Japanese aircraft were behind in timing to Allied aircraft.

[Thumpalumpacus]

How early were F6Fs in action? Oct 43?

IIRC, 1 Sep 1943 was their first action off carriers. I don't know if they operated from land before then.

I think you mean VMF 214. I was trying to figure out when their first mission was but couldn't find it.

Under Boyington, it was late 1943.

 

[EwenS]

That's interesting that there were some F6Fs in Guadalcanal already in 1943. When I looked into the F6F history, it seemed like the ones on carriers were doing a lot of training and work-up in 1943 but didn't see combat until 1944.

The F6F-3 began operations from both land and carrier in Aug 1943.

On land VF-33 flew its first F6F sorties on 28 Aug 1943 in the Solomons and was joined by VF-38 & VF-40 in Oct.

Squadrons destined for the carriers began to convert to the F6F in Jan 1943. On 1 Aug 1943, Saratoga swapped its air group while operating in the South Pacific, and that included VF-12 with F6Fs. By the end of July Enterprise and the first 3 Essex class and the first 3 Independence class were in the Pacific and were involved in working up the new carrier tactics. All had F6Fs aboard.

On 31 Aug 1943 the carriers Essex, Yorktown & Independence struck Marcus Island in the first US carrier raid since the April 1942 Doolittle raid on Japan. Around the same time Princeton and Belleau Wood provided fighter cover for the occupation of Baker Island. Then 17-19 Sept Lexington, Princeton & Belleau Wood struck Tarawa. 5-6 Oct Essex, Yorktown, Lexington, Cowpens, Independence & Belleau Wood struck Wake Island. 1-2 Nov Saratoga & Princeton struck airfields at Buna & Buka in the Solomons and on 11 Nov hit Rabaul along with Essex, Bunker Hill and Independence.

For Operation Galvanic, the invasion of the Gilbert Islands between 19 & 28 Nov the USN amassed 6 CV, 5 CVL & & 6 CVE arranged in 6 Task Groups in support. In the process CVL Independence was damaged by an air launched torpedo while the CVE Liscombe Bay was sunk by a Japanese submarine.

Then on 4 Dec 1943 a further strike by 4 CV & 2 CVL was made on the Marshall Islands. Another 2 carriers struck Nauru Island on the 6th before going to support the amphibious landings at Arawe to round out US carrier operations in the Pacific for 1943.

The dates for the other aircraft look correct to me, but it's worth noting at least in 1942-1943 they were coming in quite small numbers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there were more than a couple dozen P-38s operational in the Pacific through 1943 (they were mostly being committed to the Mediterranean at that time in the hopes that they would have a big impact there).

That said, even the very early P-38s seem to have been unusually effective against the Ki-43s and A6Ms, which is why Kenney was soon clamouring for more of them. Guys like Richard Bong were flying P-38s already in 1942 IIRC.

The earliest P-38 & P47 units in the Pacific / CBI that I can trace are:-

5th Air Force
The 9th FS 49th FG was the first in New Guinea with P-38s around the end of 1942. It briefly operated P-47D between Nov 1943 & April 1944 before reverting to the P-38. The rest of the Group got the P-38 around Oct 1944.

The second with P-38s was the 80th FS 8th FG which re-equipped with them in Feb 1943 in Australia. Reportedly it was selected over the 35FS due to its high malaria rate and the Group CO not wishing to see a fall in overall Group efficiency! The 35th FS then converted to the P-38 in Feb/March 1944. The 36th FS converted to the P-47 in Oct/Nov 1943 and then to the P-38 in Feb/March 1944. At one point towards the end of 1943 it was operating the P-38, P-39, P-40 and P-47.

The 475th FG formed on the P-38 in Australia in May 1943 and went north to New Guinea in August.

The 348th FG arrived in New Guinea in May/June 1943 with P-47D
The 35th FG transitioned to the P-47 in Nov 1943.
The 58th FG arrived in New Guinea from the US in Dec 1943 with P-47D and went operational in Feb 1944.

7th Air Force
318th FG received P-47D in Nov/Dec 1943

13th AF
The 339th FS equipped with the P-38G in Nov 1942 and went to Guadalcanal. It eventually became part of the 347th FG, the remaing 2 squadrons of which had to wait until spring 1944 to receive them.
18th FG - one squadron briefly had some P-38s in spring 1943 but it was late in the year and into 1944 before there was a general conversion.

CBI -
33rd FG & 81st FG received P-47D on arrival in India in Feb / Mach 1944 from the MTO. The RAF in India was also beginning to receive P-47Ds at that time.

 

[mack8]

F6F-3 equipped VF-33 arrived Guadalcanal on August 27, 1943. First claimed kill Sept 6.

PS: Great summary by EwenS, don't forget the Rabaul raid on 5th of November by Saratoga and Princeton against the cruisers.

 

[EwenS]

One other area I would like to emphasize where the Japanese had some very good designs is dive bombers. The D3A was unprotected and started taking heavy losses in later 1942, but it was a lethally accurate dive bomber, with quite a good range (much better than a Ju-87) and not as vulnerable as you might think. Certainly you can see in the operational history they had a reasonably good chance to survive against fighters depending on the mission profile (much better than equivalent torpedo bombers). I would say it compares well overall with the Ju-87, certainly in the maritime role. I put it in a tie with Ju-87 and SBD as the best dive bomber in the war.

