Japanese aircraft were behind in timing to Allied aircraft.

[Shortround6]

Yeah but didn't a very large number of bombers in 1940-42 have Vicker's or Lewis guns?

The Lewis guns were being phased out in 1939-40, they were 99% used as flexible observer guns and were replaced, even on existing aircraft, with the Vickers "K" gun which looks like a Lewis but is not. It also has nothing to do with the regular Vickers gun except the name of the company and the ammo.

It fired a bit over 1000rpm from a 100 round drum, it was doubled up on the Hampden, both top and bottom.

Note the sophisticated system of keeping the gunner from shooting his own tail off.
Also note that the guy in this position was also the radio operator was not there solely to man the machine gun/s.
Only the ventral gunner was a dedicated gunner.
The British stopped making them in 1941, Yes they used them for quite a bit longer but production space was making something else in 1942.
The first 50 Baltimore's had single K guns, the next 100 got twins and the next 250 got four gun power turret with Browning's.
Still wasn't enough and changing to twin .50s in the power turret may have helped (or not) but they still needed escorts.
Baltimore had a 4 man crew.
It was shorter ranged than the Japanese bombers, would top 300mph (barely, on a good day) and would carry 2000lbs (perhaps not as many small bombs)

The Japanese may have had a reason for carrying the large crew but over 300kg of crewmen, kit and 3 popguns and extra fuselage to house them could have been put to better use.

 

[eagledad]

Hello Bill

The first B-25 mission was carried out by B-25C's in early April 1942, by 2 squadrons of the 3rd Bomb Group (American Combat Planes, 3rd Edition, page 221). These aircraft of the 5th Air Force were ferried to Australia, flew to the Phillipinnes, on April 11th, raided Japanese shipping, and then returned to start operations in the New Guinea area,

However, the Doolittle Raid was carried out by B-25B's on April18, 1942.

Hope that answers your question.

Eagledad

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Hello Bill

The first B-25 mission was carried out by B-25C's in early April 1942, by 2 squadrons of the 3rd Bomb Group (American Combat Planes, 3rd Edition, page 221). These aircraft of the 5th Air Force were ferried to Australia, flew to the Phillipinnes, on April 11th, raided Japanese shipping, and then returned to start operations in the New Guinea area,

However, the Doolittle Raid was carried out by B-25B's on April18, 1942.

Hope that answers your question.

Eagledad

Thanks, yes it does. Had me worried for a minute lol

 

[BarnOwlLover]

IMO, I'd argue in general to go for a Mosquito type approach for light/medium bombers, and a B-29 approach for heavy bombers. We know now that without escorts, most bombers unless they flew high and fast--or at least fast--were largely helpless, no matter what number guns or types of guns they carried.

Yes, the bomber usually got though, as history shows. Issue is at what cost to those who were carrying out the missions. Your bombers getting shot down as fast as or faster than you can make them isn't a good look, or a good stat, or a good tactic/strategy. That's where the whole "your success was more expensive in terms of time, energy, money and manpower than some others' failures'' comes into play.

I'd personally favor sending in a hoard of fast, agile light bombers to essentially glide bomb a target, because though you'd be giving up bombload per aircraft, such planes are cheaper, require less men to operate, and though speed and agility, and being smaller targets (let alone faster ones) are more likely to attack and make it back. Also, bombload doesn't matter much if you put a lot on target accurately. That's the whole "you can drop someone with a .22 with good shot placement, but not do jack with a .30-06 or .444 Marlin if your placement sucks" line of thought.

Of course, there's the B-29 which flew high enough and fast enough that few German or Allied aircraft stood much of a chance of intercepting one until the jet age, and drop a crap-ton of bombs onto a target.

IMO at least, why was the Mosquito better as recon plane than the Ki-46? It was as fast or faster, and usually flew higher. For an unarmed or lightly armed recon platform, speed is sort of life. Not to mention that the Mosquito had similar range to the Ki-46. Granted, you don't need the fastest plane, but it helps, and you need at least enough margin in speed and altitude to make interception difficult. Problem was that planes like the Hawker Tempest V and II had climb rates of over 4700 fpm and top speeds in the 435-440 mph range. And even some Merlin-engined Spitfires had similar climb rates, let alone the Griffon powered ones that were capable of between 445-455 mph.

Also, a P-51H had a top speed (depending on set up) of 472-487 mph, and could climb as fast as 5800 fpm in interceptor trim (per SAC documents at World War II Aircraft Performance). Even the P-51B/D on 80/81" boost in interceptor trim could climb 4800-4900 fpm and reach over 450 mph. At least the IJA and IJN didn't have to deal with these aircraft in the PTO aside from the P-51B/D, though they were rarely used as interceptors, and instead as escort fighters like in the ETO.

Sort of the same thing with the Ki-83. Since it didn't make it into service during World War II, I felt it only fair to compare it to similar Allied fighters that also just missed the war--hence the Hornet and the F-82, both of which were planned for use in the Pacific. When flow on USAAF spec fuel, the Ki-83 reached 473 mph--competitive with the Hornet and within 10 mph of the XP-82/P-82B (both with Merlins). When flown on IJA spec fuel, speed dropped to 437 mph, which was basically basic Merlin P-51 levels.

What is known about the Ki-83 was it could make a 360 degree turn in 31 seconds at 400 mph. Of course, I don't know of any data for the Hornet or Twin Mustang--only broad statements, such as the Hornet was no Mustang or Spitfire in terms of turn radius and especially roll rate, and that the Twin Mustang was very agile for its size (again, no hard numbers or such).

 

[GrauGeist]

Of course, there's the B-29 which flew high enough and fast enough that few German or Allied aircraft stood much of a chance of intercepting one until the jet age, and drop a crap-ton of bombs onto a target.

The Japanese did manage to intercept and shoot down B-29s. Granted, the number that were downed is not a large one, but the fact remains that the Japanese did.

As far as Germany goes, the Me262 and B-29 went operational at about the same time. Had the USAAF deployed the B-29 to Europe, the B-29's would have been just as vulnerable to the Me262 as the B-17 was.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'd personally favor sending in a hoard of fast, agile light bombers to essentially glide bomb a target, because though you'd be giving up bombload per aircraft, such planes are cheaper, require less men to operate, and though speed and agility, and being smaller targets (let alone faster ones) are more likely to attack and make it back. Also, bombload doesn't matter much if you put a lot on target accurately. That's the whole "you can drop someone with a .22 with good shot placement, but not do jack with a .30-06 or .444 Marlin if your placement sucks" line of thought.

Now, instead of 20% of your crew being trained pilots, it's 50%. While fewer men can be lost per sortie, they will be men who have been trained at greater expense -- and harder to replace.

You also have more engine-maintenance requirements (you'll need 3 Mosquitoes [@ 2000lbs each] to match a B-17's bombload, and 7 to match a Lancaster's), which means either two more engines v B-17, or ten more compared to the Lanc. Those engines will require ground-crew, again trained at some expense, and also require a larger supply-chain to cope with standard maintenance and upkeep.

These issues shouldn't be overlooked.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Now, instead of 20% of your crew being trained pilots, it's 50%. While fewer men can be lost per sortie, they will be men who have been trained at greater expense -- and harder to replace.

You also have more engine-maintenance requirements (you'll need 3 Mosquitoes [@ 2000lbs each] to match a B-17's bombload, and 7 to match a Lancaster's),

All that extra bomb load doesn't mean that much when you miss with most of them. A 2,000 lb bomb that actually hits the target is worth far more than 50,000 lbs which hit in the general vicinity. The effects of explosives lose military significance quite rapidly with relatively short distance.

You do have a point about potentially losing more pilots per aircraft, but it comes down to vulnerability of the planes and how effective they are at destroying their actual targets. Bomber command lost 50% of their crews, which is really apaalling.

which means either two more engines v B-17, or ten more compared to the Lanc. Those engines will require ground-crew, again trained at some expense, and also require a larger supply-chain to cope with standard maintenance and upkeep.

These issues shouldn't be overlooked.

I think approaching strategic bombing as if it's a form of trench warfare in the sky is... a little bit questionable to me. But it's moving beyond the scope of Japanese vs. Allied aircraft, except in the sense of comparing aircraft designed for that mission vs aircraft design for more tactical or operational missions.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

You do have a point about potentially losing more pilots per aircraft, but it comes down to vulnerability of the planes and how effective they are at destroying their actual targets. Bomber command lost 50% of their crews, which is really apaalling.

Mosquitoes aren't going to be any more accurate than the heavies if the former are dropping at 20,000'+. You want accuracy, you gotta get into the weeds, and that means a lot of low-altitude targets open not only for 88s but 20- and 37-mm flak as well. Oh, and subject to bounce by -109s and -190s on egress.

It's an alternative, but it's every bit as much "trench warfare" as using heavies. It's just more expensive.

 

[Shortround6]

IMO, I'd argue in general to go for a Mosquito type approach for light/medium bombers, and a B-29 approach for heavy bombers. We know now that without escorts, most bombers unless they flew high and fast--or at least fast--were largely helpless, no matter what number guns or types of guns they carried.

well, that takes a whole lot of hindsight. It also takes an industrial base that no one but the US had. A B-29 weighs empty about twice as much as a B-24 did and we can assume it takes about twice as much raw material and effort to build. At least you have better plan things on that basis. If you do better then great.
Japanese Ki-49 weighed about 1/5 as much as a B-29 and a Ki-21 was a ratio of about 1 B-29 to 5.5 Ki-21s.

For the Mosquito approach it takes a leap of faith. It also takes a very good airplane, and it takes keeping your engine technology at least equal if not superior to you enemy.
The Mosquito was also a bit restricted in what it could do. The bomb bay was rather restricted.

Also, bombload doesn't matter much if you put a lot on target accurately

This kind of depends on what you want to do.

That's the whole "you can drop someone with a .22 with good shot placement, but not do jack with a .30-06 or .444 Marlin if your placement sucks" line of thought.

Trying to take out a bomber runway with a few 250lb bombs is rather difficult. It is back in service the next day.
A couple of 1000lb bombs make bigger holes in the runway.
a crap load of 500lb bombs take a lot longer to repair and screw up everything around it, like revetments, supplies, living spaces, etc.

taking out ships it is somewhat easy, you either hit or you don't. If you hit it is either a repair yard or it's sunk.
Land targets require return visits.

Certain bomb bays are restricted in size. A B-25 for instance was limited to
1..........2000lb bomb
3..........1000lb bombs
6...........500lb bombs
8...........250lb bombs
12........100lb bombs

This was limited to fuel load B-25s for short range could hang eight 300lb or smaller under wing.

the Ki-48 could carry up to 24 15kg(33lb) bombs or 6 50kg (110lb) bombs normal. Might be useful for bombing troops in the jungle (good luck using dive bombers for that) or Chinese villages. Not so good for killing ships.

A-20s had been designed to carry a crap load of small bombs in vertical chutes. When they decided to used four 500lb bombs horizontally in bottom of the bomb bay (two pairs, one behind the other) they would up with enough space in the bomb bay to fit 325 gallons of fuel in the upper bomb bay.
If they had been designing the plane from scratch they might have wound up with a skinny lower drag fuselage.

As a historical note, the Japanese on Aug 14th 1937 flew G3M bombers from Taipei to Hangchow and the next day flew from Omura on Kyushu Over 600 miles one way.
When they operated from the Chinese mainland against targets further inland beyond the range of the type 96 fighters they suffered heavy losses, which lead to the Zero.
The Early G3Ms were defended by three of those 7.7mm Lewis guns. Chinese fighters in 1937 or early 1938????

 

[Reluctant Poster]

They routinely used Hurricanes in the Med for PR and almost every one of them seems to have been shot down. So were most of the Spit IV etc.



I think you can only believe this if you started out believing it.

A6M and Ki-43 clearly were not behind and were in fact highly competitive with the best US and European designs up to 1943. What do I base this on? They shot the British and US fighters down at a quite high rate. Even when you get into F4U etc. we can see the numbers were still pretty equal. Only the F6F seems to have had a notable advantage. And US and British types which faced both German and Japanese (like the P-39, Hurricane, P-40, Spitfire Mk V) did about the same in the Pacific vs MTO and Russian front. Which to me implies equivalency.

The early war Japanese types were not as heavily armed, but they had the range needed for their Theaters.

The N1K1, Ki-61, Ki-44, and Ki-84 were all clearly competitive with foreign equivalents. They just didn't make enough of them and / or had too much trouble maintaining them in Tropical conditions.

G4M, despite all the alleged defects, compares quite well to equivalent Allied, German and Italian bomber types of this period. It was a very effective ship-killer.

Ki-46 was at least the second best recon plane in the world.

B7A was certainly the best naval strike aircraft design in the war, and probably until 1947.

The question isn't whether the Japanese aircraft were competitive with the aircraft the Allies chose to use against them, it is whether the Japanese were behind the Allies in design in general. The fact is that the Japanese were not facing the best at least as far as the RAF is concerned.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

taking out ships it is somewhat easy, you either hit or you don't. If you hit it is either a repair yard or it's sunk.

I know you know this already, but larger bombs are useful against ships, because if the miss is close, you still get the mining effect.

The real lesson is don't attack ships with level bombers, especially at higher altitudes.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

We really only know this due to hindsight, but bombs against airfields don't work very well. Even 15 and 16 inch battleship shells. The holes are too easy to fill in, especially if the owners of the field have bulldozers.

Those B-25s did the best with parafrag bombs which could damage aircraft, AA guns, and personnel inside their revetments. Again, this was something figured out during the war, difficult to predict beforehand.

Ports are probably better to hit with largeish bombs.

I don't know that much about the operational history of the IJAAF bombers that much, aside from a few incidents.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

First, I'm d like to point out that I do not disagree that the Japanese were somewhat behind, though behind who exactly is a good question. Behind in some areas, a lot at times in a few, and somewhat on average.

Certainly not 3 years as was claimed in another thread.

There are a lot of reasons for this, some to do with philosophy, some to do with size, some to do with, well, reasons. In absolute terms, they fielded fewer of the best, however we may define the best, than the USA. On the other hand more than Holland, and arguably larger numbers of useful aircraft than the Italians.

In a few instances, they left everybody else behind. The Ki 46 is discussed above, I don't see that as really behind, even if the mosquito may be better soon, and nobody else wanted to spend resources on 'just' a recon aircraft.

The world beating of the H8K cannot be disputed, and indeed I don't t remember anybody doing it. The floatplane fighters left everybody standing, if only because few else saw the point. And indeed the other power with a real need, might as well build another carrier instead and send it to wherever fighter cower was needed.

The Olga, MXY7, had no counterpart. I know it looks insane, but when you realize a conventional attack on a task force will claim 80 or 90 percent of the attacking planes, it makes sense to build a faster plane with less frontal area than whatever plane you can scrape together.

Nobody else built it, as they did not have the need and the desperation, still it's s not behind.

Built for a role nobody else saw the need to fill with a special design, no argument there.

That said, I don't think aircraft as the B6N were really behind, nor the D4Y-3.

Good points about the H8K, the float-plane fighters (A6M2-N, N1K1 float plane) and the B6N and D4Y

H8K was probably the best military flying boat design of the war. I remember a detailed thread about this on here a while back.

A6M2-N and N1K1 were certainly the best seaplane fighters in the world.

Ki-46, as we have noted already was the second best recon plane of the war.

B7A was certainly the best maritime strike aircraft of the late war.

MXY7 ' Ohka', though somewhat grotesque, was certainly a unique and effective weapon. We are lucky they didn't have time to fine tune it a bit more.

B6N and D4Y-3, though flawed and arriving somewhat late, were certainly competitive mid-war carrier strike aircraft designs.

This looks increasingly competitive to me. The key factor is still whether the A6M and Ki-43 were competitive with 1941 or 1942 vintage Allied aircraft. Data we have seen for example of losses in combat between A6M and F4U looks like the former was still a quite competitive design, in spite of being slower. If it went basically even with F4U I doubt Spit VIII did any better, nor would a Fw 190 or Bf 109G. The latter would be next to useless in the Theater due to range, as would say, La-5 or Yak-9.

We know the same was also true for example of the Ki-43 vs the Hurricane or P-51A. My take is that these aircraft were different, they were designed with different priorities of different Theaters in mind. I think it's naive to assume this means inferior or lagging, at least up to the mid war. By 1944-45 certainly Japanese production, impacted by the destruction of their merchant fleet and the bombing of their homeland, they did fall behind, but that is a different matter.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Those B-25s did the best with parafrag bombs which could damage aircraft, AA guns, and personnel inside their revetments. Again, this was something figured out during the war, difficult to predict beforehand.

I think one of Kenney's great insights was that trying to f**k up the runways was too much work ... but that scattering a buttload of parafrags renders the base inoperable or at least indefensible all the same, at least for the repair cycle. And when it's Willie Pete <nods>

Airbases are only as good as the planes they can launch.

 

[Vincenzo]

Chinese fighters in 1937 or early 1938????

to March '38 (however the next D.510 coul be came in august)
Curtiss Hawk III
Breda Ba.27
Fiat C.R.32
Boeing 281
Polikarpov I-15 Bis
Polikarpov I-16
Curtiss Hawk II
Gloster Gladiator

 

[Just Schmidt]

The Japanese may have had a reason for carrying the large crew but over 300kg of crewmen, kit and 3 popguns and extra fuselage to house them could have been put to better use.

They may have had reasons, but I can't really think of any good ones.

In general i always did find Japanese twinengined bombers rather unimpressive. Again the Japanese airforce was two airforces, and while the navy had range, the army seem to have had speed, and passive protection.

For their time the bombers the IJAAF started out with and introduced around the start of hostilities in the Pasific were not slow. The early B-25 may indeed have matched them, but later models got slower. Possibly the same applies to the B-26n and A-20?

