Rn vs IJN

[WARSPITER]

The situation with Japanese radar was highlighted to show the real problem for them overall. RN and RAF radar systems
and direction / fire control were only going to get better. There wasn't much hope when you have the best trained crews
in the biggest battleships or the best crews in their aircraft if the opposition is going to know where you are before you
see them. PPI, proximity shells, sonobuoys, and homing torpedoes were items Japan just wasn't going to get. Over time
Britain would.

FAA aircraft development would have been given more priority with less pressure on in Europe.

Four engined bombers were going to be available before mid 1942.

Mosquitoes would also be there sooner and would have the later formaldehyde glue which saved any humidity problems.

British production capability was also going to be a problem as it was also superior.

British tanks were already better than Japanese, also a situation which would not change.

Also, Prince of Wales had a mission kill against Germany's best battleship which also sealed it's fate.

Logistics after initial Japanese gains were not in their favour and logistics win wars.

 

[Shortround6]

These are all irrefutable facts.

Actually a lot of them are opinions.

and it is a bit excessive to call something the best in world when there are only 3-5 contenders. Nobody expects Peru to have the best military anything in 1941 for example.

The Japanese had the largest and most powerful battleships in the world by the end of 1941 1942.
The Japanese had the best float plane fighter in the world in 1941 1942-43 in the A6M2-N.

Fixed them.
Yamato was less ready to go into battle in 1941 than the PoW was in May of 1941. The PoW was 'officially' in commission for 7 weeks at the Battle of the Demark straits.
The Japanese had the Nagato and Mutsu as their most largest and most powerful battleships in 1941. Seems like there would have been a lot of contenders for the title in 1941.

The A6M2-N made it's first flight on Dec 7th 1941. Kind of stretch to call it the best in world at that time. 12 were sent to Rabaul by/on April 1st 1942 and they were deployed to Tulagi in May/June of 1942.

As far as the D3A goes, we have a real problem. There is no question that the results were good. The question is if was the qualities of the plane or the qualities of the crew or a combination. Results tell you that something happened, results don't tell you why. For the reverse of the D3A see the US MK 14 torpedo, they knew the results. Figuring out the why took a lot longer as the blame was being shifted.

As an aside and going back to navigation, it seems that the guy in back of the D3A was a rather busy boy. From Wiki
" The observer/navigator position was equipped with a Type 97 Mk1 drift sight, which was a long vertical tube located in the front-left of the observer's seat. In addition, the observer position was equipped with a drift meter that was mounted on the floor in the front-right of the observer's seat. The observer also operated a Type 96 Mk2 radio set that was mounted in front of the observer's seat and behind the pilot's seat. On top of the radio set was a Type 3 reflector compass for precise navigation"

Now from this description, which could be wrong, it seems that all the navigation equipment was in the back cockpit and the pilot would have had to turn his head 180 degrees to seen the type 3 reflector compass. The Drift meter is sort of simplified bomb sight to measure the progress over the ground/surface compared to the course the plane is flying on.
The A6M2s were flying great distances over water, they may not have been doing their own navigation and relying on D3As or B5Ns for navigational aid.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Actually a lot of them are opinions.

Facts

and it is a bit excessive to call something the best in world when there are only 3-5 contenders. Nobody expects Peru to have the best military anything in 1941 for example.

So what naval strike aircraft was better? The only other contender is the SBD (hence, "best or second best".

Fixed them.
Yamato was less ready to go into battle in 1941 than the PoW was in May of 1941. The PoW was 'officially' in commission for 7 weeks at the Battle of the Demark straits.
The Japanese had the Nagato and Mutsu as their most largest and most powerful battleships in 1941. Seems like there would have been a lot of contenders for the title in 1941.

Yamato was commissioned Dec 1941

The A6M2-N made it's first flight on Dec 7th 1941. Kind of stretch to call it the best in world at that time. 12 were sent to Rabaul by/on April 1st 1942 and they were deployed to Tulagi in May/June of 1942.

You can quibble about operational dates, it was available from 1941. Either way, within the 1941-43 timeframe.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The irrefutable facts list,

By end 1941 all 3 RAF four engined bombers were in production, forget Wellingtons and the other twins, an at peace RAF would be phasing them out and would be worried about fabric covering in the tropics.

There were no SAAF Wellington squadrons until 26 squadron in May 1943, and then it was mark XI for GR work. Then came 28 Bomber squadron in July 1943. As of February 1943 the RAF in India held 47 Wellington Ic and 14 Wellington Ic torpedo bombers.

The RAF learnt a lot about how to do effective bomb damage from Luftwaffe raids. The one pre war trial on staked out aircraft showed how little damage was done.

The Arthur Harris Accuracy table, notes bombs within 3 miles of target in German cities (except Berlin) shows under 25% in early 1942, around 28% in April 1943, hitting 50% in June, staying at 50 to 60% until April 1944, reaching 88% in December. The accuracy problem was not solved in 1942.

What was possible in 1943 at much shorter distances with experience built up over 4 years is not the same as what was possible earlier. The US introduced Loran in 1942 firstly for ships, then for aircraft.

