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

[gorizont]

doubling

 

[Glider]

Just an observation but how long does anyone think the air war would last? Remembering that the Russian Army would more or less drive over anything the Japanese Army could field.

 

[gorizont]

Just an observation but how long does anyone think the air war would last? Remembering that the Russian Army would more or less drive over anything the Japanese Army could field.

It depends on time frame. In 1941 Soviet army was not so powerful and skillful in comparison with the state of 1945. Germans proved it in 1941.
In 1945 - Japan rules the sea, Soviet union rules the land.
But any comparison for "what ifs" situation based on real world dispositions has some unaviodeble shortcomings. For instance if we try to make a comparison between Japan techological state and SU state in 1945 we throw away a significant factor - in 1945 SU technologies and war machines were kept upgrading and developing on large scale but Japanese in fact - not (the same is for German) due to worstening economical situation (in real world).
Even in 1944 pressing of US military efforts made Japanese put emphasis on naval force and additionally spent avaliable resources on maintainance of defence system on Pacific islands. It was coupled with a shortage of some strategic materials such as alloying metals etc.
SU was in conformable situation only in 1941 and part of 1942 because of lend-lease.

 

[Glider]

In 1941/2 the Russian T34/76 and KV1 are more than capable of taking anything on the Japanese fielded at any time during the war. In the Air the IJA lacked the GA capability that was so important.
Its worth remembering that the Japanese army was beated by the russians before the war. There is no doubt that the German armed forces had a huge advantage over Russia in 1941 but the Japanese were nowhere near as effective as the German army and airforce.

 

[alejandro_]

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.

Ki-61-II was so unreliable that it should not be taken into account. Ki-100 was better but not comparable to La-5FN. Below you can find a Japanese test. It is not known what engine settings but is nowhere near La-5FN, which does +575km/h at sea level.

I found an interview with a Soviet pilot that used the Yak-9U. The engine life was 50 hours:

Interview with Vladimir Mukhmediarov

 

[tomo pauk]

The Ki-100 was better compared with La-5, than with La-5FN, the endurance indeed being the only thing where the Ki-100 was better? By the time Ki-100 entered fray, the Soviets were flying de-bugged La-7. The Aichi's copy of DB-601 was really one of the worse engines of the ww2, Kawasaki's copy was better, even if not so powerful as Aichi's.

Alejandro, where is the Japanese test?

 

[alejandro_]

Alejandro, where is the Japanese test?

We discussed it a while ago here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight-test-data/ki-100-peformance-30338.html

The graphs I made are part of an article.

Historia y tecnología militar: El Ki-100

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks.