Japan and the Soviet Union

[Glider]

Oh I fully disagree. In a joint operation as suggested they would ofcourse co-operate, there's no question about it.

Putting it simply. The IJN and the IJAAF didn't co-operate with each other, plus the Japanese and Germans didn't co-operate with each other in any meaningfull way until it was too late.
Apart from your assumption can I ask if you have anything to support your view?

 

[Soren]

Parsifal,

I just don't see how the USSR are gonna be capable of sacrificing any meaningful amount of their reserves to fight the Japanese in the East if the Germans were pushing forward with 25 to 30% more strength in the West than they originally did when occupied with the western allies.. esp. in terms of numbers of a/c.

If we conclude that the Japanese could muster up 400 Zeros for the operations in the East, then along with the numbers of Ki-27s Ki-43's available that would be enough to control the skies there. The VVS would be forced to dispatch allmost all they had at the Germans, and the little they had left, while it possibly was more than what the Japanese had, wouldn't have been able to cope. We also have to remember that a/c need pilots to fly them as-well, and the VVS were getting robbed of this pretty severely in 41. So they might have had a good deal of reserve a/c parking in the east, but they needed pilots to fly as well.

So with the Japanese airforce in control of the skies the troops on the ground would have it a lot easier.

Also tanks such as the T-34 KV-1 would've only been made available in the west, they were desperately needed there. So tanks such as the T-26 T-28 were gonna be the armour available to the Soviet forces in the east, and these tanks were highly vulnerable to even the smallest of AT rifles. So the 57mm guns on the Japanese tanks would be sufficient against these.

 

[Amsel]

Putting it simply. The IJN and the IJAAF didn't co-operate with each other, plus the Japanese and Germans didn't co-operate with each other in any meaningfull way until it was too late.
Apart from your assumption can I ask if you have anything to support your view?

Why wouldn't they cooperate if they are attacking the same nation at the same time? There would definantly be some sort of cooperation! Obviously it can't be documented because we are discussing alternate history.

 

[Soren]

Putting it simply. The IJN and the IJAAF didn't co-operate with each other, plus the Japanese and Germans didn't co-operate with each other in any meaningfull way until it was too late.
Apart from your assumption can I ask if you have anything to support your view?

Ofcourse I have something to support it. Take the cooperation between the Germany and its close allies in Europe for one. The Germans supplied them with a/c as-well as tanks. Why ? Because they were operating along side the Germans!

The Japanese never came to operate together with the Germans in the war, and that is what kept the technology from flowing between them.

Had they agreed upon a joint invasion of the USSR you can be sure that they would've worked together a lot more closely and shared both technology equipment from the beginning.

 

[Soren]

Why wouldn't they cooperate if they are attacking the same nation at the same time? There would definantly be some sort of cooperation! Obviously it can't be documented because we are discussing alternate history.

Strike one! Exactly Amsel.

 

[JoeB]

Hi Joe

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you on this one



In Russia, the Germans did rely on horse drawn transport, but not for their "long range" supply. Horses were used mostly to transport the artillery, and for local supply close to the front. Vehicles provided over 90% of the lift capability for the LOC supply requirements.

For the record also, whilst you are correct to say that the japanese were able to launch major offensives in 1941-2, the scale of these offensives were no where near those of a 22 division attack against the Soviets. And these extremely limited offensives very nearly derailed the japanese logistics network. The offensive into Burma in 1942 was by two divs, the offensive into Malaya was by three Divs, and in each case they very nearly ran out of supply, mostly because of a shortage of trucks. The two offensives of 1944 into southern China did involve about 18 Divs, however at no time were more than 8 Divs engaged in offensive operations at any given time. There is no instance that I know of after 1940 that the Japanese engaged in a major land offensive bigger than 10 divs.

It's not so much disagreeing with me. There are sources discussing their actual plans. You are rejecting them based on an out of thin air analysis you did before learning of those actual plans, it seems.

The German campaign in Russia in 1941 gained fewer miles per day than the French one in 1812. Obviously armies do not inherently require motor vehicles to conduct long range offensives. That assertion or implication doesn't stand even a cursory reading of military history. And anyway comparison to offensives against the Soviet west are not on point because the Japanese Manchurian base of operations was so much closer to the planned objective, Maritime Province. And a second stage longer range offensive going west, if that point had been reached, would obviously have relied on *rail* logistics. Also, considering only the Japanese offensives in 1941-42, most of which were supplied by sea over long distances from Japan, with *shipping* the critical logistical element, is comparing apples and oranges. The Japanese conducted much larger continental land offensives, as large or larger than the proposed one v Soviets, in China, and over much greater distances than an offensive from eastern Manchuria into the Soviet Maritime Province. Read "The History of the Sino Japanese War" by Hsu and Chang, the KMT official history, but it's accurate in basic description of campaigns. Tactically the KMT and Soviets were different, but it shows your analysis of inherent Japanese inability to conduct large long range offensives on land to be clearly wrong. The Japanese could, and had already.

So, your logistical theory why the Japanese would be greatly outnumbered against the Soviets in FE is just wrong. It's especially obvious considering opening border battles of such a campaign, where the Japanese force would be operating right from its bases, ridiculous in that case to assert a 5:1 Soviet numbers advantage, the Japanese had those 20+ divisions in Manchuria, that wasn't a plan but a fact. Then the initial offensives objectives were not all that far away in logistical terms. So the logistically incapable, or vastly outnumbered because of logistics, argument can be firmly rejected based on the facts.

As to whether an IJA offensive would have succeeded in terms of tactical and operational *combat* factors, that can be reasonably debated. However the IJA proved itself clearly superior man for man, combat power for combat power, in combat in relatively closed terrain v second string Allied ground units in 41-42, IOW v countries putting their highest military priorities elsewhere. The IJA was generally outnumbered in those campaigns but scored consistently rapid successes. It was of course always heavily outnumbered in China. But it would have had at least numerical parity with the Soviets in a campaign launched from eastern Manchuria, especially considering the numbers for Soviet FE are for the whole large region, only some of those opposite eastern Manchuria. And if the Japanese had found a way to wait* until the 1942 campaign season, they'd have had a pretty big numerical advantage, and lower quality of Soviet forces remaining.

*the main reason this is all moot is the US/Brit/Dutch oil embargo of July '41, in response to Vichy agreement to Japanese demand for bases in southern Indochina. Once that happened the Japanese had to either make big concessions to the West to get the embargo lifted (it was made it clear that just reversing the bases agreement wasn't enough) or attack the West. If attacking the West they obviously couldn't prevail against the Soviets at the same time as even they realized, which is why they rejected the IJA's plan to attack the USSR. So any 'what if' of Soviet-Japanese war has to assume the Japanese prevent the oil embargo, and also that the West doesn't slap on the embargo *for* attacking Britain's ally of convenience, the Soviets. But just assuming Japan can buy Western oil, they could choose '41 or '42 to attack the Soviets. The latter is as realistic at what is as the former.

Joe

 

[Juha]

Soren
Quote:" What would keep it from mounting two 3.7cm cannons Juha ?"

Simply weight, the 37mm BK 3,7 cannon alone weighted 295kg, add fittings, the gun gondola and ammo, even the limited amount it used, you have the weight over 3 times what the wing had designed to carry (2x 50kg bombs) plus the massive recoil.

Quote:" According to all I've read on Ki-46 it was a pretty good a/c with nice handling and a good load carrying capability"

For ex Green's and Swanborough's Mitsubishi Ki. 46 in Air International Nov 1980 p. 232 On Ki-46 "Lacking agility desirable in a fighter" also on its use as a fighter p. 233 "lacked the ability to absorb much battle damage." To me it sounds that Ki-46 wasn't very suitable to ground attack plane.

Ki-46 also suffered through its service life from weak undercarriage, so what are your sources?