Spitfire V and IX float planes were trialled.

One of the early Dutch submarine successes was sinking a ship containing Japanese oil industry people and their equipment. Yes the Japanese resilience is lower, but then again they did not need the local refineries working well until they hit refinery capacity in Japan or tanker capacity, whichever is less. Sinking the ships would be a better solution than bombing the refineries.

The USSBS notes how resilient oil targets were, lots of the production losses were due to disrupted gas and water supplies, not equipment damage.

The reality is the amount of effective sabotage the allies would be able to do before occupation would make a bigger difference than bombing campaigns at long range, unless the bombing went on for enough time.

The Palembang refineries were about 50 miles inland, it was the area that had about 75% of Dutch East Indies production. Lutong is on the coast, as is Balikpapan. Palembang minimum monthly rainfall is around 3.3 inches in August, maximum December at 12.3 inches. Balikpapan range 5.6 inches in September, 12.9 inches in January, at around 103 inches of rain a year, versus Berlin at 11 inches of rain plus 5 inches of snow a year. Lots of rain means lots of clouds.

Japan's pre war crude oil output was around 7,271 barrels per day, Dutch East Indies 170,101, Brunei 19,444, finding the people to keep crude production going was the first task, Japan pre war was refining around 42,000 barrels of imported crude per day. Refineries in the Dutch East Indies and Borneo areas came to around 197,000 barrels per day. Palembang was back on line within 3 months, and worked up to more than pre war levels, it took until September 1942 for a limited restart of Balikpapan and another 4 months for Sungai Gerong (Palembang). The Lutong refinery in Borneo was rebuilt, taking 2 years. Some 7,000 Japanese oil workers moved into the area, to be replaced by the untrained and some slave labour, Japanese home production dropped 10%.

Japan ruled the force that captured the oil facility would control it. Refineries score: Army 3 Sumatra, 1 Borneo, 2 Java, plus oil fields, Navy 1 Balikpapan, oil: 85% Army, 15% Navy. And it was finders keepers until some sense prevailed, until then it was navy used its monopoly on transport to counter army monopoly on supply.

All air forces trained their navigators to a series of levels, the highest was for over water. Pre war the RAF "knew" that above 10,000 feet in Europe the stars were usually visible. Navigation errors distance wise tend to increase with time in flight, compass errors accumulate, clock drift, the slower you are going the more you need to worry about things like winds and so on. Good crews worked to make the navigation fixes as efficient as possible, starting with keeping the aircraft steady and helping the navigator. In May 1941 when the sighting reports came in for Bismarck, after around 6.5 hours in flight the Catalina was 25 miles out, Bismarck was around 80 miles out. During the night action U-556 reported Bismarck was 60 miles from where it said it was.

We are not talking about the Pacific, but the area around the South China Sea. The proposed battle zone is subject to Monsoons, with Malaysia being part of the boundary between systems

Mumbai, India from June to October
Bangkok, Thailand from April/May to October/November
Kelantan, Malaysia from October to March
Darwin, Australia from October to April
Typhoon/Cyclone season in Hong Kong is April to October, Australia November to April.

Rain forests spend their time pumping water into the atmosphere, which tends to return as afternoon rain if the forests are big enough. The tropical ocean has lots of evaporation. Tropical islands therefore have a tendency to be marked by clouds, at least the ones that have enough elevation, but climate varies, you only have to look at the Galapagos to see that.


No.


No. Wellington were certainly being used on night raids.


Lots of freight moved along the Danube, including oil for Germany, in any case consider the counter, the further away you are the more self sufficient you need to be when it comes to repairs and replacements, otherwise you lose a lot of production while waiting The European Oil Industry was bigger, it had more resources, starting with Romania itself.


What was the lasting damage to Darwin? Not the loss of aircraft but the airfields knocked out for long periods of time. Similar for the other targets. The post war research showed bombing had to be sustained and usually caused repairable damage.


In peace time, much easier to get lost, similar in wartime.


The reality is the supply and warning systems in the Pacific generally meant aircraft had little chance of en route encounters which is irrelevant to the navigation problems of knowing where the aircraft was. It does mean the aircraft can stay at economic cruise giving a greater range. Mixing up the chance of being attacked and figuring out where you are is wrong.


Which weather site are you using to determine relative cloud densities at different altitudes at the locations? Note the rainfall figures.


What does fairly quickly translate to, and effective for that matter? Over water navigation is actually harder, so say all the experts.


A remarkable way to have one off strikes being turned into sustained campaigns, the Midway ship was damaged. Can you provide a summary, numbers etc, say from Air War Pacific from Hammel? The USSBS notes Japanese merchant ship losses to mines were 5 to May 1942, then 1 in September and another in November 1943. Navy land based air sank 18 ships August 1942 to February 1943, then 1 in May then 1 in December. In 1942 the PBY was in short supply and needed for a lot of defensive patrol work. In this what if the Japanese can route merchant ships via the east coast of the Philippines to minimse exposure. When was Rabaul or at least the port and airfields there totally destroyed, it was the number one target for a long time, by Pacific standards lots of bombs dropped.


No to SAAF.


