Best transporter

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

They couldn't have replaced them as quickly as America though. While Americas force was getting bigger, Japans would just be filling in the gaps.
 
First of all, Japan had nowhere near the industrial capactity needed to match America. No one, exlcuding perhaps the Soviet Union, did. I have heard that producing the carrier Amagi required the metal from all of the cooking pots in Tokyo. I don't know if that is true but it illustrates the blight of the Japanse industrial base. But even if Japan had been able to match the numbers of carriers, they had no design to match the fighting power of the Essex-class.
 
If the economy of Japan magically matched that of America, I would firmly believe history would be the other way around. The idea of a superior class of ship could win the war is flawed, the fact that Royal Navy vessels were at a majority WWI technology but still combated the modern works of the Kriegsmarine and Italian Navy proves that it doesn't always depend on the ship.

The fact is though Japans economy wasn't a touch on America. America used its economic might to crush those that opposed it.
 
The Japanese didn't have the quality of pilots in 1944, nor did they have quality of planes. There would have had to have been a whole series of 'what-ifs' for the war in the Pacific to have gone differently.
 
Also the fact that Japan had inferior pilots might be something to be blame on a lower economy. Yes, I know the economy is of materials but while your economy is being bombed to submission you start losing the frame of mind to train effectively and put it all into the rebuilding of forces.

On top of that, the need to push out troops and pilots as fast as possible was due to the increasingly desperate situation Japan was in because their economy and military was faltering on the growing might of America (by their vast economy)
 
The effectiveness of Japanese pilots had little if any relationship to their economy. One of the things that were them was that only the 'very best' pilots made it through the rigorous training the IJN impossed on its pilots. The result was that the 'best' pilots washed out.
 
"In the first six to twelve months of war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."

--Admiral Yamamoto in an interview with the Shigeharu Matsumoto,
a member of the Japanese Cabinet, 1940

That quote I think sums up what we have been talking about and is better then the "Sleeping Dragon" that most like to quote. But t IJN was very good and strong. We talk about how strong the US production was, but it was never battle tested, that is we never had bombs fall on Wilow Run or Bethgaige, NY (where Grumman was producing). So we cannot tell if our production could have rebounded like Germay or would be ground down like Japan.

For your what if mind games: Japan is able to take Eastern China in the "Few months" they said it would be and set up production there?
P.108T- that is a hoot, and well you are on the topic we sidetracked a bit for some good old carrier talk. But the P.108 was good, but more on that latter.

Question for you all, is there any trueth to the story the Soviets just up and moved the factories over the mountains out of bomber range?
 
well i can't say it would be the Ju-58 because it only had 2 side gunners and a top gunner that only fired towards the back of the craft
certanly something i wouldn't want to be on during world war 2 (watch out for frontal attacks
 
Lightning Guy said:
The Japanese didn't have the quality of pilots in 1944, nor did they have quality of planes. There would have had to have been a whole series of 'what-ifs' for the war in the Pacific to have gone differently.
Click to expand...


Quality of planes? They did have good planes. The Zero, outclassed, sure, but good nonetheless as a dogfighter. The Shiden needs no intro. The Hayate was excellent in all aspects. The Dinah was so good the Germans wanted to copy it. The Tony performed better than some 109's. The Toryu was a great nightfighter, even though it lacked radar. The flying boats were second only to Sunderlands. The Jack was not only well armed, it was good at all altitudes. The Ohka, although its mothership had problems, was untouchable and did its job excellently. The Hiryu was fast, well armed and armored. The Judy was the fastest dive bomber of the war. The Jill was an effective, but vulnerable torpedo bomber.

Be assured, quality was everywhere, but skilled pilots were not.

Concerning numbers built before anyone brings it up:
1,742 Dinahs
1,701 Toryus
167 Emily Flying Boats
10,499 Zeroes
476 Jacks
1,149 B5N Kates
852 Ohkas
819 Ki-49 Helen Bombers
2,446 G4M Betty Bombers
3,382 Ki-84 Franks
5,919 Ki-43 Oscars
1,048 G3M Nell Bombers
3,078 Ki-61 Tonys
1,118 F1M Pete Seaplane Biplane Observers
1,435 Shidens
1,225 Ki-44 Shoki Interceptors
698 Peggy Bombers
214 H6K Mavis Flying Boats
1,094 A5M Claude Fighters (Early War)
2,038 D4Y Judy Dive Bombers
1,133 B6N Jill Torpedo Bombers


So you see, not only were the Japanese good at mass producing, (the 3000+ Franks were made in 17 months; please don't compare this to the US's industrial capability, I know the US could have made nearly 6,000 in the same period of time) but it wasn't the lack of good aircraft, it was the lack of good pilots that doomed them in the air.
 
MP-Willow, that is all too true. The Soviet production facilities were loaded on to trains and sent East past the Ural Mountains out of German hands.
 
Part two of my above post: Another thing I am trying to get across here is that these were all readilly available. Obviously not in their whole numbers, but in quite some numbers. In addition to this, I would like to say that the Shiden and Frank were given to the best pilots available, be them the most promising recruits out of training, or old hardened aces.


Just a little filler I'd like to throw in about the Ki.

Ki-84 Ia~2x 7.92mm mgs in the engine cowl and one 20mm cannon in the wing

Ki-84 Ib~Mgs replaced with another pair of 20 mike-mikes

Ki-84 Ic~Wing 20 mike mikes replaced with 30mm cannons for bomber butsing.

My preffered version would be the Ib as it is well balanced, can kill any fighter in the skies, and has plentiful ammo. The Ic had little ammo for the 30's which made it pointless for dogfighting.

Another fact, had the war been different, these could have been used to escort Japanese bomber fleets. How? Range. More than a Mustang and these had Armor unlike most Japanese planes, as well as self sealing tanks.

Imagine it~4 engine Japanese bombers (they had a flying prototype ready to be produced) attacking the Philipines, Okinawa, Wake, and Iwo Jima with Ki's and Shidens near to fend off the Stangs and Jugs while the invasion fleets come in in the Higgins-like assault boats to take the islands back, one at a time...
 
With the possible exception of the Hayate 'Frank' they Japanese had no aircraft capable of exceeding 400mph on the level. The Americans had 4 I know of (P-38, P-47, P-51, F4U) and have seen some test evidence that the Hellcat could do it as well. The 'Emily' flying boat was the best of the war, far better than the Sunderland in my opinion. The Judy was fast, but little else. The Ki-61 'Tony' was considered to be easy prey by many pilots as even with its increased speed it was still slower than American fighters and far less maneuverable than the Japanese types. The Japanese did have some outstanding designs, especially towards the end of the war. However, I don't think this translated into very many outstanding planes as quality control in Japan from the latter half of '44 left a lot to be desired.
 
GermansRGeniuses, Yes the Ki-84 was very god, but where were these bober fleets, and fighters going to come from? The home islands were in ruien they were sharpenig bamboo spears to repeal the AMarines that wod be landing in 1946. Yes if the Ki-84 could have been given the quality of production the desig was capable of then things could be differnent. But the bomber and fighter production was ravaged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
What Criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter
9 10 11
Replies
218
Views
24K
Lighthunmust
L
N
Best Aircrafts
Replies
4
Views
2K
TheMustangRider
O
Poor Aircraft, Best Pilot
Replies
4
Views
2K
net_sailor
  • Locked
Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever
8 9 10
Replies
187
Views
27K
lesofprimus
  • Locked
Best Ground Attack Aircraft...
Replies
1
Views
7K
lesofprimus
Menu
Log in
Register