IJAAF/IJNAF vs. Soviets: who would have the edge?

[tomo pauk]

How well stack up the fighters vs. possible bomber streams? The 'Asian war' would see the fighters unable to reliably catch the bombers until 1944?

 

[Juha]

Hello Tomo
Soviets had own radars, if they didn't have radar stations in FE they would surely have deployed some if there had been a war between SU and Japan. Japan also had radar later on and in China both sides had fairly effective observation system, so interceptions were common earlier than 1944.

Juha

Juha

 

[Shortround6]

Not sure what you are getting at here. While the Soviet bombers would be fairly effective over land their ability to hit Japan from any land bases (unless from the Korean peninsula) is pretty limited for most of the war. From Vladivostok a PE-2 is pretty much on a one way trip due to range. IL-4 can make the trip easy but is best confined to night bombing as it won't survive in daylight. With a 1000-1500kg bomb load at such distances one wonders if it is really worth as a bombing campaign. Without a radical shift in production from historic the TU-2 comes too late to really matter and the PE-8 was built in such small numbers as to be nothing more than a nuisance.

Going the other way the Japanese at least have more types can that make the trip but none with enough performance to out pace the interceptors. Depending on land bases the Japanese al least have the possibility of escort fighters.

 

[Jenisch]

IL-4 can make the trip easy but is best confined to night bombing

Night bombing by the Soviets is enough.

A detail being overlooked here is that Japan would necessarily have to attack the US. The Americans would be willing to operate bombers in the Soviet FE.

 

[tyrodtom]

I doubt that there would many in the Japanese leadership who would ever think of taking on the USA and Russia at the same time.
That'd make Germany's two front war seem like childs play.

 

[Jenisch]

I doubt that there would many in the Japanese leadership who would ever think of taking on the USA and Russia at the same time.

That's the point: nobody think in that way. However, if the Japanese attacked the USSR in 1941, the Americans could have well placed the oil embargo they placed after the Japanese occupation of Southern Indochina. Under the oil embargo, and in case the Soviets managed to stop the Japanese advance, Japan would would have to pull out of China, either to lift the embargo and/or to reinforce against the Soviet forces hoping to help cause a quick Soviet collapse. It was not possible to conduct wars against the West and Russia at the same time. It's also debatable if a Japanese offensive would be enough to cause a Soviet collapse. I'm skeptical about this. The main Soviet population and industrial centers were not in the Maritime Province and Siberia, which BTW would be very difficult for the Japanese impose tight control. Further Japanese advances in Soviet territory would be extremely unlikely given the Japanese lack of capability to advance in China.

 

[zoomar]

Absent lend-lease, I suspect its about a wash. From my limited knowledge, early Soviet and Japanese planes (I-153, I-16 vs Ki-27 and A5M) were pretty much equivalent in the late 1930's fighting. IN 1945, the IJAAF was completely outclassed by the Soviet airforce, both in numbers and aircraft quality in the theatre. Since any war between Japan and the USSR would not be a naval conflict, Japanese advantages in shipboard aviation and anti-ship attack are not relevant. Japanese airframe design seemed to be somewhat more sophisticated, and cannon-armed Japanese fighters would be more heavily armed than Russian types, but Russian engines were more reliable and I suspect the aircraft were far more rugged. I'd certainly go with the Russians when it came to ground attack and bombers (which would be pretty important in a Manchurian war). Pe-2, Tu-2, Il-2, and even the older Il-4 were probably far better in these roles than G4Ms, K-21's. Ki-67 was good but no better than Tu-2. Both airforces seemed to favor low/medum altitudes and high manuverability. Soviet manufactiring capacity far outsripped that of Japan, even if not a single Soviet bomb fell on Japanese manufacturing plants.

 

[tomo pauk]

Concise agreeable overview, especially the Soviets outproducing the Japanese, and Soviet planes being tough.
The Japanese seem to have introduced the airplanes with potent 20mm cannons from same time late 1943 on? Prior that, the IJA airplanes did not have cannons (Nate, Oscar, early Tojo Tony), the Zero featuring the low velocity, low RoF and 60 rds Type 99/1 cannons. Soviets were fielding one Shvak in most of their planes, significant exception being the MiG fighters. From late 1942 the 2 cannon La-5 is available, and 37mm finds itself in LaGG-3 and Yak-9. The Soviet planes having enough fire power to kill anything Japanese fly, while Japanese might find their armament lacking prior the winter of 1943/44 sets in?

The engine in Mitsubishi Raiden was reliable, far more than late Shvetsovs and Klimovs? Homare being as reliable as those Soviet engines?