No, more so if it is a 500 pound bomb load.


215 squadron arrived in India in April 1942.

When it comes to building up forces in Australia, no Wellingtons made it, the distance is 930 miles Darwin to Alice Springs rail head, Darwin officially had 944 people, Northern Territory 4,591 people. Start with how good that road was before even thinking about how much capacity the rail link would have. Bases in Northern Australia meant "in fact most materiel needed to repair damaged … facilities of any kind would have to be brought in by ship."

The Wellington raids are a non starter.

The only real correction you made here was that the Wellington units which were so successful in the Med were not South African, you are right about that. Regardless, they were used successfully, at night, to strike among other things ports and merchant shipping.

There is no reason they couldn't have done the same in the Pacific.

Weather was often very bad in the South Pacific but the clouds were and are not as consistent at higher altitudes the way they definitely are in Northern Europe.

There is no reason to assume Spitfire float planes would have been any good.

I'm not sure what good the larger four engine bombers would have been against Japan, at least until bases were captured close enough to the mainland.

The "Black Cat" PBYs I referred to were used mainly to strike military targets. But in a 'what-if' scenario that could just as easily have been merchant shipping. There were 14 "Black Cat" PBY squadrons active in the Pacific starting in the Solomons in 1941 with VP-12. The Australians also eventually had four squadrons operating in the same role from April 1943.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The situation with Japanese radar was highlighted to show the real problem for them overall. RN and RAF radar systems
and direction / fire control were only going to get better. There wasn't much hope when you have the best trained crews
in the biggest battleships or the best crews in their aircraft if the opposition is going to know where you are before you
see them. PPI, proximity shells, sonobuoys, and homing torpedoes were items Japan just wasn't going to get. Over time
Britain would.

FAA aircraft development would have been given more priority with less pressure on in Europe.

Four engined bombers were going to be available before mid 1942.

Mosquitoes would also be there sooner and would have the later formaldehyde glue which saved any humidity problems.

British production capability was also going to be a problem as it was also superior.

British tanks were already better than Japanese, also a situation which would not change.

Also, Prince of Wales had a mission kill against Germany's best battleship which also sealed it's fate.

Logistics after initial Japanese gains were not in their favour and logistics win wars.

I agree with most of that, but there is no reason to assume a British - Japanese war would be a fight to the death / "unconditional surrender". That was largely due to the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Most wars end with a slight adjustment of boundaries and a treaty.

I'm not sure about the British tanks honestly, but I'll concede the point anyway.

But Prince of Wales "Mission Kill"? That battle seems to have been a catastrophe for the British with the HMS Hood exploding etc. Prince of Wales seems to have been saved by a dud round. I know they got the Bismark eventually but the fact remains, in answering the question I was asked, the Yamato did sink ships. The Prince of Wales got sunk by Japanese planes.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Wellington raiding in the Med is covered in some detail by Ehlers "Mediterranean Air War" and some of the details are posted not long ago in another thread on here about that theater.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Actually a lot of them are opinions.

and it is a bit excessive to call something the best in world when there are only 3-5 contenders. Nobody expects Peru to have the best military anything in 1941 for example.

Fixed them.
Yamato was less ready to go into battle in 1941 than the PoW was in May of 1941. The PoW was 'officially' in commission for 7 weeks at the Battle of the Demark straits.
The Japanese had the Nagato and Mutsu as their most largest and most powerful battleships in 1941. Seems like there would have been a lot of contenders for the title in 1941.

The A6M2-N made it's first flight on Dec 7th 1941. Kind of stretch to call it the best in world at that time. 12 were sent to Rabaul by/on April 1st 1942 and they were deployed to Tulagi in May/June of 1942.

As far as the D3A goes, we have a real problem. There is no question that the results were good. The question is if was the qualities of the plane or the qualities of the crew or a combination. Results tell you that something happened, results don't tell you why. For the reverse of the D3A see the US MK 14 torpedo, they knew the results. Figuring out the why took a lot longer as the blame was being shifted.

As an aside and going back to navigation, it seems that the guy in back of the D3A was a rather busy boy. From Wiki
" The observer/navigator position was equipped with a Type 97 Mk1 drift sight, which was a long vertical tube located in the front-left of the observer's seat. In addition, the observer position was equipped with a drift meter that was mounted on the floor in the front-right of the observer's seat. The observer also operated a Type 96 Mk2 radio set that was mounted in front of the observer's seat and behind the pilot's seat. On top of the radio set was a Type 3 reflector compass for precise navigation"

Now from this description, which could be wrong, it seems that all the navigation equipment was in the back cockpit and the pilot would have had to turn his head 180 degrees to seen the type 3 reflector compass. The Drift meter is sort of simplified bomb sight to measure the progress over the ground/surface compared to the course the plane is flying on.
The A6M2s were flying great distances over water, they may not have been doing their own navigation and relying on D3As or B5Ns for navigational aid.

C5Ms during early ops.

 

[Shortround6]

You can quibble about operational dates, it was available from 1941. Either way, within the 1941-43 timeframe.