The Yokosuka D4Y suffered from protracted teething problems like a lot of mid-war planes did, and though it was designed in 1940, the first functional variant, D4Y-2 didn't arrive until 1943, which was too late as they soon ran into the buzz-saw of F6Fs. But it was very fast (340 mph), had pretty good range (910 miles) and was apparently quite accurate - hitting several US ships even in 1944. The last variant D4Y-4 had armor and ss tanks, while retaining good speed and range, and excellent accuracy. It just came much too late.

Same can be said of the B7A, which was both a torpedo and a dive bomber. Superb speed, handling and performance, excellent range (1800 miles according to the Wiki) and it was protected from the get-go, and heavily armed with two 20mm cannon and a 13mm defensive gun. Came too late and in too few numbers to have an impact on the war, but as a design, I would say it compares very well to the late war and even post-war US and British planes (Wyvern, Firebrand, Firecrest, Spearfish for the UK, Mauler, Skypirate, Skyshark for the US). Only what became the A-1 / AD Skyraider can really compare with it - it turned out good in the CAS role, but we don't really know if the AD would have been a good ship-killer. (you could also perhaps compare it to the excellent Italian Fiat G.55 in torpedo bombing mode). The Skyraider wasn't a dive bomber and wasn't normally fitted for torpedoes, in fact I think they got rid of the internal bomb bay. The fact that the British and Americans made so many (basically failed) attempts to make something similar to the B7A shows that there was still an interest in this type of Naval strike aircraft.

Needless to say, the B7A definitely looks better than the wartime SB2C or the Barracuda, and in terms of performance and maneuverability (which also had long and painful development cycles). The real (high angle) dive bombing capability and the ability to hold bombs internally, and to carry a torpedo (I think externally), it looks like it was good enough that it may have been preferable to using fighters in the fighter-bomber role, which is what replaced the SB2C in service.

Some would argue that missiles and rockets made dive bombers obsolete, but I don't really buy that. Though it had problems, the fast dive bomber variant of the Mustang, the A-36, proved to have a quite useful niche even in the extremely hairy AAA and flying environment of mountainous Italy. The plane didn't hold up to the structural challenges of pulling out of repeated dives but it proved very handy at knocking out bridges. I think a 350 mph Stuka would have also been welcome, had the Germans been able to develop one.

Rockets, as we know, were not that accurate. They may have been fine for attrition warfare, for sinking ships and ground targets of secondary importance late in the war, but for accuracy such as needed to sink capital ships or troop transports, they probably weren't good enough. Early missiles and glide bombs could be quite effective, but the Allies (I think the British?) quickly developed pretty effective counter-measures against these, reducing their effectiveness, and the launch platforms, such as Do-217s, seemed to be excessively vulnerable. Specifically Do 217s did sink some Allied ships with Fritz X and HS 293 weapons during amphibious operations around Italy, and they missiles / glide bombs were very sophisticated for the time, but Do 217s took such crippling losses in making these strikes that the units were swiftly eliminated.

A number of things to unpack in the above post.

Firstly the B7A was a new generation of aircraft for the Japanese with design starting in 1941. It was designed to fly from a new generation of Japanese carriers starting with the Taiho, laid down July 1941, and the Unryu class, design of which had begun in late 1941, with the lead ship being ordered that year although she wasn't laid down until after Midway. These ships were fitted with larger lifts and stronger arrester gear to handle this new larger and heavier type. Even had they not been lost by the time the B7A began series production in mid/late 1944, it could not have operated from that earlier generation of carrier without them being extensively reconstructed.

Next we need to separate out the British designs you mention. The Firebrand, Firecrest, Wyvern line had virtually nothing in common with the B7A apart from the ability to carry a torpedo. As discussed on other threads the Firebrand as a single seat torpedo fighter, was an attempt to turn a failed fighter into something useful. The Firecrest was never intended to go beyond the prototype stage as a thin winged Firebrand. The true successor to the Firebrand was the Wyvern (Spec N.11/44) whose primary role was intended to be as an escort fighter (a successor to the Hellcat & Corsair in RN service) with a secondary strike capability. Because it took so long to develop it is remembered for the latter role.

The B7A is like the Fairey Spearfish whose design was started in 1943, in the respect that it was intended to operate from a new generation of carriers, the Audacious, Centaur & Malta classes, and was too large for the earlier British armoured carriers. While the few built exhibited handling problems, these could no doubt have been resolved had the whole project not ben terminated with the end of WW2 and the suspension of the ships that it was designed to operate from.

In the AM-1 Mauler/AD-1 Skyraider we see the US the US firstly combining the dive & torpedo bomber roles, like the B7A, but then moving to a single seat strike aircraft concept, dumping the second crewman and his associated turret & guns to save wight and thereby add speed. The change of concept is why so many US projects "failed". The AM-1/AD-1 were designed as both dive bombers and torpedo bombers. Thing was that by the time the AD-1 came to see combat in Korea attack profiles had changed because of the increased air defence threat. As developed by the end of WW2 with the fighter bombers, it was get in low, pop up, deliver ordnance and get out.

And the B7A should be better than the Barracuda and Helldiver as it represents an advance of about 2 and 1 generations respectively by the time its design was begun.