Quote:" I think my own arguments have been pretty well grounded so far."

Now I must say that I disagree on that.

Quote:" The VVS would be forced to dispatch allmost all they had at the Germans, and the little they had left"

Have you info what they had?

Quote:" T-28 were gonna be the armour available to the Soviet forces in the east, and these tanks were highly vulnerable to even the smallest of AT rifles."

Now pre-war T-28 had 20-30mm armour, I would say that that was rather thick armour against the smallest of AT rifle. And already during very late 1939 Soviets began uparmour them, so from early 40 onwards their front armour was 80mm and side armour 40mm. So would you be so kind and post a photo on AT rifle that could easily penetrate 80mm armour?
Not that has much to do the situation in FE in 1941, IMHO there were no T-28s anymore in FE.

Juha

 

[Juha]

Amsel and Soren
Quote:" Why wouldn't they cooperate if they are attacking the same nation at the same time? There would definantly be some sort of cooperation! Obviously it can't be documented because we are discussing alternate history."

Quote:" Ofcourse I have something to support it. Take the cooperation between the Germany and its close allies in Europe for one. The Germans supplied them with a/c as-well as tanks. Why ? Because they were operating along side the Germans!"

Now of course the might have been so co-operation but not much. A look on a world map shows why. And how Germans treated their smaller Allies wasn't so generous, they usually gave them some second-rate equipments and then complained that for ex Romanians didn't stand Soviet attacks. Only from late 43 onwards Germans became generous and then it was too late, some of the equipment were used only against Germans, they arrived so late.

Juha

 

[Soren]

Juha,

Are you seriously suggesting that because an a/c didn't function well as a fighter then it couldn't be used as a ground attack a/c ? Now you're just not making any sense at all! Was the Ju-87 a great fighter ? Did it sport better performance? You're grasping for straws at this point!

As for a source on the Dinah, I'll have to check the book you mention at the library tomorrow if they have it, but as for my own sources are the US evaluations during the war and the general Japanese opinion good enough for you? According to these the Ki-46 sported great handling for an a/c its size and weight, good performance and a good load carrying capability. So the Ki-46 could've very likely have performed the ground attack duty in a similar fashion as for example the Hs-129. The a/c was more than fast enough, so it could easily be armoured for the role without becoming too slow cumbersome.

Next is the Ki-51. I believe it could easily take 500 kg on each wing if need be, no problem, so the 295 kg BK 3.7 could be mounted easily I believe. Also the recoil wasn't that bad as a hydraulic recoil damper was used. But even if this wasn't gonna work out then just a pair of 20mm auto cannons was more than enough against anything the Soviets could deploy. And a weapon similar to the German 3cm Mk103 could surely be mounted if need be as-well, this gun only weighed ~140 kg.

And as for the T-26 tank, it featured a mere 6 to 10mm of armour, with AP ammunition German MG's could shoot through that at 500m! The T-28 was admittedly a different target all together, but I doubt it was available. I was thinking about the T-27 before, which was just as weakly armoured as the T-26.

 

[Juha]

Soren
IMHO a good ground attack a/c needes some manoeuvrability and ability to absorbe battle damage, not surprised that you have other ideas.

from where you have read the US evalution on Ki-46, source please? I have TAIC info but it is all on specs nothing on handling. And the weak undescarriage is also mentioned in Frankillion's Japanese a/c of the Pacific War

You can believe what you want but the fact is that its max load for Ki-51 normally was 4x50kg bombs. As Kamikaze plane it could take 250kg load. That's the fact, I'm really not interested someone's claims unsupported by facts. Have you some fancy idea why Japanese didn't put those 2 500kg bombs on their Kamikaze Ki-51s?

I'm bit puzzled all those imaginary equipment you are adding to Japanese armoury. Try to keep in the equipment that were available in that time. Nobody is giving to Soviet Union side T-34/85s or Kalashnikovs.