I will quibble, otherwise we get into nonsense like the Fairey Firefly flying Dec 22nd 1941 and claim that is available in 1941-42 instead of 1943,

Yamato was commissioned Dec 1941

But it wasn't assigned to fleet until April. It was commissioned without some of the AA guns installed.

Facts

You say facts, I say opinion. And among the best in world doesn't tell us much as many armies were large enough that they had a large variations in quality within the same armies.

I'm not sure what good the larger four engine bombers would have been against Japan, at least until bases were captured close enough to the mainland.

Well, I guess the US screwed up by using B-17s and B-24s against the Japanese in the summer of 1942 then.

I'm not sure about the British tanks honestly, but I'll concede the point anyway.

A lot of the British tanks of 1941-42 weren't very good, however the Japanese tanks were even worse in many areas. Looking at tanks in service, not prototypes or limited production batches that don't show up until mid 1942 or later.

 

[WARSPITER]

But Prince of Wales "Mission Kill"? That battle seems to have been a catastrophe for the British with the HMS Hood exploding etc. Prince of Wales seems to have been saved by a dud round. I know they got the Bismark eventually but the fact remains, in answering the question I was asked, the Yamato did sink ships. The Prince of Wales got sunk by Japanese planes.

Yes, mission kill. All done with a "dud" round that went through near the bow and didn't explode but cut access to 1,000 tons of oil
and one other round that exploded and flooded a generator room while partly flooding a boiler room. This gave Bismark a 9 degree
list and she lost 2 metres of bow freeboard. This damage meant Bismark had to cut the assigned mission and head back for repairs,
thus the mission kill.

Also, the KGV class participated in the sinking of two capital ships, KGV against Bismark and Duke of York against Scharnhorst.
When compared to the Yamato class they were far more successful, especially considering the record of Musashi and Shinano.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I will quibble, otherwise we get into nonsense like the Fairey Firefly flying Dec 22nd 1941 and claim that is available in 1941-42 instead of 1943,

But it wasn't assigned to fleet until April. It was commissioned without some of the AA guns installed.

I mean, it was commissioned in Dec 1941, and made flagship of the fleet on 12 February 1942, so I'd say it was ready to go and "available"

You say facts, I say opinion. And among the best in world doesn't tell us much as many armies were large enough that they had a large variations in quality within the same armies.

Again, what navy fighter was better than the A6M prior to the Hellcat? What navy strike aircraft, other than possibly the SBD, was better than the D3A? What battleship was bigger and more powerful than the Yamato? What flying boat was more capable than an H8K? Who had a better torpedo than the type 92?

You can debate "among the best in the world" though I think it's pretty clear that Japan certainly rated in terms of pilot training and ship crew training in the navy. Most of these things are just hard facts.

Well, I guess the US screwed up by using B-17s and B-24s against the Japanese in the summer of 1942 then.

B-17s and B-24s could contend with A6Ms and Ki-43s during daylight, I don't think the British heavies could. On the other hand, Wellingtons could sink ships fairly often, even at night, which is not something the B-17 or B-24s often pulled off.

A lot of the British tanks of 1941-42 weren't very good, however the Japanese tanks were even worse in many areas. Looking at tanks in service, not prototypes or limited production batches that don't show up until mid 1942 or later.

Like i said previously, I'm not going to worry about the tanks. The IJN fleet was dominant enough. We all know what the Japanese army did in Burma and Malaya (and the Philippines).



Let's try to put this into perspective.

This whole debate started up two or three threads ago by a 'newby' type poster who didn't know a Ki-84 from a Piper Cub, on the basis of thinking the Japanese couldn't hang with the Europeans and Americans in terms of how cool their planes were. Some people who know better decided to take up that cause and it has expanded into naval warfare and even tanks and so on.

Who were the major European powers in the early 1940s? English, French, Dutch, Italian, German, Russian, Swedish, Swiss, Finnish, Spanish, Polish, Yugoslavian, Greek.... then you have Commonwealth nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. India, South Africa.

None of these States had a navy, or naval aircraft which could compete with the IJN. The Japanese were more technologically advanced, had made better designs, were better trained, and had put their whole naval war machine together better than anyone else on earth, with the possible exception of the US. The US Navy, with the help of the Army and Army Air Forces, certainly transformed itself into a superior force. But the idea that the Japanese were lagging way behind is laughable, and to me it's embarrassing that so many smart well informed people would buy into that notion.

Only two from that list above - England and Germany, produced aircraft which could even stand up to the Japanese naval fighters in 1941-42. Italy did as well once they got German engines. But all of those fighters were short ranged interceptors lacking the extraordinary capabilities of the A6M.


Finally, let's also remember - in terms of industrial capacity Japan was moving up quickly from a feudal society in the 1880s, when people were still walking around on bamboo sandals with samurai swords on their hips. By 1905 they had defeated the Russian fleet in a modern war. In 1941 they were still behind England in terms of industrial capacity. But today they are the number three economy in the world, just behind China and the US.

 

[RCAFson]

But it is just as shocking and incomprehensible that the Royal Navy having a two person, 270 mph fighter, and a biplane strike aircraft for their carriers.