The early German guided weapons were very quickly countered. First use of the Fritz X bomb was 21 July 1943 against shipping in Augusta harbour without success (in fact its not clear if the Allies were aware of the nature of the weapon during these early raids. That changed with the sinking of the Roma and events at Salerno in early Sept). The first Hs 293 was used on 25 Aug against escort ships in the Bay of Biscay. By early Oct 1943 the first US jammers had been developed and installed in two destroyer escorts bound for the Med. More intelligence finds resulted in a second generation of US jammers in Dec 1943. British scientists took a different approach to jamming and had a system (Type 650) ready for trials in Dec 1943. By D-Day in Normandy the guided weapons had effectively been defeated electronically.

The real weakness of these guided systems was the inability to "fire and forget". An aircraft needed to be fairly large to carry them and then it had to hang around just out of gun range with the target in sight (so really daylight only or dusk/dawn) to guide the weapon to its target. So the first defence was improved fighter cover and fighter direction to either down or force away a carrier aircraft. Hard manoeuvering by vessels targeted could defeat them (not always possible for ships in convoy) as could smoke screens for vessels at anchor. And of course jamming the signals, once enough intelligence had been obtained about frequencies etc.

The use of these weapons at Salerno gave an impetus to designing ships with bigger AA guns, like the US Worcester class cruisers and the never built British Neptune class (Although the mounts went into the Tiger class in the 1950s), and to the development of surface to air missiles to increase the envelope of the AA defence.

The US experimented with a number of larger guided and unguided weapons late in the war. So we have for example the guided Bat glide bomb, guided AZON/RAZON free fall bombs, the unguided Tiny Tim rocket with an 11.75in warhead carrying nearly 150lb of explosive, and the GT-1 glide torpedo designed to deliver a torpedo from stand off distances. All these were used with varying degrees of success in 1944/45 but all relied heavily on air superiority to allow an aircraft to deliver its load accurately.

Postwar development of both guided & unguided weapons continued in both nations.

 

[Shortround6]

Switching from the fighters back to the bombers.
Already mentioned the Ki-21 and Ki-32 in earlier posts (#44 & 48)

The Ki-48 was well behind the times. It it appeared in combat units in late 1940.
It was faster than a Blenheim but after that is was all down hill.
One extra crewman, no power assisted guns (and worse ones that the Blenheim) and normal bomb load of 300kg (six 50 kg bombs) and a normal range less than that of Blenheim IV.
Yes a number of German bombers started the war with only 3 machine guns but by late 1940 they all were carrying 5-7 guns even if not a good layout.

The Ki-48 II listed by Wiki didn't show up until 1942 and wiki once again lists the max bomb load and the max range. Normal bomb load was 400 kg which is poor return for a 4 man crew. Especially in 1942.

The Ki-49 is pretty much of a flop. Went into operation in the fall of 1941. An eight man crew to deliver 750kg of bombs normal and 1000kg max (not counting suicide attack) and defended by five 7.7 guns and one 20mm gun. all slow firing, of limited ammo capacity and manually aimed.
And again the numbers in Wiki are for the later version that showed up in late 1942.
It you are going to mount garbage guns, get rid of 3-4 of crew, use a smaller fuselage and at least try for speed.
Normal range for the late version was 2000km and the max range was 2950km so it didn't even have the Japanese Navy bombers excuse of longer range.

Compare to Wellington MK III, B-25C & D, B-26A,

 

[Shortround6]

To end the JAAF line of bombers there was the Ki-67.
A very good bomber by Japanese standards but it was late.
It first flew in combat in Oct 1944 after the 1st prototype flew in Dec 1942. The Douglas A-26 first flew in July 1942 and saw combat trials in the Pacific (4 aircraft) in June of 1944 and in Europe (18 aircraft) in Sept 1944.

The Ki-67 was set up to carry eight 100kg bombs, three 250kg bombs or one 500kg bomb. An A-26 could carry four 1000lb bombs, An A-20 could carry four 500lb bombs, granted the A-20 was somewhat short in range but the later models could hold 725 US gallons (2740 liters) and still fit the four 500lb bombs in the bomb bay. The A-20G'a were in combat in 1943.

The TU-2 was entering service in late 1943/early 1944.

The Ki-67 was carrying too many crewmen trying to man defensive guns that were well below US standards and we know how well the US defensive fire worked (it didn't).
Crew of 6-8 men operating four 12.7mm guns that were less powerful/shorter ranged than US 12.7mm guns and a single 20mm Ho-5 gun.
A common fault with the Japanese defensive guns is the lack of powered mounts making them less effective than some the US and British mounts/turrets.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Also what of late heavy fighters? The Mitsubishi Ki-83 was a pretty impressive aircraft, being fast and agile for its size. And when the USAAF tested one, it registered 473 mph during testing (using USAAF spec fuel reportedly), though using IJAAF sped fuel (91 or 92 octane), the speed dropped to "only" 438 mph.

However, even though they also missed the war, the Ki-83 in IJA spec was, performance-wise, sort of small beer to the de Havilland Hornet (485 mph in testing, 472+mph in production), and the NAA P-82 Twin Mustang (P-82B with Merlins did 475-482 mph fully equipped, depending on equipment).

Also, the Ki-83 had a pilot and rear gunner/radio man, while the Hornet was a single seater, while the F-82 had two pilots (day fighter), and only needed one to actually fly (and there was a single seater version proposed at one stage). And night fighter variants had a pilot (port) and radar man (starboard).