Compared to the Japanese fighters it becomes even more apparant, the Ki 21 II was as fast as the Ki.27, the Ki-49 I about as fast as the Ki-43-I. (Now there is Ivan's view that Japanese speed was measured differently than western and we have them too slow. That should apply to bombers as well, and at least the internal comparison should be sound nevertheless. I'd wish that notion had been thoroughly argued, but few seem to be for or against. But i digress.)

I never thought about the dedicated gunners on Japanese bombers, at least for the Ki-49 I never realized how large the crew was. Why indeed did they carry these gunners?

While the value of defensive guns can be discussed, and indeed you mention that even a s-load of 0,5's didn't cut it, it is clear that Japanese thinking was ahead when it came to escorting your bombers. As no bomber can be nursed all the time, defensive guns can still have some value, no matter how we otherwise evaluate that value. Even then, the realization your bombers need escorts makes it seem doubly strange that they filled their comparatively fast bombers with extra crew, and armour for those crew members. Who seem to have often gotten rid of some of it. This, i repeat, is for the army's bombers.

It is very possible that the meager bombload was partly also a result of the distances that was expected to apply in most bomber operations. I'm sure somebody off the bat will remember how heavy a bomb load applied on the Doolittle raid.

And i find it ironic that German bombers often had too few gunners for the guns eventually installed.

 

[Just Schmidt]

MXY7 ' Ohka', though somewhat grotesque, was certainly a unique and effective weapon. We are lucky they didn't have time to fine tune it a bit more.

I did write okha, it was my telephone who insisted on Olga.

The other day when I wanted to write ainur, it corrected it to Sibir.

Makes you wonder what nation controls the auto-correction on your phone.

 

[SaparotRob]

I did write okha, it was my telephone who insisted on Olga.

The other day when I wanted to write ainur, it corrected it to Sibir.

Makes you wonder what nation controls the auto-correction on your phone.

I knew auto correct was the culprit right off. Those auto correct gremlins strike frequently and unnoticed. I recall a post by a knowledgeable member dealing with the Battle of Latte Gulf.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

They may have had reasons, but I can't really think of any good ones.

In general i always did find Japanese twinengined bombers rather unimpressive. Again the Japanese airforce was two airforces, and while the navy had range, the army seem to have had speed, and passive protection.

For their time the bombers the IJAAF started out with and introduced around the start of hostilities in the Pasific were not slow. The early B-25 may indeed have matched them, but later models got slower. Possibly the same applies to the B-26n and A-20?

B-26 got slower partly due to their making the wings longer (and had a lot of gunners!). A-20 remained quite fast, probably the fastest bomber of the war after the mosquito, and until the Arado 234. The problem with the A-20 was though the earlier incarnations had extremely limited range, and pretty light protection as well. Later versions got up to about medium range and more armor and guns etc.

Compared to the Japanese fighters it becomes even more apparant, the Ki 21 II was as fast as the Ki.27, the Ki-49 I about as fast as the Ki-43-I. (Now there is Ivan's view that Japanese speed was measured differently than western and we have them too slow. That should apply to bombers as well, and at least the internal comparison should be sound nevertheless. I'd wish that notion had been thoroughly argued, but few seem to be for or against. But i digress.)

I never thought about the dedicated gunners on Japanese bombers, at least for the Ki-49 I never realized how large the crew was. Why indeed did they carry these gunners?

While the value of defensive guns can be discussed, and indeed you mention that even a s-load of 0,5's didn't cut it, it is clear that Japanese thinking was ahead when it came to escorting your bombers. As no bomber can be nursed all the time, defensive guns can still have some value, no matter how we otherwise evaluate that value. Even then, the realization your bombers need escorts makes it seem doubly strange that they filled their comparatively fast bombers with extra crew, and armour for those crew members. Who seem to have often gotten rid of some of it. This, i repeat, is for the army's bombers.

It is very possible that the meager bombload was partly also a result of the distances that was expected to apply in most bomber operations. I'm sure somebody off the bat will remember how heavy a bomb load applied on the Doolittle raid.

And i find it ironic that German bombers often had too few gunners for the guns eventually installed.

Good post with some interesting points.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

to March '38 (however the next D.510 coul be came in august)
Curtiss Hawk III
Breda Ba.27
Fiat C.R.32
Boeing 281
Polikarpov I-15 Bis
Polikarpov I-16
Curtiss Hawk II
Gloster Gladiator

Which is really pretty similar to the mix of aircraft which were flying in the Spanish Civil War