Both the IJN (A5M) and USN (F3F) had single seat ~270mph fighters in service when the Fulmar entered carrier service. The Fulmar had folding wings, and 4X the firepower than either of the IJN/USN single seat fighters. From Spring 1941 the Sea Hurricane was in carrier service. The IJN and USN had biplane strike aircraft in front line carrier service up to late 1940 and for the IJN ASW well into 1942. As we've discussed RN FAA plans for replacement aircraft were complicated by the post-Dunkirk situation, and neither the USN or IJN had a similar problem.

Or why the early British tanks were so bad. Etc.

The Matilda and Valentine were excellent in comparison to IJA tanks.

The Japanese had the best carrier fighter in the world in 1941, and it still was until the Hellcat showed up in mid 1943.

Yet the IJN lost 4 fleet carriers at Midway and two CVLs in 1942. If they had been using Fulmars or Hellcats, the results would have been the same.

The Japanese had the world's best naval torpedoes basically until the end of the war. By a wide margin.

This isn't true. RN torpedoes were good and there wasn't a wide margin between RN and UN Torpedoes.

The Japanese had the best naval optics in the world, which ended up being copied by both the US and the UK

Actually the Kriegsmarine had the best, but the difference between best and worst was not that great, Training and doctrine was more far important. For the USN it wasn't until they improved their night fighting doctrine that they could make use of better optics.

The Japanese navy leadership and sailors were some of the best trained in the world for night combat

IJN high command decision making was mixed. They were well trained but training declined as casualties mounted, but the IJN had a very limited pool of trained manpower to call upon to replace casualties.

The Japanese had some of the best trained aviators in the world

They were well trained but training declined as casualties mounted and their follow on aircrew were subpar.

The Japanese had either the best, or the second best naval strike aircraft in the world 1941 in the D3A

The D3A-1 was a rather pedestrian aircraft with limited strike capability. It was successful because it was used enmass but the same would have been true for any number of foreign designs. It was doctrine that led to success.

The Japanese had one of the most disciplined, aggressive land armies in the world in 1941.

Yet the IJA got crushed in 1939/40 and again in 1945 by the Soviets. It was really a WW1 army that won when facing weak and demoralized opponents.

The Japanese had the largest and most powerful battleships in the world by the end of 1941.

only Yamato was completed before 1942. The IJN would have been better served, with smaller, faster battleships.

The Japanese had the best, or second best aircraft carriers in the world in 1941

Their carriers were crap and floating death traps in 1942, They succeeded when they didn't receive strikes in return.

The Japanese chose a design direction that in retrospect clearly afforded the worst of both the U.S. Navy's and Royal Navy's philosophies. However, this was not readily apparent before the war started... (Shattered Sword)

Akagi was destroyed by a single bomb hit.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Both the IJN (A5M) and USN (F3F) had single seat ~270mph fighters in service when the Fulmar entered carrier service. The Fulmar had folding wings, and 4X the firepower than either of the IJN/USN single seat fighters. From Spring 1941 the Sea Hurricane was in carrier service. The IJN and USN had biplane strike aircraft in front line carrier service up to late 1940 and for the IJN ASW well into 1942. As we've discussed RN FAA plans for replacement aircraft were complicated by the post-Dunkirk situation, and neither the USN or IJN had a similar problem.

The Fulmar was inferior in every way to the A6M (all versions). So was the slower A5M. Talking up the firepower on the Fulmar is a joke.

I'm sure everything was 'complicated', but I don't think the FAA would have had a replacement aircraft that was any better unless there was a major shakeup of their whole procurement process for naval aviation, which was a disaster right up to the end of the war.

The Matilda and Valentine were excellent in comparison to IJA tanks.

They definitely were not, and we can start (yet) another thread about that because frankly I do feel like having that fight. But it's really irrelevant to the discussion here.

Yet the IJN lost 4 fleet carriers at Midway and two CVLs in 1942. If they had been using Fulmars or Hellcats, the results would have been the same.

Hmmm, like the Courageous in 1939, the Glorious in 1940, the Ark Royal in 1941, the Hermes in April 1942, and the Eagle in August 1942?

Midway was a special case, as almost everyone reading this thread knows. IJN carriers more than held their own in numerous other battles after Midway.

This isn't true. RN torpedoes were good and there wasn't a wide margin between RN and UN Torpedoes.

The Japanese type 92 torpedoes had twice the effective range and were 10-15 knots faster than the British torpedoes. We have already discussed this in detail.

Claiming that the Japanese torpedoes were not better is delusional.

Actually the Kriegsmarine had the best, but the difference between best and worst was not that great, Training and doctrine was more far important. For the USN it wasn't until they improved their night fighting doctrine that they could make use of better optics.

You can make that argument, but Kriegsmarine wasn't really a factor as a navy. Best or second best is still a long way from inferior, and the fact that the British and the USN adopted the Japanese, not the German, naval optics is pretty telling to me.

IJN high command decision making was mixed. They were well trained but training declined as casualties mounted, but the IJN had a very limited pool of trained manpower to call upon to replace casualties.

They were well trained but training declined as casualties mounted and their follow on aircrew were subpar.