 

[Shortround6]

However, even though they also missed the war, the Ki-83 in IJA spec was, performance-wise, sort of small beer to the de Havilland Hornet (485 mph in testing, 472+mph in production), and the NAA P-82 Twin Mustang (P-82B with Merlins did 475-482 mph fully equipped, depending on equipment).

What about it?

Mitsubishi Ki-83 maiden flight Nov 18th 1944.
Grumman XF7F-1 maiden flight Nov 3rd 1943.

Seems to be about a year late.

The 3rd production F7F1 was completed as a two seat night fighter at the end of July 1944.
The 32th Production F7F-1 completed initial carrier qualifications on Nov 15th 1944.
Confirms how late the Ki-83 was.

The actual ability of the F7F to operate off carriers is debatable but since the Ki-83 couldn't and since the Ki-83 program was falling further behind (things like bombing Japan) the Ki-83 just confirms the position stated in the title.

First F7F-3 with -34 engine was delivered March 14th 1945, before the 4th Ki-83 prototype was completed.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Fact is that, one, it missed the war, two, the F-82 and the Hornet were at least faster and seemed to be further along in development (even with the F-82's relatively late start), and three, the F7F also missed the war, but was also further along than the Ki-83.

Also, first production P-82B was completed in Oct. '45 and delivered to the USAAF a few weeks later. I don't know how far along the Ki-83 was. Also, the F-82B had proven engines with the two stage Merlin, while the Ki-82 had the Ha-43 Ru (Ru indicating turbocharged), and as is well known now, Japan and Germany didn't have the best of records with developing turbos during World War II (the US led the way in that area, just as the British did with two stage supercharging).

For the record as well, the Hornet was mostly a medium altitude aircraft with the Merlin 130s (though it was a two stage engine), but it wasn't exactly supposed to be escorting B-29s, either. Even given the relative late start of the F-82 program (proposed in 1943, but the P-51B/D/ultimately H took priority along side F-82 development), the Twin Mustang was further along as far as entering service, let alone the Hornet and the F7F. vs the Ki-83.

IMO, it seems that Japan was always a bit behind the Allies in terms of development, just as Germany with piston engine fighters hit a lull from 1942-44, and by the time they started to catch up, it was a brick short and a day late.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

A number of things to unpack in the above post.

Firstly the B7A was a new generation of aircraft for the Japanese with design starting in 1941. It was designed to fly from a new generation of Japanese carriers starting with the Taiho, laid down July 1941, and the Unryu class, design of which had begun in late 1941, with the lead ship being ordered that year although she wasn't laid down until after Midway. These ships were fitted with larger lifts and stronger arrester gear to handle this new larger and heavier type. Even had they not been lost by the time the B7A began series production in mid/late 1944, it could not have operated from that earlier generation of carrier without them being extensively reconstructed.

Next we need to separate out the British designs you mention. The Firebrand, Firecrest, Wyvern line had virtually nothing in common with the B7A apart from the ability to carry a torpedo. As discussed on other threads the Firebrand as a single seat torpedo fighter, was an attempt to turn a failed fighter into something useful. The Firecrest was never intended to go beyond the prototype stage as a thin winged Firebrand. The true successor to the Firebrand was the Wyvern (Spec N.11/44) whose primary role was intended to be as an escort fighter (a successor to the Hellcat & Corsair in RN service) with a secondary strike capability. Because it took so long to develop it is remembered for the latter role.

The B7A is like the Fairey Spearfish whose design was started in 1943, in the respect that it was intended to operate from a new generation of carriers, the Audacious, Centaur & Malta classes, and was too large for the earlier British armoured carriers. While the few built exhibited handling problems, these could no doubt have been resolved had the whole project not ben terminated with the end of WW2 and the suspension of the ships that it was designed to operate from.

In the AM-1 Mauler/AD-1 Skyraider we see the US the US firstly combining the dive & torpedo bomber roles, like the B7A, but then moving to a single seat strike aircraft concept, dumping the second crewman and his associated turret & guns to save wight and thereby add speed. The change of concept is why so many US projects "failed". The AM-1/AD-1 were designed as both dive bombers and torpedo bombers. Thing was that by the time the AD-1 came to see combat in Korea attack profiles had changed because of the increased air defence threat. As developed by the end of WW2 with the fighter bombers, it was get in low, pop up, deliver ordnance and get out.

And the B7A should be better than the Barracuda and Helldiver as it represents an advance of about 2 and 1 generations respectively by the time its design was begun.

The early German guided weapons were very quickly countered. First use of the Fritz X bomb was 21 July 1943 against shipping in Augusta harbour without success (in fact its not clear if the Allies were aware of the nature of the weapon during these early raids. That changed with the sinking of the Roma and events at Salerno in early Sept). The first Hs 293 was used on 25 Aug against escort ships in the Bay of Biscay. By early Oct 1943 the first US jammers had been developed and installed in two destroyer escorts bound for the Med. More intelligence finds resulted in a second generation of US jammers in Dec 1943. British scientists took a different approach to jamming and had a system (Type 650) ready for trials in Dec 1943. By D-Day in Normandy the guided weapons had effectively been defeated electronically.

The real weakness of these guided systems was the inability to "fire and forget". An aircraft needed to be fairly large to carry them and then it had to hang around just out of gun range with the target in sight (so really daylight only or dusk/dawn) to guide the weapon to its target. So the first defence was improved fighter cover and fighter direction to either down or force away a carrier aircraft. Hard manoeuvering by vessels targeted could defeat them (not always possible for ships in convoy) as could smoke screens for vessels at anchor. And of course jamming the signals, once enough intelligence had been obtained about frequencies etc.