It is questionable whether the IJA/IJN fighters would be able to reliably catch Pe-2 prior Toyo and Tony are introduced?
The Japanes fighters would have had the edge in combat range.

 

[bobbysocks]

another question is what port are they going to be able to use for LL and other supplies coming from the US. they were using vladavostok because supplies delivered to the west were bombed on the dock. us ships were flying russian flags and permitted safe passage through the pacific. no LL and a war at both ends of the country put them in a pretty good vice. they have the ability to out produce but with out the breather they need and the initial suppling to kick start it...the ussr is in a huge world of hurt.

 

[N4521U]

Sounds like a Sushi VS Piroshki thing

 

[Shortround6]

Without lend lease production gets a little iffy.

Russia vs Japan alone doesn't really have a production problem. Russian vs Germany and Japan with no lend lease does.

Lend lease included thousands of machine tools and tens of thousands of tons of raw materials ( steel, aluminum, copper etc) which would have severely impacted the Russian ability to make aircraft and aircraft engines.

 

[Jenisch]

I think the Japanese viewed situation by late 1941 in the following manner:

"We cannot win in China in the current form, and the Chinese don't want to negociate with us. We are spending huge resources in China. It seems that the best way to solve our problems is to attack the US and British domains in the Pacific instead of accept their terms and leave China. They would accept our terms after we inflict big defeats on them and everything will be ok".

Richard Overy said something interesting about the Japanese decision to launch the Pacific war as being the most mistaken decision of WWII in his view:

RICHARD OVERY: Again there's a long list. If I had to choose one I think it's the Japanese decision to attack the United States in 1941. You read the discussions about it, the fact that everybody knew that it is nonsense and it shouldn't be done, the fact that the Emperor can't intervene sufficiently to say this is nonsense, 'please don't do it' and so on. The fact that the naval leadership has this exaggerated sense of honour to the nation, all of these things feed into a decision which is fundamentally irrational, and most of the people who were interviewed after the war by American interrogators can read between the lines, and you can see that they think this was an irrational decision. Yes, it was the wrong decision. If they'd acted differently the Japanese might have extracted more in the end.

http://ww2history.com/experts/Richard_Overy/Most_mistaken_decision_of_WW2

 

[alejandro_]

The Yak-9U was not fielded in thousands, the unreliable engine being the major hurdle. The Japanese did have the Nakajima Homare in fighters, not the most reliable engine, but aganin not that troublesome as the late Klimov engines.

Unreliability was a problem at the beginning, and the VK-107 life was not as long as other models, but it was more reliable than Japanese models.

The engine in Mitsubishi Raiden was reliable, far more than late Shvetsovs and Klimovs? Homare being as reliable as those Soviet engines?

The engine in the Raiden was as unreliable as others installed in advanced Japanese fighter. It was only kept in production because of th B-29 raids, as it was one of the very few aircraft with a decent chance of intercepting them. By the time it was ready the Soviets had La-7, Yak-3 and Yak-9U, together with a huge number of Yak-9 and La-5.

Soviet bombing of Tokyo was a very real possibility that Japanese feared. This was one of the reasons why the Khalkin Gol conflict was no escalated.

 

[tomo pauk]

Alejandro, do we have the numbers that would address the reliability issue, like how many work hours the engines would stand before overhaul? Yakovlyev was going through trouble to redesign the Yak-3 to accept the ASh-82, that would point us that late Klimovs were really problematic.
There is no doubt (again) that Soviets were outproducing Japan.

The engine in the Raiden was as unreliable as others installed in advanced Japanese fighter.

I'm especially interested in this.

 

[alejandro_]

Alejandro, do we have the numbers that would address the reliability issue, like how many work hours the engines would stand before overhaul? Yakovlyev was going through trouble to redesign the Yak-3 to accept the ASh-82, that would point us that late Klimovs were really problematic.

By january 1943 the VK-107 tested had a life of 50 hours*. Usually a VK-105 would be send for overhaul after 100 hours. VK-107 issues were that it tended to overheat in first series, and limited the type's performance. By late 1944 it (Yak-9U) was described as extremely reliable and simple to operate. In Stepanets book you can find a chapter on the type, and the work done to solve the issues. The book is available in pdf in Russian, in the link below you have it in Spanish and can be easily translated:

http://www.rkka.es/aviones/yakovlev/02_Stepanets/419.htm

I'm especially interested in this.

At high revs vibrations were too strong. It also produced too much smoke and the fuel injectors were unreliable. Operating some of the Japanese fighters late in the war was a nightmare. Ki-84 had all sort of problems with engines: temperatures varying unexpectedly, fuel pressure dropping...