Yes T-26 and amphibious T-37 and T-38 were very weakly armoured as were BT series tanks which had been the main tanks of Soviets during Nomonhan fighting.

Juha

 

[Soren]

Soren
IMHO a good ground attack a/c needes some manoeuvrability and ability to absorbe battle damage, not surprised that you have other ideas.

Right back to the old insult you go, very typical of you when you're in a tight spot. But I'm not surprised you don't like anything axis either, also very typical of you.

But I take it that the Ju-87 Hs-129 were both very maneuverable a/c in your opinion and would've been rated so when compared to actual fighter a/c? I must say that's new to me!

I'm also very interested in knowing how you concluded that either one was more maneuverabe than the Ki-46.

And you claim I need to be realistic? I believe you need to strive at this yourself more than me.

from where you have read the US evalution on Ki-46, source please? I have TAIC info but it is all on specs nothing on handling. And the weak undescarriage is also mentioned in Frankillion's Japanese a/c of the Pacific War

A weak undercarriage, something common with a/c that size. Still it doesn't seem like the Ki-46 had a high accident rate.

You can believe what you want but the fact is that its max load for Ki-51 normally was 4x50kg bombs.

Max bomb load ? Fact ? Prove it!

I'm bit puzzled all those imaginary equipment you are adding to Japanese armoury. Try to keep in the equipment that were available in that time. Nobody is giving to Soviet Union side T-34/85s or Kalashnikovs.

What imaginary equipment ? You don't believe that the Japanese had 20mm 30mm auto cannons or could develop the BK 3.7 under license ?? You believe that the Japanese were so far behind technologically that they couldn't develop high velocity 20mm 30mm cannons at a low weight fit for being mounted on a/c ?

I must say you don't think to highly about the Japanese.

 

[proton45]

I'm not sure if I'm really part of this discussion (as I'm just throwing in a word or two, here and their_lol), but IMO their is a fair case to be made regarding the issue of weak supply capability for the IJA...however I also feel that with the German situation Russian supply support would be equally strained.

The issue of air superiority is not so clear...IJA did take a great loss in Nomonhan, however this was due, inlarge, to the fact that the Russians where allowed to replace and re-enforce their airfields. After the initial bombing raids on the Russian airfields the IJA airforce was told to stop...if they had maintained pressure on the airfields (bombing sorties) they may have been able to maintain air superiority.

In Nomonhan the most common light bomber (with dive capability) was the Ki-30. The most likely candidate for a ground attack airplane (by 1941) would be the Ki-45 KAIb (maybe the Ki-45KAIc)... Not as robust as the IL2 (by far), but with proper tactics and aircover they may have been quite effective against ground targets...(we will never truly know...lol)

 

[Juha]

Soren
look for ex fromRené Francillion's book (the standard work on japanese WWII a/c) for armament of Ki-51. There it is stated.
I happened to be fond with Sonia so I have changed e-mails with specialists of Japanese a/c. So i know that the Kamikaze version was modified to carry 1x250kg bomb under fuselage and that Ki-51s of 6 FB carried one 100kg bomb under each wing during shipping strikes during the liberation of Philippines in 1944. So its much better to read a good book on subject than waste one's and others' time in empty speculation, IMHO Japanese were clever enough to arm Ki-51s with 2x500kg bombs for shipping strikes if they had thought that possible.

I really don't believe that all rather small twins had weak undercarriage through their service life.

Did Japanese built BK 3.7 under license or not? The answer reveals is the scenario imaginary or not, simple than that. Try to accept that Axis lost the war or at least keep your dreams yourself. We can argue on the subject of this tread without fictional weapon systems.

Juha

 

[Juha]

Hello Proton
IIRC Ki-45 began its active service mid 42 after long and torturous development period.
On Nomonhan, IIRC the then newest (some 10 years ago) Russian research had came to conclusion that a/c losses were rather same on both sides but the Soviet losses were 10-25 a/c higher, I cannot remember exact figures, maybe some 250 a/c per side.