The use of these weapons at Salerno gave an impetus to designing ships with bigger AA guns, like the US Worcester class cruisers and the never built British Neptune class (Although the mounts went into the Tiger class in the 1950s), and to the development of surface to air missiles to increase the envelope of the AA defence.

The US experimented with a number of larger guided and unguided weapons late in the war. So we have for example the guided Bat glide bomb, guided AZON/RAZON free fall bombs, the unguided Tiny Tim rocket with an 11.75in warhead carrying nearly 150lb of explosive, and the GT-1 glide torpedo designed to deliver a torpedo from stand off distances. All these were used with varying degrees of success in 1944/45 but all relied heavily on air superiority to allow an aircraft to deliver its load accurately.

Postwar development of both guided & unguided weapons continued in both nations.

This is all quite interesting layer of context around the B7A, but I don't think it changes anything I was saying.

Regardless of whether the various late and post-war Allied projects I mentioned, Helldiver, Barracuda, Firebrand, Firecrest, Wyvern, AM-1 and AD-1 were originally designed to be torpedo bombers (or strike aircraft) or not, they all ended up being made for that same role, and B7A was clearly better across the board.

Barracuda and Helldiver made it into combat but both were at best marginal designs, which struggled to perform the role they were designed for and were quickly replaced. They both, (especially the Barracuda) were badly lagging behind the B7A in performance and handling, even without consideration of the severe teething issues they faced. The other types were all failures with the exception of the AD-1, and it never proved itself in the anti-shipping role.

I already noted that the remote guided weapons were pretty quickly countered - though IIRC there was an experimental wire-guided version of the Hs 293.

I agree with you about the inability to 'fire and forget' being a major drawback on these, this is one (rather grim) advantage of the kamikaze weapons used by the Japanese, they were piloted all the way to the target at least potentially. Real 'fire and forget' weapons wouldn't be available in quantity for decades after WW2, although the US already laid the ground work with the radar guided version of the 'bat'.

This, in my opinion, combined with the limitations of air-to-ground rockets particularly in the anti-shipping role, underscores the continued need and potential role for a dive bomber in the late war and immediate post war era. Which is why the B7A remains somewhat relevant at least on the design level. And I think it's a very good example of where Japanese design was clearly world class.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Switching from the fighters back to the bombers.
Already mentioned the Ki-21 and Ki-32 in earlier posts (#44 & 48)

The Ki-48 was well behind the times. It it appeared in combat units in late 1940.
It was faster than a Blenheim but after that is was all down hill.
One extra crewman, no power assisted guns (and worse ones that the Blenheim) and normal bomb load of 300kg (six 50 kg bombs) and a normal range less than that of Blenheim IV.
Yes a number of German bombers started the war with only 3 machine guns but by late 1940 they all were carrying 5-7 guns even if not a good layout.

The Ki-48 II listed by Wiki didn't show up until 1942 and wiki once again lists the max bomb load and the max range. Normal bomb load was 400 kg which is poor return for a 4 man crew. Especially in 1942.

The Ki-49 is pretty much of a flop. Went into operation in the fall of 1941. An eight man crew to deliver 750kg of bombs normal and 1000kg max (not counting suicide attack) and defended by five 7.7 guns and one 20mm gun. all slow firing, of limited ammo capacity and manually aimed.
And again the numbers in Wiki are for the later version that showed up in late 1942.
It you are going to mount garbage guns, get rid of 3-4 of crew, use a smaller fuselage and at least try for speed.
Normal range for the late version was 2000km and the max range was 2950km so it didn't even have the Japanese Navy bombers excuse of longer range.

Compare to Wellington MK III, B-25C & D, B-26A,

I was on a road trip for a couple of weeks, so wasn't able to comment on this before, and I'm a little tired to get into it tonight, but suffice to say that i find the notion that the Ki-48 and K-49 were inferior to the Blenheim or the Wellington (which were direct competitors) is absurd. They were in fact superior in many respects, especially performance. Early B-25 and B-26 were stronger competitors but were not necessarily ideal combat aircraft either and were not superior in every respect.

The closest analogue for these two (Ki-48 and 49) were probably the Martin 167 and 187, the two principal bomber types used by the RAF in North Africa. Very similar in terms of performance, range, payload, and protection etc. The Wellington had it's merits to be sure but could not be used in the same type of role.

More on this tomorrow.

 

[GrauGeist]

IMO, it seems that Japan was always a bit behind the Allies in terms of development, just as Germany with piston engine fighters hit a lull from 1942-44, and by the time they started to catch up, it was a brick short and a day late.

What did the Allies or Western Axis have, that could match the performance of the KI-46?

Keep in mind that this twin was developed in the late 1930's.

So who was actually behind?

 

[BarnOwlLover]

You seem to be forgetting the Mosquito, which even early versions were almost as fast as the Ki-46-III.

The Mosquito PR I entered service in 1941, the first Ki-46s entered service in 1940. Problem was that the Mosquito PRI had a top speed of 380+mph, Ki-46-I had a top speed of 336 mph, which was much slower than was hoped for in the original IJA specification (373mph). The Ki-46-II (1941) reached the spec'd speed of 373 mph, but that was still slightly slower than the Mosquito, and the Mosquito bomber/PR variants that got two stage Merlins were faster yet.

