If Axis aircraft swap theater?

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

pinsog said:
Operation Pedestal would never succeed against a Japanese defended Mediterranean Sea.
Click to expand...

Operation Pedestal was in Aug of 1942.
What are the available Japanese aircraft and which Italian and German aircraft should they replace?
Zero's replace Macchi MC 202s and Bf 109Fs? Germans used a lot of Ju 87s and Ju 88s against the British ships.
The G4M in service at the time was the G4M1 Model 11. Top speed barely higher than a Blenheim, unprotected fuel tanks, one pie plate sized piece of armor, four Lewis guns and one 20mm gun in the tail.
Italian torpedo bombers per wiki in 1941 "The year ended with a total of nine Allied ships sunk and 30 damaged; for 14 torpedo bombers lost and another 46 damaged in action. "
This was the best year, 1942 had much worse results.
The SM 79 II could hit 270mph, just a tic faster than the G4M1 but things were so close that individual aircraft probably overlapped performance.

Japanese crews might have performed better, I am not seeing any big advantage in the aircraft.
 
IMO it's unfair how the Betty is regarded by some as a superlative torpedo platform of WW2 whilst the Sparrowhawk is passed over, notwithstanding its more robust construction, twice the torpedo load and faster speed. Kudos for Force Z, but thereafter the Bettys were ineffective deathtraps.

Had the Japanese been able to design and produce better engines even they would never have put the fragile, underarmed, under-protected, one trick Zero or Oscar into production. These two aircraft were clearly exercises of desperate aeronautical engineers trying to get competitive performance out of uncompetitive power plants. By 1942 the Brits, US, Germans and even the desperately fighting Soviets with their Lavochkin La-5 were flying aircraft equal to the Nakajima Ki-84 introduced in late 1944. Look at the A7M Reppu, the supposed replacement for the Zero but with performance no better than 1942's Spitfire Mk 9 or Corsair.

There's nothing Germany needs from Japan other than torpedoes and a brace of Shōkaku-class. But Japan desperately needs Germany's competitive aero engines like the BMW 801 so they can get Ki-84 performance, firepower and protection into front line service in early 1942 or sooner.
pinsog said:
Operation Pedestal would never succeed against a Japanese defended Mediterranean Sea.
Click to expand...
But, I think I'm done with this thread. There's just too much Japan fandom.
 
Last edited:
No need to leave the thread. Many of your opinions are very valid.

I never said the G3M or G4M are the greatest torpedo bombers of the war.

Force Z had no fighter protection and there were a LOT of Japanese torpedo bombers. (Not sure how many carried bombs and how many carried torpedos) ANY torpedo bomber early in the war carrying a good working torpedo and flown by expert pilots such as the Japanese was going to do well against a capital ship early in the war if there were enough of them. Even 50 Devastators carrying Japanese torpedos and flown by well trained pilots would have had the same results against Prince of Wales and Repulse. What the Japanese did was very simple: training training training. The only thing the Japanese airframes allowed them to do was strike at very long range. As long as there wasn't fighter opposition they did well, it was simply bloody training for them. The Zero, with its exceptionally long range, had the ability to escort bombers far beyond anything else in the world. The Beaufighter became an excellent maritime strike aircraft later in the war, but the Japanese had that capability from day one due to 1. Excellent torpedos 2. No fighter opposition 3. Well trained pilots

Is this Japanese fandom? I don't think so. I think I'm calling it like it is. Who else during the entire war did a long range precision strike on capital ships at sea and sank them?

If the British had this capability why didn't they use it on Bismarck instead of chasing her around the ocean with half her fleet and losing Hood in the process?

I believe the Japanese who sank Force Z would have done the same to Bismarck or any other battleship on earth at the time whether it was British, French, Italian or American.
 
Yes, I believe you sincerely believe that.

Smh, do you really equate hitting a pair of ships operating close to shore, in a known location on a warm, clear day to (without the help of the RN surface fleet) locating, maintaining contact and hitting a pair of ships in the North Sea in May? That's the Japan fanboi I'm referring to.

The only reason the strike against Force Z was considered long distance is that the IJN didn't operate their bombers from existing or newly constructed airfields closer to the Gulf of Thailand. Their total overwater flight was not overly remarkable. For example, the distance from the 1940's French-built Moranc airfield (today's Cà Mau Airport) to the Malaysia city of Kuantan near to where Force Z was sunk is a total of 392 miles (630 km). That's within the easy range of nearly any twin engined torpedo bomber of WW2, the Bristol Beaufort, for example had a range of 1,600 mi (2,600 km).



Whereas any land based strike against Bismarck would have to fly from Scotland for many hours to the Denmark Strait through some of the worst weather imaginable. How the heck will they find Bismarck, let alone attack it?

 
Last edited:

The Japanese found Force Z and the patrol plane turned on a beacon and shadowed them so the attacking force could find them. Sounds like good training to me.
IF it had been a bright sunny day in the North Atlantic with the Bismarck transmitting its location the entire time, exactly what could the RAF have done about it? they couldn't even stop the Channel Dash up a 25 mile wide stretch right next to the island much less sink 2 capital ships on the high seas with long range strikes.

The USAF could have sent a few squadrons of B17's to drop bombs from 20,000 feet and miss Bismarck by miles so that's a failure.

How many British capital ships did German torpedo planes sink?

How many capital ships did Italian torpedo planes sink?

Japanese torpedo planes sank Prince of Wales, Repulse, Lexington, Yorktown and Hornet on the high seas, the last 3 were defended by fighters. (I'm not including ships sunk in harbors although that was impressive as well)

How many capital ships did Britain's torpedo planes sink at sea?

The Germans and Italians together couldn't take Malta. Seriously. The Japanese ran the entire world out of the Far East and drove the US back to Midway and everyone else back to Australia while the Germans and Italians can't take an island 100 miles off the coast of Italy???

And you think I'm a Japanese fanboy?

The US had the A20, B25 and B26, any of which would have made a fine torpedo plane, but our crappy torpedos didn't even work, nor did we have trained crews so it didn't matter how good the aircraft was.

I'll say it again, the Japanese were the best anti ship people in the world in 1941 and 1942 and they proved it over and over and over.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Yes, and if you re-read your posts so would you.

Anyway, I'm done here, peace out.
Click to expand...

I would rather you discuss what I typed. Go point to point. If you can defend your position just do it. I'm here for fun, not to offend or be offended.

Don't get offended just because we disagree on this. You come up with a lot of good threads and good points and I enjoy your posts. Many many times I agree with your point of view, but I don't here on this subject.
 
Last edited:
I'm not having any problems with Pinsog's line of reasoning. I can't argue too much with Pinsog. (Those IJN torpedo planes had some help from dive bombers with the last three. Bomb damage kinda slows down damage control parties. U.S.S. Yorktown was finally done in by a submarine. But I digress.)
His points are kind of true. I don't think I'm a IJN fanboy but imho, they were the best anti ship strike force until late 1942, mid '43. Then the USN (of which I am a fanboy) caught up.
All of these threads are essentially "we know they lost, but if they tried this they would have lost by less."
 
The Axis did successfully take the Channel Islands.
So there!
 
Thank you.
Your correct, Yorktown was finished off by a sub, Lexington had the aviation gas fume explosion (she was still conducting flight operations after 2 torpedo hits) and Hornet was ultimately finished off by a Japanese destroyer (how bad do American torpedos suck when 2 fleet destroyers can't scuttle your own ship from 500 yards away!!!!) but as we all know, Yorktown and Hornet were brought to a dead stop by torpedos.

I also didn't include any warship sunk or damaged in port, the Taranto Raid was brilliant as was Pearl Harbor, but that is a different issue than bombing a moving ship on the high seas.
 
Admiral Beez said:
The RAF helped Britain to successfully hold the line, Japan never got further than Burma and never managed to cut off the supply roads from India to China, ie. the entire purpose of Japan going into Burma.
Click to expand...

True, but both the British and the Americans grossly underestimated the Japanese and their military ability before the shooting started and it cost both countries. That's my point.
 
Italian aircraft being replaced by other aircraft from major countries is probably always a bit of improvement.
With that said, in a threat whose premise is 'Luftwaffe and Japanese switch aircraft', inventing the new rule ('Italians get not only Japanese aircraft, but also pilots and torpedoes') is a bit off to me.
 

The Japanese did cut the Burma road from mid 42 till 44.
That's why the Ledo road was built. Then supplies were flown from Ledo to China.
Nothing but the supplies flown over the hump reached China until norther Burma was cleared of the Japanese , and then the Ledo road was connected to the Burma road .
 
Yorktown was damaged by dive bombers, which left her vulnerable to torpedo bomber attack.

Hornet was severely damaged by dive bombers and torpedo bombers but was actually sunk by two Japanese destroyers after failed scuttling attempts.

Lexington was damaged by dive bombers and torpedo bombers but damage control kept her in action until aviation fuel vapors detonated, causing considerable damage and uncontrollable fires. She was scuttled by a US destroyer.

So these three examples are not a conclusive argument for the success of torpedo bombers.
 
If we're allowed for a bit of leeway, there are certainly some aircraft-related tings that either of Axis countries might benefit.
In other words - this or that aircraft, but suitably modified for this or that task. Like - the D4Y 'Judy' as a night fighter, with German engine in the nose, a pair of cannons in the wing + one in 'schraege musik' fashion like it was the case with some NF Judys (or two pairs of cannons in the wing), and German radar. Or, the C6N 'Saiun' with BMW 801 under the hood, outfitted for night fighting job. Eithe way, Germans can have a NF that is a performer while also being affordable (both to buy and operate).
The Ki-61 with German engine is also an useful fighter, combining good performance, excellent range and better reliability.
I've suggested several times the German airframes combined with Japanese engines, eg. Fw 190 and Ju-87 with Japanese radial engines, featuring also the increased fuel tankage as standard.
 
Dimlee said:
Sorry, but I don't see any Soviet aircraft of 1942 comparable to Ki-84. Except for I-185 but its service was limited to combat trials during winter 1942-1943.
Click to expand...
No need to apologise. I've left this thread, but saw your notification and didn't want to leave you hanging. The La-5 of 1942 is comparable to the Ki-84, though to be fair we're more likely looking at a later La-5 of 1943 vs. a later Ki-84 of 1945. My point was that if they had the engines the Japanese would have put something like the Ki-84 into service in 1942 instead of relying on the agility of their otherwise fragile and underarmed fighters.

Looking at the below from Wikipedia, definitely the Ki-84 has the edge, as it should have two extra years of development, but it's not a huge edge.

Lavochkin La-5 - Wikipedia

Maximum speed: 648 km/h (403 mph, 350 kn)
Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 16.7 m/s (3,290 ft/min)
Guns: 2 × 20 mm (0.787 in) ShVAK cannon with 170 rpg

Nakajima Ki-84 - Wikipedia

Maximum speed: 682 km/h (424 mph, 368 kn)
Service ceiling: 11,826 m (38,799 ft)
Rate of climb: 21.84 m/s (4,299 ft/min) at sea level
2 × 12.7 mm Ho-103 machine guns in nose, 350 rounds/gun
2 × 20 mm Ho-5 cannon in wings, 150 shells/cannon

But that's it for me on this thread. PM me if you wish to chat further, peace out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Spanish Lend-Lease and (Potential) Domestic Production if Franco Joined the Axis
Replies
6
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
What if the Bugatti 100p became a fighter?
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
GTX
A
Earlier Lockheed (or Martin) carrier aircraft?
Replies
7
Views
416
Shortround6
S
Cold war European combat aircraft alternatives?
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
bf109xxl
Steel in aircraft construction, 1935-45?
2 3
Replies
48
Views
3K
fshort
Menu
Log in
Register