I have written quite a few articles on late Japanese fighter aircraft as I am really interested in their design and performance. Quality and engine reliabilty were a problem in all of them except Ki-100. I am not surprised it was seen as a blessing.

* Low engine life is different to unreliability.

 

[tomo pauk]

Indeed, the problems with VK-107 were solved by the late 1944, the plane was eventually built in 2500 copies prior ww2 ended.

The Soviets have had problems with VK-106 and VK-108, the engines eventually abandoned?

About the problems the ASh-82 was experiencing (multi-page thread, can be translated):
-5 -82. . 13

At high revs vibrations were too strong. It also produced too much smoke and the fuel injectors were unreliable.

Any luck in pointing me to the good source about Mitsubishi Kasei?

 

[alejandro_]

Any luck in pointing me to the good source about Mitsubishi Kasei?

Not really. There is an interesting report written by the USSBS called "The Japanese Aircraft Industry". It's got many interesting things on engine development, testing and issues, but is quite general. In WWII Aircraft Performance you can find interviews with former engineers of Japan's main engine companies, but is quite general.

 

[gorizont]

Now to the topic's subject: the Soviets had indisputable advantage over the Japanese in aircraft development and production during WWII. While the Japanese were starting to produce the Ki-84 in 1944, the Soviets already had thousands of Lavochkins, which was a similar plane.

They also already had much more Yaks, the Yaks 1 and 7 were better than the Zero and the Ki-43, and the Yak-3 and the 9U (perhaps the 9D also), were equal or superior to the Ki-84 (actually in theory, the Ki-84 was one plane in theory, other in practice due to it's engine problems).

I should say in spite of being from Russia I appreciate Japanese designs. On paper Ki-84 (and naval Siden) are better planes than La-5FNs and equal to La-7, and Ki-61-II Ki-100 is equal to late Yak-9's. All japanese fighters (both naval and army) had as a rule better endurance than soviet with stricly comparible (and for some fighters better) performance.

In terms of interceptors, I think the Mig-3 was comparable to the Ki-44, while the J2M was superior to both of them.

Production of Mig-3 was ceased early in war. Industry hadn't got capacities to produce simultanously engines both for Il-2 and Mig-3.

In terms of strike aircraft total Soviet advantage, the IL2 cannot be compared to the Ki-51.

Yes, but Il-2 is a special aircraft and in many air forces its role was played by fighter-bombers and light and dive bombers.

In terms of bombers, the Soviets had a much larger quantity of modern bombers produced. The Pe-2 was a very good bomber, and it also could dive bombing, it was an aircraft that would give the Japanese fighters a lot of troube if they had to deal with it. The P1Y was comparable to the Pe-2, but arrive too much late. The Tu-2 had the Ki-67 as a comparable Japanese model, but in terms of production the Tu-2 surpassed the Japanese plane.

The Japanese had adequated personal and technology to have better planes. Unfornately for them, their senior officers prevented the country to have projects in the same level as the ones from the West and Russia in adequated time.

I should say that Japanese industry in some areas concerned air force surpassed SU industry. For example Japanese designed more powerful air-cooled engines, and only destruction of some factories prevented them to start production Mitsubishi 2200 hp engines, 1900 hp engine on Ki-67 hadn't got a soviet equivalent etc.

As for matter of durability - as far as know - Vk 107 (M 107) didn't reach a maturity in terms of durability until the end of the war (reports of enf of 1944- the beginning of 1945 are a bit optimistic).
As for ASh-82FN - the engine became truly reliable only in batches produced in autumn 1945 and aircrafts (late batches of La-7) with those engines installed didn't take part in fights.
In 1944 it seemed that all the problems with overhitting, oil leakage and burnout of cylinders were solved but as it appearred only on La-5FN. With redisignd oil cooling system on La-7 the same problems returned and were sold finally only with some changes in design including re-forming of cylinder barrels.

 

[N4521U]

Sake VS Stoley! wow, what a contest.

 

[gorizont]

By january 1943 the VK-107 tested had a life of 50 hours*. Usually a VK-105 would be send for overhaul after 100 hours. VK-107 issues were that it tended to overheat in first series, and limited the type's performance. By late 1944 it (Yak-9U) was described as extremely reliable and simple to operate. In Stepanets book you can find a chapter on the type, and the work done to solve the issues.

In December 1944 was issued than VK-107 became reliable but (!) the use of Maximum military power (at 3200 rpm) was prohibited so the figure of availible maximum power of about 1400-1450 hp. (at 3000 rpm). Moreover the max continious climbing power regime was allowed only in cold and mild climate (for instance in Europian part of Russia and North and Central Europe). In tropics it was too hot for Vk107 produced in wartime period as far as know