Only the Ki-46-IV was faster than those Mosquitos (or two stage Merin or Griffon PR Spitfires), but it didn't reach mass production. The Spitfire PR XIX was faster than all of them (and was among the fastest of the Spitfires), but wasn't as long ranged as the Ki-46 or the Mosquito.

Not to mention that the Mosquito and Spitfire PR planes could operate at higher altitudes. Japan was def. behind in terms of supercharger tech compared to the British (2 stage supercharging) and the US (turbocharging), just as Germany was, and for several of the same reasons.

Of course, the experimental F-82 camera ship was much faster and could out-range all versions of the Ki-46. But the caveat there is that it was a one off (toyed with at Elgin AFB in 1948), was aside from the camera pod a standard F-82B, and came about around 3 years after World War II had ended, with the P-82 itself also missing the war, with the first production aircraft not delivered to the USAAF (as a fighter) in Nov. 1945.

 

[Shortround6]

I was on a road trip for a couple of weeks, so wasn't able to comment on this before, and I'm a little tired to get into it tonight, but suffice to say that i find the notion that the Ki-48 and K-49 were inferior to the Blenheim or the Wellington (which were direct competitors) is absurd. They were in fact superior in many respects, especially performance.

You missed the point about timing again.
Introducing a "better" Blenheim in late 1940 is hardly a mark of keeping up with the British.
Blenheim I was in service with 5 squadrons in 1937.
Blenheim IV was in service with 1st squadron in May of 1939.

Coming to the party 1 1/2 to 3 years late pretty much is a perfect example of the title of the thread.

Or compare to the Soviet SB 2M-103 of 1938. 3 years late for less than 20mph of speed, while carrying 1/2 the bombs, crappier defensive guns and not going any further?

The Ki-49 was a direct competitor to the Wellington is absurd from the point of view of timing.
The Ki-49 first prototype flew at about the time that Wellingtons were equipping eight squadrons and were flying operations against Germany within one month.
The Ki-49 I wasn't accepted for Production until March of 1941. That means making the production tooling.
In the Spring of 1941 you had.
Wellington Is (a bunch of them) with Pegasus engines.
Wellington IIs with Merlin engines in service with several squadrons
Wellington IIIs with Hercules XI engines going into service
Wellington IVs with P&W R-1830s were being built in late 1940 and early 1941.

The only way the Ki-49 shows up on time is with a time machine. Actual production of the Ki-49 I started in Aug 1941.
The Ki-49 II with the higher powered engines starts delivery in Aug 1942.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

You seem to be forgetting the Mosquito, which even early versions were almost as fast as the Ki-46-III.

The Mosquito PR I entered service in 1941, the first Ki-46s entered service in 1940. Problem was that the Mosquito PRI had a top speed of 380+mph, Ki-46-I had a top speed of 336 mph, which was much slower than was hoped for in the original IJA specification (373mph). The Ki-46-II (1941) reached the spec'd speed of 373 mph, but that was still slightly slower than the Mosquito, and the Mosquito bomber/PR variants that got two stage Merlins were faster yet.

Only the Ki-46-IV was faster than those Mosquitos (or two stage Merin or Griffon PR Spitfires), but it didn't reach mass production. The Spitfire PR XIX was faster than all of them (and was among the fastest of the Spitfires), but wasn't as long ranged as the Ki-46 or the Mosquito.

Not to mention that the Mosquito and Spitfire PR planes could operate at higher altitudes. Japan was def. behind in terms of supercharger tech compared to the British (2 stage supercharging) and the US (turbocharging), just as Germany was, and for several of the same reasons.

Of course, the experimental F-82 camera ship was much faster and could out-range all versions of the Ki-46. But the caveat there is that it was a one off (toyed with at Elgin AFB in 1948), was aside from the camera pod a standard F-82B, and came about around 3 years after World War II had ended, with the P-82 itself also missing the war, with the first production aircraft not delivered to the USAAF (as a fighter) in Nov. 1945.

Fair points here, but lets put it into perspective.

Yes, Mosquito was a remarkable design and was certainly the best propeller driven recon aircraft of the war, while also being possibly the best land based light / medium bomber, the best night fighter, and an excellent maritime strike and ASW aircraft as well. As a design it was a home run no doubt about it.

But De Havilland was a remarkable firm both on the world stage and as compared to her competitors in England. We can't say that the Mosquito was typical of early war British bomber / recon plane designs.

What's more, there are few other competitors to the Ki-46. The French had the Bloch 170 / 174 which was pretty good, but not quite in the same league (given time though it may have been). The Italians had nothing to compare with it that I can think of, closest would maybe be the Ca.311 but it's definitely not in the same ballpark. I can't think of a German recon aircraft, prior to the jets, which is comparable to the Ki-46. They had the high altitude variant of the Ju 86 which caused some problems for a minute, but it was not quite in the same league. Nor any American plane until maybe recon P-38s or the (low altitude only) P-51A. Maybe the B-29 by the late war. The Soviets had the Pe 2 and maybe the MiG-3, but neither were quite up to the standard of the Ki-46, particularly in terms of range.

The Ki-46 was not as good as a Mosquito, clearly, but it was certainly competitive with it in the recon role, and it was better than any other day time, high speed recon aircraft I can think of in the first half of the war. Second place in the world still qualifies as 'world class' I would say.