That's because they were shot down. I don't think Fulmars and Sea Hurrricanes, Swordfish and Albacores were going to be doing a lot of that.

The D3A-1 was a rather pedestrian aircraft with limited strike capability. It was successful because it was used enmass but the same would have been true for any number of foreign designs. It was doctrine that led to success.

Again, what naval strike aircraft was better?

Yet the IJA got crushed in 1939/40 and again in 1945 by the Soviets. It was really a WW1 army that won when facing weak and demoralized opponents.

That excuse is always trotted out, but you could say the same about many successful armies. The British army in WW2 was basically a WW I.5 army. The Germans greatest victories were against "weak and demoralized opponents". So what? The Japanese made short work of the British in the Pacific, and pushed them all the way back to India on the Asian subcontinent.

only Yamato was completed before 1942. The IJN would have been better served, with smaller, faster battleships.

So you say. They had a lot of modern fast battleships or battle-cruisers.

Their carriers were crap and floating death traps in 1942, They succeeded when they didn't receive strikes in return.

I think that is an outlier position. They were very effective aircraft carriers with a greater capacity for aircraft than any of the RN ships. "Floating death trap" could apply to say, the HMS Hood, or the Prince of Wales, or the Repulse, based on the actual war history.

Akagi was destroyed by a single bomb hit.

HMS Hood was destroyed by two shells...

 

[Shortround6]

Who were the major European powers in the early 1940s? English, French, Dutch, Italian, German, Russian, Swedish, Swiss, Finnish, Spanish, Polish, Yugoslavian, Greek.... then you have Commonwealth nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. India, South Africa.

Major powers
You have 6-7 including the US. Germany is depending when you want to count it, during the 1920s?
Russia? also depends on when. From 1917 to 1929 or so they pretty much destroyed the country and had to start over.
Then you have the "big 5" in the Washington treaty and some of them were lot bigger than others.

The Japanese were more technologically advanced, had made better designs, were better trained, and had put their whole naval war machine together better than anyone else on earth, with the possible exception of the US. The US Navy, with the help of the Army and Army Air Forces, certainly transformed itself into a superior force. But the idea that the Japanese were lagging way behind is laughable, and to me it's embarrassing that so many smart well informed people would buy into that notion.

Trouble is the notion is somewhat true.
The Japanese army were not the leaders in any sort of ground weapon.
They did build some good workable guns (artillery) but they could not build enough of them (too busy building the Yamato?) and were forced to use mostly older designs or even left overs from that pesky 1904-05 war.
While the Japanese tanks were pretty good at over running Chinese troops they were more than a bit lacking against the Russian tanks of 1937-39. Against British and American tanks, time for the laugh emoji again.

We do have the other thread discussing aircraft and so far, the Japanese were about 2 years behind, give or take.
As far as the Navy goes, in one area the Japanese were tail end Charlies. It was a good thing they had the A6M2-3-5 because their AA guns sucked. Big AA.......Sucked. Medium AA........
doesn't exist..............Light AA (25mm/13.2mm)............sucked. Can the better torpedoes make up for it?

Only two from that list above - England and Germany, produced aircraft which could even stand up to the Japanese naval fighters. Italy did as well once they got German engines. But all of those fighters were short ranged interceptors lacking the extraordinary capabilities of the A6M.

Well, the extraordinary capabilities seem to limited to long range, and low speed maneuverability. the D3A and B5N had no real extraordinary capabilities, not saying they were bad, just that they were not outstanding in anyway. and by the way, it is "Japanese naval fighter_" no "s" on the end. They had the Zero and after that.............................crickets.
to be picky,
13 J2Ms in 1942
90 in 1943, with 59 in the last 3 months
227 in 1945 when it was too late to actually do anything Skipped 1944

N1K-1,
136 in 1943, just about all in the last 3 months.
1944 was pretty good with about 900 built, want to remind me how many F6Fs were built in 1944? oh, yeah, never less than 477 per month.

Sure not seeing any advancement in the state of the art in Naval fighters here (the J2M and N1K couldn't operate off carriers)

Finally, let's also remember - in terms of industrial capacity Japan was moving up quickly from a feudal society in the 1880s, when people were still walking around on bamboo sandals with samurai swords on their hips. By 1905 they had defeated the Russian fleet in a modern war. In 1941 they were still behind England in terms of industrial capacity.

Yep, every single battleship and armored cruiser the Japanese used to defeat the Russians was built in an European shipyard (mostly British), A scattering of smaller ships were built in Japan. The Japanese were fast learners, very fast. But at times they didn't have as much to unlearn. And yes in 1914-18 the Big European powers were screwing up as bad as the Russians did in land warfare in 1904-5.

But today they are the number three economy in the world, just behind China and the US.

Which has absolute nothing to do with the subject/s at hand.
It is almost about as long from 1870 to 1940 as it is from 1945 to now so I have no idea what that proves.

 

[WARSPITER]

Japan and Germany are high in economic terms today because they had to start again from nothing after
the war and fully adopted the systems of the western world which, like it or not are the best available.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Japan and Germany are high in economic terms today because they had to start again from nothing after
the war and fully adopted the systems of the western world which, like it or not are the best available.

