate design and production teams for each service. And there was no liaison between the two. The Japanese aviation industry did prove that they were capable of producing designs that rivaled anything the allies had. Getting them into the air was another matter.

Chez



herwin -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/20/2009 10:44:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

The Japanese had not yet mastered mass production of sophisticated equipment on a mass scale.  IMO this played a critical part in plane design.  Because of production constraints, the amount of innovation that could go into a new design was limited.  While the US could test many unique prototypes and select many for production Japan had to be very careful about what designs it chose to develop and needed to leverage already existing production capacity.  Japan had some very good engineers, but not nearly enough of them to do what they really needed to do in their aviation industry.  All this leads to the idea that even had Japan wanted to incorporate new features into their designs they couldn't have produced them a lot of new planes.  



Again, a lot of accurate observations. Many things conspired against Axis Powers adopting "mass production", and lack of engineering capacity was certainly part of it. Also lack of Industrial Experiance, and a military that didn't want to deal with the constrictions of "mass production". They wanted to deal with small familiar firms that could give them some of what they wanted quickly. They didn't want to hear about "lead times" and "setting up facilities" and "simplifying the design" and other things needed to begin production on a mass basis---and they didn't want to hear about massive production stoppages every time they decided they wanted a new "widget" added to the product.



Reminds me of the American military-industrial complex during the middle of the Cold War (after Viet-Nam and before the Strategy of Technology).



Charles2222 -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/20/2009 11:05:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

As far as the lack of self-sealing fuel tanks or armor, I don't think you could learn their deficiencies in the BoB, simply because neither side had those things at least in any aircraft that would expect to do battle with.


Both Spitfire and Me109 had armour for pilot (behind seat and thick armoured windshield). At the time of "Battle of Britain" this become standard (fighters made before lacked it although some field modifications were made)...

As for self-sealing fuel tanks the German bombers most certainly had those.


Leo "Apollo11"

What I was trying to say, was that neither nation had the deficiencies of having those conditions. IOW, if you're sure you're on the right path and neither nation had those problems, you go on assuming you're right and they are wrong. You had to have one of those nations to have those deficiencies to have learned anything is what I was trying to say.



LowCommand -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/21/2009 3:25:18 AM)


Part of the problem was the Samuri spirit. Most of the early Nip pilots didn't use parachutes or want armor. Nor was it just them, some US aces preferred to trade armor for performance as late as Korea. Also, to a certain extent everybody got caught looking. Yes, they had seen the reports, but somehow it just wasn't real. Then reality caught up and bit them on the butt.



mlees -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/21/2009 5:14:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

In parallel, the Germans had a good early war fighter (the Me-109), and were a touch slow in developing a replacement. Both nations counted on short wars.




what about the FW-190? 1940?



I thought the FW-190 was delayed a little bit too, wasn't it? Underappreciated? Couldn't it have been avialable sooner?



Apollo11 -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/21/2009 8:38:48 AM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

As far as the lack of self-sealing fuel tanks or armor, I don't think you could learn their deficiencies in the BoB, simply because neither side had those things at least in any aircraft that would expect to do battle with.


Both Spitfire and Me109 had armour for pilot (behind seat and thick armoured windshield). At the time of "Battle of Britain" this become standard (fighters made before lacked it although some field modifications were made)...

As for self-sealing fuel tanks the German bombers most certainly had those.


What I was trying to say, was that neither nation had the deficiencies of having those conditions. IOW, if you're sure you're on the right path and neither nation had those problems, you go on assuming you're right and they are wrong. You had to have one of those nations to have those deficiencies to have learned anything is what I was trying to say.


Ahh yes... very very true...


Leo "Apollo11"



Yamato hugger -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/21/2009 10:25:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

In parallel, the Germans had a good early war fighter (the Me-109), and were a touch slow in developing a replacement. Both nations counted on short wars.




what about the FW-190? 1940?



I thought the FW-190 was delayed a little bit too, wasn't it? Underappreciated? Couldn't it have been avialable sooner?


Dont think the FW190 was. The ME262 definitely was. It could have been available in late '42.



Odin -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/21/2009 10:29:30 AM)

Of course it was delayed....took some years to make Adolf believe this is a fighter, not the fast BOMBER he wants[:D]




castor troy -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/21/2009 12:01:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger


quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

In parallel, the Germans had a good early war fighter (the Me-109), and were a touch slow in developing a replacement. Both nations counted on short wars.




what about the FW-190? 1940?