Mosquito did turn out to be so good as to have major strategic value, but all that versatility and the fantastic performance and range were somewhat gradually developed. In 1940-42 Ki-46 still looks pretty good.

And one final point, it was not an anomaly or one-off, prior to the Ki-46 the JAAF had the Ki-15 (introduced 1937) which, though only equipped with a 640-750 hp engine and having fixed landing gear, managed a top speed of 300 mph and had a range of 1,500 miles. Something like this would have been damn helpful in the Mediterranean or Russia for either side.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

You missed the point about timing again.
Introducing a "better" Blenheim in late 1940 is hardly a mark of keeping up with the British.
Blenheim I was in service with 5 squadrons in 1937.
Blenheim IV was in service with 1st squadron in May of 1939.

Coming to the party 1 1/2 to 3 years late pretty much is a perfect example of the title of the thread.

Or compare to the Soviet SB 2M-103 of 1938. 3 years late for less than 20mph of speed, while carrying 1/2 the bombs, crappier defensive guns and not going any further?

The Ki-49 was a direct competitor to the Wellington is absurd from the point of view of timing.
The Ki-49 first prototype flew at about the time that Wellingtons were equipping eight squadrons and were flying operations against Germany within one month.
The Ki-49 I wasn't accepted for Production until March of 1941. That means making the production tooling.
In the Spring of 1941 you had.
Wellington Is (a bunch of them) with Pegasus engines.
Wellington IIs with Merlin engines in service with several squadrons
Wellington IIIs with Hercules XI engines going into service
Wellington IVs with P&W R-1830s were being built in late 1940 and early 1941.

The only way the Ki-49 shows up on time is with a time machine. Actual production of the Ki-49 I started in Aug 1941.
The Ki-49 II with the higher powered engines starts delivery in Aug 1942.

Yes but here is the thing -

Ki-48 and 49 were competitors to the Blenheim and Wellington (and SB, IL-4, SM 82, SM 79 and He 111 etc.) operationally. Their use in service overlapped quite a bit. It may have gone into service in 1937-39, but the British were still flying Blenheims to attack the Japanese fleet at Ceylon in mid 1942. They were using Blenheims in action, in spite of brutal losses, in the Mediterranean into 1943. Wellingtons too but not at daytime bombers because it was just too slow. They did still prove useful at night particularly in the maritime strike role.

The direct competitor to the Blenheim in terms of design and deployment was actually the Ki-21 (deployed in 1938) for the Japanese army and the G3M for the navy. It still looks better to me.

Ki-21: 300 mph top speed, 1700 mile range, 2,000 lb payload, 5 x .30 cal and one 12.7mm machine gun for defense. Ceiling 33,000 ft. That top speed may not seem important but it proved to be helpful during strikes as it meant less time over target and a faster egress from the kill zone. The RAF found the same thing for the Martin 167 and 187 in the Middle East.

The Japanese (albeit gradually) replaced the Ki-21 with the Ki-48 and Ki-49 in 1941-42. The Ki-49 in particular with it's armor and ss tanks, was a major improvement. The British did not come up with a good improvement over the Blenheim during that crucial mid-war period, excepting the superb Mosquito which was slow into production and was being used mainly for recon and other non-tactical roles (I have been an advocate for a wider role for it myself). The Beaufort was mainly for the maritime strike role in which it rather struggled, though it's a bit better than the Blenheim.

The only real competitors for the Ki-48 and 49 are the Ju 88 and the US A-20 and B-25, and the Soviet Pe-2. The A-20, as already noted, was excellent but very short ranged, especially in it's early incarnation. The B-25 proved to be versatile but it was relatively slow. The Pe-2 was accurate but was also lacking in range. The Ju-88 maybe was the best of these six overall in the early war though certainly not invincible (and it's arguable). All the early war bombers had substantial flaws and limitations. The early B-25s though heavily armed didn't have tail guns for example.

Eventually, under Kenny and Pappy Gunn, the B-25 evolved into a lethal strafer and masthead bomber, but that took a while.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

You missed the point about timing again.

To kind of circle back to this timing issue - you have done a very good job over many threads here of getting across to me just how tricky design and production is during wartime. The government people writing the specs, the designers and industry that plans to manufacture the planes all have to be somewhat prescient and anticipate what needs will be a year or two or more in advance. In WW2, if they didn't get the teething issues sorted out very fast and the production up and running efficiently very quickly and it takes longer than two or three years, it probably came too late to matter in the war. And it meant the nation in question wasted important resources on something that really wouldn't assist their armed forces in the high stakes death struggle they faced.

One typical problem, as a result of all this, is that countries often held on to old designs well past their freshness date. That was, IMO, the case with the Blenheim, with the Hurricane, with the P-39 and P-40, the He 111 and Ju-87. With the A6M, Ki-43, G4M and Ki-49 as well.

Some designs prove much more adaptable than others of course. Sometimes you get a Spitfire or a Bf 109 that you can keep making better and better. But you are still faced with some substantial limitations of early designs. Contrary to what some claim, there was no fuel setting or dt configuration which could give a Spitfire the range to be viable in the Pacific Theater (and still fight, you could probably ferry them around from place to place...)

So these decisions of when to make something new and how long to keep something old were also part of the mix, in my opinion, and formed the context for assessing the merits of given wartime designs.