That's part of it. But it's definitely not the only part or even necessarily the most important aspect when it comes to Germany, that's for sure. I suspect the same about Japan but I don't know the details as well.

 

[SaparotRob]

I don't believe either Shokaku or Zuikaku were deathtraps. They were well on par with the Yorktowns. They got pounded and came back for more.
I was watching some Unauthorized History Of The Pacific War videos. Its commentators are a retired USN Admiral and a retired USN Captain, a former sub skipper. Their guest was Jonathan Parshall. They were discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the two nations carriers. I haven't seen it in a while so some latitude, please. I believe Mr. Parshall said that the Shokaku and Zuikaku carried fewer aircraft than the Yorktowns was due to operational doctrine. I think he mentioned something about deck parks and where aircraft were fueled up, bombed up and warmed up. I don't remember the specifics.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I don't believe either Shokaku or Zuikaku were deathtraps. They were well on par with the Yorktowns. They got pounded and came back for more.
I was watching some Unauthorized History Of The Pacific War videos. Its commentators are a retired USN Admiral and a retired USN Captain, a former sub skipper. Their guest was Jonathan Parshall. They were discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the two nations carriers. I haven't seen it in a while so some latitude, please. I believe Mr. Parshall said that the Shokaku and Zuikaku carried fewer aircraft than the Yorktowns due to operational doctrine. I think he mentioned something about deck parks and where aircraft were fueled up, bombed up and warmed up. I don't remember the specifics.

That is a great series

The Japanese did have some problems with fuel and fuel vapor leaks, so did the British IIRC. The US dealt with this in part by having the open spaces below decks, which among other things allowed them to pretty easily push burning aircraft or other things over the side in an emergency. The USN were clearly the world leaders in damage control and recovery and rapid refit of warships while still in deployment. In part this is due to the vast fleet of repair ships they had which I linked to upthread a ways.

But the Japanese were hardly suffering from bad carrier designs. They were clearly and obviously world leaders and their only rivals were the US.

 

[Shortround6]

A few points.

The Japanese type 92 torpedoes had twice the effective range and were 10-15 knots faster than the British torpedoes. We have already discussed this in detail.

Claiming that the Japanese torpedoes were not better is delusional.

I will agree that the Japanese torpedoes were better.
however the Japanese had 3 different torpedoes and several versions of each (so did everybody else)
The Japanese had the 24 in Long Lance and that was a cruiser and DD torpedo ONLY.
The Japanese Subs used 21 in torpedoes and did use oxygen or oxygen enrichment for better performance but they had nowhere near the range of the 24in torps.
The Japanese aircraft used 18in torpedoes which had for the most part, minor differences from the British aerial torpedoes although the Japanese came out ahead, just not by the margins in the other sizes.

Again, what naval strike aircraft was better?

Well, since there were only 3 that doesn't leave much. If you are 2nd out of a 3 man race and you don't know how far you are behind or ahead?

The Japanese made short work of the British in the Pacific, and pushed them all the way back to India on the Asian subcontinent.

And we are back to quality. The British troops in the Far East were pretty low quality, this is nothing against the men themselves. They were poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly lead. The 7th Armored Brigade in Burma did pretty well but one Brigade in in an army the size of the one in Burma was not going to save the day. Lack of air power didn't help.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Major powers
You have 6-7 including the US. Germany is depending when you want to count it, during the 1920s?
Russia? also depends on when. From 1917 to 1929 or so they pretty much destroyed the country and had to start over.
Then you have the "big 5" in the Washington treaty and some of them were lot bigger than others.

I think you are missing my point on 'great powers' - I'm just pointing out that you can go through the list of European nations looking for rivals to the IJN and you won't find any.

In terms of the Far East, you can look at the "Eight Nation Alliance" at the time of the tragic and ultra violent Boxer Rebellion. This included:

Austria-Hungary

British Empire

France

Germany

Italy

Japan

Russia

United States

All of those powers were sufficiently powerful at that time to participate in the looting of China. My point in naming all the others is just to highlight that Japan had few competitors in 1941.

Trouble is the notion is somewhat true.

Hmmm.... you can make a case that a whole lot of things are "somewhat true".

The Japanese army were not the leaders in any sort of ground weapon.
They did build some good workable guns (artillery) but they could not build enough of them (too busy building the Yamato?) and were forced to use mostly older designs or even left overs from that pesky 1904-05 war.
While the Japanese tanks were pretty good at over running Chinese troops they were more than a bit lacking against the Russian tanks of 1937-39. Against British and American tanks, time for the laugh emoji again.

I think the issue of British tanks is well worth it's own thread but I'm going to resist plunging into that here, it's too much of a derail.

We do have the other thread discussing aircraft and so far, the Japanese were about 2 years behind, give or take.

What naval aircraft was superior to the A6M prior to the arrival of the Hellcat? We can go back to that other thread and discuss in more and more detail, but I don't think the A6M is inferior to the land based fighters either until you start getting to Merlin 60 / DB 605 / BMW 801 powered fighters, and even then only within their usually limited range. And even that is debatable (we can discuss it in the other thread).

