Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes, I did mean that, but sorry for sounding dismissive. It's true that early Japanese industry relied more heavily on manpower than industrial equipment. Were they classified as an industrial power? Yes. Did their products require a lot of man hours?Japan's immature industrial capabilities?
Seriously?
Nakajima had been producing engines and aircraft since 1918.
Mitsubishi, which had been producing heavy industry products since the late 1800's, started manufacturing engines in the 1920's.
Kawasaki was involved in heavy industry since the late 1800's.
Hitachi and Aichi started in the early 1900's.
The list goes on, but to assume that the Japanese were newcomers to the game is completely ridiculous.
May want to run Japanese production man-hours against Italian production man-hours.Japanese aircraft needed more manhours per aircraft than any other power during the war,
Considering that Japan's industrial capacity was severely crippled by war's end, it would take considerable investment and rebuilding in order to get any significant production back online.Hey AerialTorpedoDude69,
I think you are mistaken about Japan's pre-war economy being based on export-oriented industrialization. From what I have read, prior to WWII their economic growth and industrialization was primarily investment led by their zaibatsu, and to a lesser degree by government agencies, beginning during the post-Meiji Restoration period. This was also true after the war for a decade or two during the reorganization and rebuilding of their corporations, and industrial base. I think you could accurately say they engaged in a significant amount of export-oriented industrialization for a couple of decades after the 1960s, when Japan began selling progressively higher quality goods to overseas markets - but at lower prices than the target country's markets could match. But after a couple decades of this they went back to an investment led economy and industrialization, and are still following that strategy.
NOTE I am not an economist or particularly well educated in economic systems, so we might be using terms differently here, and therefore what I am saying above may not be technically true in the science of economics terminology. And I could be wrong.
Thank you for the correction!I think you could accurately say they engaged in a significant amount of export-oriented industrialization for a couple of decades after the 1960s, when Japan began selling progressively higher quality goods to overseas markets - but at lower prices than the target country's markets could match. But after a couple decades of this they went back to an investment led economy and industrialization, and are still following that strategy.
I don't know, but I remember reading here that Germany wanted to acquire some of Italy's midwar designs because they offered lower production costs. But my guess is that Italy, like Britain, used a lot of machinists in its production processes. However, as far as I'm aware, Japanese aircraft throughout the war used a higher proportion of skilled machinists to produce aircraft than any other nation.May want to run Japanese production man-hours against Italian production man-hours.
Ha 104 was just under 950 kg.Mitsubishi Ha-104...........18.................150/170...........1372 mm.............1140 kg........54.1L (3301 ci).................2450
The Nakajima Ha-41 and Mitsubishi Kasei were originally bomber engines.
My point was that Japanese engineering was excellent and about equal to Western engineering standards. Their industry, due to economies of scale, a lack of centralization, and a lack of raw resources, was not up to Western standards. Germany's industry was much more advanced and even it was not up to Allied standards.
only counting the BattleSo was the Merlin
Only counting the Ki-49 for the bomber role of the Ha 41only counting the Battle
I don't know when the distinction between fighter and bomber engines came about. Maybe a left over from WW I although there was some cross over then.
It may have come about because of the "maneuverability mafia" who decried large heavy engines in the nose of the airplane and preferred flying 20-30mph slower?
Well, they had some reason for that opinion. I know of at least one very expressive example (as well as a couple of less expressive ones) of the extremely unsuccessful use of a large heavy "bomber" engine in a fighter.It may have come about because of the "maneuverability mafia" who decried large heavy engines in the nose of the airplane and preferred flying 20-30mph slower?
The Nakajima KI-11 had an air-cooled Ha-1 radial engine.The Ki-11 was also Western-designed, requiring a Western liquid-cooled engine like the later Ki-28, and the IJA understandably did not want to rely on foreign licensed engines.
I meant the Ki-12. Silly mistake.The Nakajima KI-11 had an air-cooled Ha-1 radial engine.
Running away after the first attack was often not conducive to accomplishing the mission.