Juha

 

[Glider]

Why wouldn't they cooperate if they are attacking the same nation at the same time? There would definantly be some sort of cooperation! Obviously it can't be documented because we are discussing alternate history.

As mentioned in an earlier posting, both Japan and Germany were facing a common enemy, the USA and the UK, both started out well but the tide turned and both were losing but at no time did they co operate, not to any practical level. The level of co operation between the Navy and the Army was also minimal, even to the point that the Japanese army built their own submarines to supply some of the islands as the navy didn't consider them a Navy responsibility

So the question is, Why would this change?

I totally agree that its the obvious thing to do, the logical thing to do and could write pages on the areas for co-operation big and small, but it didn't happen in real life when defeat was looming and to say it would happen because its a good idea, doesn't do it.

Soren
Of course I have something to support it. Take the cooperation between the Germany and its close allies in Europe for one. The Germans supplied them with a/c as-well as tanks. Why ? Because they were operating along side the Germans!

No they supplied them because they didn't have first line aircraft of their own. To fit this scenario they have to give these countries the ability to build 109's, 190's and so on. As far as I know they nearest they came was giving the Italians the DB601 and DB605 which is matched by giving the Japanese the DB601.

The Japanese never came to operate together with the Germans in the war, and that is what kept the technology from flowing between them.

Had they agreed upon a joint invasion of the USSR you can be sure that they would've worked together a lot more closely and shared both technology equipment from the beginning.

I covered this in my previous reply suffice to say I am not sure of the co operation, more than planning and objectives.

 

[Soren]

Glider,

You seem to forget that the Bf-109 for one was produced in both Romania Hungary, very late in the case of Romania.

 

[Glider]

Glider,

You seem to forget that the Bf-109 for one was produced in both Romania Hungary, very late in the case of Romania.

It wasn't a case of forgetting, it was a case of not knowing, hell we all learn. Any idea as to how many they produced.

 

[Soren]

Soren
look for ex fromRené Francillion's book (the standard work on japanese WWII a/c) for armament of Ki-51. There it is stated.[/qoute]

Does it state maximum load ?

I happened to be fond with Sonia so I have changed e-mails with specialists of Japanese a/c. So i know that the Kamikaze version was modified to carry 1x250kg bomb under fuselage and that Ki-51s of 6 FB carried one 100kg bomb under each wing during shipping strikes during the liberation of Philippines in 1944. So its much better to read a good book on subject than waste one's and others' time in empty speculation, IMHO Japanese were clever enough to arm Ki-51s with 2x500kg bombs for shipping strikes if they had thought that possible.

Well maybe they wanted the a/c to be capable of actually slipping past the AA defenses, did you think of that ? With two 500 kg bombs under each wing that wouldn't be possible. Also lets keep in mind that the BK 3.7 only weighed half this.

But nevermind that, even if the Ki-51 couldn't mount a weapon like the BK 3.7 under each wing it wouldn't have to either, a couple of 20mm cannons would suffice. A weapon like the Ho-3 would be able to open up a T-26 like a sardine can with ease.

Did Japanese built BK 3.7 under license or not? The answer reveals is the scenario imaginary or not, simple than that. Try to accept that Axis lost the war or at least keep your dreams yourself. We can argue on the subject of this tread without fictional weapon systems.

What kind of question is that ? This whole discussion is about a 'what if' scenario, did that slip passed your nose ??

Had the Germans Japanese co-operated in an invasion of the USSR there's every reason to believe that a lot more material would be license built by the Japanese, and one of these could've been the BK 3.7, unless ofcourse the Japanese concieved something even better..

 

[Soren]

It wasn't a case of forgetting, it was a case of not knowing, hell we all learn. Any idea as to how many they produced.

Hungary produced around 600 Bf-109G's. As for Romania, I'll have to look that up.

 

[Glider]

Many thanks for the build numbers.

The following is a good link for the Ki46 and supports what I have in other books.
The Mitsubishi Ki-46 "Dinah"