 

[MikeMeech]

Yes but here is the thing -

Ki-48 and 49 were competitors to the Blenheim and Wellington (and SB, IL-4, SM 82, SM 79 and He 111 etc.) operationally. Their use in service overlapped quite a bit. It may have gone into service in 1937-39, but the British were still flying Blenheims to attack the Japanese fleet at Ceylon in mid 1942. They were using Blenheims in action, in spite of brutal losses, in the Mediterranean into 1943. Wellingtons too but not at daytime bombers because it was just too slow. They did still prove useful at night particularly in the maritime strike role.

The direct competitor to the Blenheim in terms of design and deployment was actually the Ki-21 (deployed in 1938) for the Japanese army and the G3M for the navy. It still looks better to me.

Ki-21: 300 mph top speed, 1700 mile range, 2,000 lb payload, 5 x .30 cal and one 12.7mm machine gun for defense. Ceiling 33,000 ft. That top speed may not seem important but it proved to be helpful during strikes as it meant less time over target and a faster egress from the kill zone. The RAF found the same thing for the Martin 167 and 187 in the Middle East.

The Japanese (albeit gradually) replaced the Ki-21 with the Ki-48 and Ki-49 in 1941-42. The Ki-49 in particular with it's armor and ss tanks, was a major improvement. The British did not come up with a good improvement over the Blenheim during that crucial mid-war period, excepting the superb Mosquito which was slow into production and was being used mainly for recon and other non-tactical roles (I have been an advocate for a wider role for it myself). The Beaufort was mainly for the maritime strike role in which it rather struggled, though it's a bit better than the Blenheim.

The only real competitors for the Ki-48 and 49 are the Ju 88 and the US A-20 and B-25, and the Soviet Pe-2. The A-20, as already noted, was excellent but very short ranged, especially in it's early incarnation. The B-25 proved to be versatile but it was relatively slow. The Pe-2 was accurate but was also lacking in range. The Ju-88 maybe was the best of these six overall in the early war though certainly not invincible (and it's arguable). All the early war bombers had substantial flaws and limitations. The early B-25s though heavily armed didn't have tail guns for example.

Eventually, under Kenny and Pappy Gunn, the B-25 evolved into a lethal strafer and masthead bomber, but that took a while.

Hi
Reference the Ki-49, this was classed as a heavy bomber so any discussion on technology comparison between Japan and the west must deal with actual contemporary designs. This means the Ki-49, first flight August 1939, deliveries start August 41 and Ops it appears in early 1942, should be compared, in the British case, with the heavy bombers that first flew in the same period, these are:
Short Stirling, first flight May 1939. First Op Feb 41.
Avro Manchester, first flight July 1939. First Op Feb 41.
H P Halifax, first flight Oct 39. First Op March 41.
Even the Avro Lancaster is a close contemporary with its first flight in Jan 41 and first Op in March 42.
The Wellington was still in service as a main bomber during 1942 and most of 43 but being replaced with the new types, the Wellington did go overseas and used as a main bomber, indeed the first RAF heavy bomber in the Far East during 1942, however, it was a much earlier generation than the Ki-49 and was far from the 'current' aircraft technology then entering and being used by the RAF in the same period. I don't think that the Ki-49 was equal in technology with its RAF contemporaries.

Mike

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Hi
Reference the Ki-49, this was classed as a heavy bomber so any discussion on technology comparison between Japan and the west must deal with actual contemporary designs. This means the Ki-49, first flight August 1939, deliveries start August 41 and Ops it appears in early 1942, should be compared, in the British case, with the heavy bombers that first flew in the same period, these are:
Short Stirling, first flight May 1939. First Op Feb 41.
Avro Manchester, first flight July 1939. First Op Feb 41.
H P Halifax, first flight Oct 39. First Op March 41.
Even the Avro Lancaster is a close contemporary with its first flight in Jan 41 and first Op in March 42.
The Wellington was still in service as a main bomber during 1942 and most of 43 but being replaced with the new types, the Wellington did go overseas and used as a main bomber, indeed the first RAF heavy bomber in the Far East during 1942, however, it was a much earlier generation than the Ki-49 and was far from the 'current' aircraft technology then entering and being used by the RAF in the same period. I don't think that the Ki-49 was equal in technology with its RAF contemporaries.

Mike

You can make that point but what the Japanese meant by 'heavy bomber' (basically, heavily armed) and what the British meant by it (as I understand it, lots of bombs) were different.

By 1941 the British were also already focusing primarily on night time bombing for their 'heavy bombers' I believe.

I don't think the Stirling or the Manchester were really successful designs either, were they? Of the three, only the Halifax seemed to linger on...

 

[Shortround6]

The Blenheim was a 10-14,500lb bomber (going from the MK I to the MK IV) with a 3 man crew.

The Ki-21 I was a 16,500lb bomber with a 5 man crew, went to 21,400lbs in the Ki-21 II
The G3M was a 16,800-17,600lb bomber with a 5-7 man crew.

Not really intended to do the same thing.

Quoting the specs for the Ki-21 IIb (entered service in 1942) is not helping your case.

The Ki-21 was supposed to do the job of the Hampden, Whitley and Wellington.

Bringing in a plane that roughly equals the plane/s your opponents are taking out of service even if they overlap a bit is the point of the thread.
The Japanese were 1- 2 years behind the west.