I thought the FW-190 was delayed a little bit too, wasn't it? Underappreciated? Couldn't it have been avialable sooner?


Dont think the FW190 was. The ME262 definitely was. It could have been available in late '42.



The Me-262 surely was not meant to replace the 109 because the Schwalbe was not what you would call a fighter. It was a bomber destroyer perhaps, but surely no fighter in the terms of what you want an aircraft to be when you need a fighter. By the time the Me-262 showed up in the war you didnīt need much more than a bomber destroyer that was fast, but seeing thousands of Allied bombers attacking Germany in one day/night was probably something noone in Germany really had thought of in 40/41.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/21/2009 3:29:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
Dont think the FW190 was. The ME262 definitely was. It could have been available in late '42.



People keep making this claim...., but even in 1944-45 the engines for the Me-262 were very unreliable and short-lived. And the Fw-190A was a supliment for the Me-109, not a replacement. It wasn't until the Fw-190D that it could be called a "replacement".



Nikademus -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/21/2009 3:40:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

We all know that Japanese aircraft were extremely fragile under fire and without (or with insufficient) armor and protection.


By the time of Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941 the air war was raging in Europe for almost 24+ months (2+ years) and I wonder why didn't the Japanese learn anything from it (especially "Battle of Britain" from the summer of 1940)?


At the time, armor and self sealers were not 'standard' The original F4F was also designed and produced initially without either. The main constriction for the A6M's designer though was the demanding specs required by the Navy. It had to be fast, maneuverable, well armed and have good range. All this with an engine of limited HP compared to newer models under development elsewhere. Jiro had little choice but to delete any thoughts of armor as weight had to be kept down as much as possible to achieve the specs demanded.



Mark VII -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/21/2009 3:51:22 PM)

Most Jap pilots also refused to have radios mounted in their A6M2's. It would add weight and hurt performance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

We all know that Japanese aircraft were extremely fragile under fire and without (or with insufficient) armor and protection.


By the time of Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941 the air war was raging in Europe for almost 24+ months (2+ years) and I wonder why didn't the Japanese learn anything from it (especially "Battle of Britain" from the summer of 1940)?


At the time, armor and self sealers were not 'standard' The original F4F was also designed and produced initially without either. The main constriction for the A6M's designer though was the demanding specs required by the Navy. It had to be fast, maneuverable, well armed and have good range. All this with an engine of limited HP compared to newer models under development elsewhere. Jiro had little choice but to delete any thoughts of armor as weight had to be kept down as much as possible to achieve the specs demanded.





Nikademus -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/21/2009 3:59:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark VII

Most Jap pilots also refused to have radios mounted in their A6M2's. It would add weight and hurt performance.



The land based units, at least those stationed around Rabaul did but radios, even unreliable ones were essential for carrier based units and they kept them. I have to wonder personally how much the radio's absence actually improved the plane's preformance but then again, I wasn't the one flying it. [:D] Some Japanese pilots felt it did.



Bogo Mil -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/21/2009 4:50:58 PM)

It takes some time to develop a new fighter, thus the experiences in Europe in 1940 could not have much impact on the Japanese fighter production in 1941.

And sometimes experiences can completely mislead people. In the early stages of the Spanish civil war, many nations "learnt", that high maneuverability was still the key for a fighter. Thus many countrys decided to produce such light, slow and maneuverable aircraft, which were already obsolete designs actually (e.g. Gloster Gladiator, I-153, Fiat CR.42). New tactics for fast modern fighters were developed quickly, and these brand new aircraft were virtually worthless in WWII.



m10bob -> RE: Failure of the Japanese to learn from WWII Europe air war (2+ years of time)... (1/21/2009 6:51:22 PM)

The Japanese had been flying over China since the mid 30's and had been shooting down planes built by all the nations mentioned above. American, German, Italian, Russian, Brit, etc...The Japanese did not NEED to look at any other nations planes, they were convinced they were already in possession of the best..Germany had the Spanish Civil War to get some experience but that did not last near as long, nor produce near as many actual combat pilots.
The Japanese were so hip-deep into Bushido, they even disliked it when the newer planes came out with closing canopies and felt it put a barrier between they and their opponent, and was making killing more......."impersonal"..


http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/sino-japanese.htm



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1