If they were winning would they have had a dire shortage of much needed materials?.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
If they were winning would they have had a dire shortage of much needed materials?.By 1943/44, Japan was introducing fighters that were on a par or exceeded U.S. fighters in performance and had it not been for their dire shortage of much needed materials as well as the increasing bombing of key manufacturing sites, would have caused the Allies considerable trouble.
Bolt actions are less effective than a reliable semi or automatic rifle But not in orders of magnitude. Slower to load and fire but pulling out an en-bloc clip or charger is faster than taking off a magazine, putting it back in your webbing until you can refill it, then pulling out a full one and putting it in the rifle. I would not think myself half armed were I issued and Rifle No4 instead of an L1A1. I would choose the L1A1 over the No4 of course but the No4 is not vastly poorer as an infantry long arm.The difference between semi-auto and bolt action is rather obvious. There are some advantages to shooting bolt action, which is why most hunting rifles and sniper rifles still use this method. However, most weapons issued to 99.99% of soldiers are automatic or semi-automatic, and with very good reason. The enfield was not as effective as a Garand and was an order of magnitude less effective than any semi-automatic or automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. That is why every army in the world switched to the latter
If they were winning would they have had a dire shortage of much needed materials?.
I might point out that each nation had a different doctrine.
The French, who were leaders in aerial technology didn't have a jet, nor did the Italians produce a true jet during the war.
The Japanese based their requirements for a long range, light weight naval fighter, which resulted in the A6M, in the late 1930's, in an entirely different climate than those of Europe or the United States at the time.
The Soviet Union, for a European power, was woefully behind the western European nations in regards to engines and airframe design. Several of their early engines were licensed designs and they had enlisted the help of an Italian engineer with airframe design.
By 1943/44, Japan was introducing fighters that were on a par or exceeded U.S. fighters in performance and had it not been for their dire shortage of much needed materials as well as the increasing bombing of key manufacturing sites, would have caused the Allies considerable trouble.
You could say the same for the Germans, but the Japanese had a more severe problem simply because they were living in a much smaller country in terms of land area, and their conquered territories could only be reached by sea. So once their navy was on it's back heels, certainly by 1944, their logistics problems were much more severe. In early 1944 the Germans could still bring in raw materials from France, Italy, Belgium, the Balkans, and could trade with Sweden and Switzerland etc. They could get most of what they needed like coal and iron. The Japanese didn't have a lot of iron to begin with, and for them all those things had to come by ship. Once the US torpedoes were working USN subs were a major, catastrophic problem for merchant shipping, and the US carrier fleets were prowling around the vicinity of the home islands, Japan was (obviously) cut off from supply.
But both countries had similar problems, just on a different scale.
And this is is of course why the Japanese war machine placed so much emphasis on their navy and on very long ranged aircraft.
The core of the issue, I feel, is the Soviet's method of overseeing development. The vast majority of other governments would put out a request and manufacturers would work hard to land the contract but in Soviet Russia, you had aircraft (and engines) built by committee.
Classic example of Soviet development (and relevant to the thread), was the La-5.
Uncle Joe was not happy with Lavochkin and the LaGG-3's lackluster performance.
Being relegated to a shack and a less than bright future, he managed to blend a Su-2's cowl/engine assembly to the airframe of a LaGG-3 which resulted in an excellent performer and aparently, made Uncle Joe happy once again.
I honestly cannot imagine how Semyon Lavichkin managed to stay cool and focused under that amount of pressure.
LaGG-3 certainly had problems, although I'm not certain how much of the reputation was due to politics. Many of the problems with the LaGG-3 were actually due to the horrendous production issues the Soviets were experiencing. Probably Yak 1 was a better design, but both suffered from things like undercarriage not closing completely, pilots flying with the canopy open or off because they couldn't trust it to come off if they needed to bail out, all kinds of mechanical failures and so on.
By the time La 5 came along, the other two designers in the LaGG bureau (Gorbunov and Gudkov) were already out of favor To me that was the problem.
A nation as smart as your making Japan out to be would have realised and understood that, being an island dependant on ocean trade they should have fought within their abilities and placed a lot of value on ocean commerce but they didn't, look at Britain, there was no chance at all, zero of Sea lion succeeding because Britain knew control of the ocean was key, even in her darkest days Britain threw everything into protecting her trade routes, Japan never did, Japan won many battles and showed that they were a force to be respected but how many skilled pilots did they lose because of the high performance but poor protection offered by their planes?, a few weeks ago we had a thread showing them losing 20 to 50% of their attacking force on numerous occasions, that's not going to win you anything but defeat, history ultimately showed that.You could say the same for the Germans, but the Japanese had a more severe problem simply because they were living in a much smaller country in terms of land area, and their conquered territories could only be reached by sea. So once their navy was on it's back heels, certainly by 1944, their logistics problems were much more severe. In early 1944 the Germans could still bring in raw materials from France, Italy, Belgium, the Balkans, and could trade with Sweden and Switzerland etc. They could get most of what they needed like coal and iron. The Japanese didn't have a lot of iron to begin with, and for them all those things had to come by ship. Once the US torpedoes were working USN subs were a major, catastrophic problem for merchant shipping, and the US carrier fleets were prowling around the vicinity of the home islands, Japan was (obviously) cut off from supply.
But both countries had similar problems, just on a different scale.
And this is is of course why the Japanese war machine placed so much emphasis on their navy and on very long ranged aircraft.
A nation as smart as your making Japan out to be would have realised and understood that, being an island dependant on ocean trade they should have fought within their abilities and placed a lot of value on ocean commerce but they didn't, look at Britain, there was no chance at all, zero of Sea lion succeeding because Britain knew control of the ocean was key, even in her darkest days Britain threw everything into protecting her trade routes, Japan never did, Japan won many battles and showed that they were a force to be respected but how many skilled pilots did they lose because of the high performance but poor protection offered by their planes?, a few weeks ago we had a thread showing them losing 20 to 50% of their attacking force on numerous occasions, that's not going to win you anything but defeat, history ultimately showed that.
Oh well. I'm still largely unconvinced of Japan's technological prowess (Japan of any period really, but that's a topic for another time) but I won't argue much further.
Smart enough to design a great fighter then smart enough to design a great strategy in which to continue it's development throughout the war like everyone else did.You're confusing "smart enough to design a great fighter" with "smart enough to design a great strategy."