We know in the actual real world, Spitfires and Hurricanes were slaughtered by A6Ms. I know there were a lot of factors contributing to the Spitfire losses in Darwin, but most of those same factors were also in play with P-39 units, P-40 units, P-38 units, F2A units, etc. etc.

As far as the Navy goes, in one area the Japanese were tail end Charlies. It was a good thing they had the A6M2-3-5 because their AA guns sucked. Big AA.......Sucked. Medium AA........
doesn't exist..............Light AA (25mm/13.2mm)............sucked. Can the better torpedoes make up for it?

It's a flaw. A big one. So was the useless US torpedo. So was the FAA fighter arm.

Well, the extraordinary capabilities seem to limited to long range, and low speed maneuverability.

I think you can say very long range and 'hyper-maneuverability', along with heavy armament.

the D3A and B5N had no real extraordinary capabilities, not saying they were bad, just that they were not outstanding in anyway.

I'd say that is a fair point as far as the B5N goes. For the D3A, it seemed to be an extremely accurate dive bomber. At least as accurate as the SBD, maybe the Ju 87 too. It also turns out to be pretty good at evading enemy fighters.

and by the way, it is "Japanese naval fighter_" no "s" on the end. They had the Zero and after that.............................crickets.
to be picky,
13 J2Ms in 1942
90 in 1943, with 59 in the last 3 months
227 in 1945 when it was too late to actually do anything Skipped 1944

N1K-1,
136 in 1943, just about all in the last 3 months.
1944 was pretty good with about 900 built, want to remind me how many F6Fs were built in 1944? oh, yeah, never less than 477 per month.

Sure not seeing any advancement in the state of the art in Naval fighters here (the J2M and N1K couldn't operate off carriers)

I think the Zero was more than sufficient for a couple of years. A6M5 is a pretty challenging opponent, as we can see even F4Us were not exactly dominating them. But by 1944 the Japanese were in a world of trouble and they had certainly been faced down. And the Hellcat was clearly superior to the Zero, I never said otherwise.

Yep, every single battleship and armored cruiser the Japanese used to defeat the Russians was built in an European shipyard (mostly British), A scattering of smaller ships were built in Japan. The Japanese were fast learners, very fast. But at times they didn't have as much to unlearn. And yes in 1914-18 the Big European powers were screwing up as bad as the Russians did in land warfare in 1904-5.

European powers borrowed a lot of technology from each other too. How many Oerlikon, Hispano, or Bofurs weapons were used by the Britiish, Germans, Americans etc.? By WW2 the Japanese had either modified the foreign designs substantially, making them their own (like with the Kongo), or made their own brand new designs, many of which were superior.

Which has absolute nothing to do with the subject/s at hand.
It is almost about as long from 1870 to 1940 as it is from 1945 to now so I have no idea what that proves.

I don't say it proves anything, I'm just reminding everyone that Japan was not automatically doomed to being some kind of industrial backwater forever.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

A few points.


I will agree that the Japanese torpedoes were better.
however the Japanese had 3 different torpedoes and several versions of each (so did everybody else)
The Japanese had the 24 in Long Lance and that was a cruiser and DD torpedo ONLY.
The Japanese Subs used 21 in torpedoes and did use oxygen or oxygen enrichment for better performance but they had nowhere near the range of the 24in torps.
The Japanese aircraft used 18in torpedoes which had for the most part, minor differences from the British aerial torpedoes although the Japanese came out ahead, just not by the margins in the other sizes.

All true, and I think I've been pretty fair about the (relatively good) British torpedoes in this discussion. Not just via Wellingtons either. Subs too, ships too. Sure it is an asset for the British.

Well, since there were only 3 that doesn't leave much. If you are 2nd out of a 3 man race and you don't know how far you are behind or ahead?

Again, i don't see how this obviates the argument.

And we are back to quality. The British troops in the Far East were pretty low quality, this is nothing against the men themselves. They were poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly lead. The 7th Armored Brigade in Burma did pretty well but one Brigade in in an army the size of the one in Burma was not going to save the day. Lack of air power didn't help.

I've heard this claim made many times. I don't really buy it. There was clearly a problem with just about all of the Allied troops in the early part of the war - British, French, American, Russian. Some of this had to do with leadership at all levels, some had to do with kit, with supply and logistics, with communication, with tactics and strategies.

The Germans had already had some experience in Spain, then in Poland, Belgium etc., which allowed them to cut out the dead weight.
The Japanese had been fighting in Manchuria etc. since 1931, so they had time to hone their war machine into an efficient force.

The Italians also had the benefit of prior engagement in Spain and Ethiopia etc., but they were under Fascism for more than 15 years by the time WW2 started, and their system was starting to break down.


The French didn't have time to learn from their mistakes as we know. The British had close calls with the BEF and got wrecked in the Far East, but were able to make changes. They went to school in armored warfare in North Africa, and with the help of American kit and air power, broke the Germans and improved kit, logistics, tactics and most of everything else they needed to upgrade, including notably the worlds most sophisticated close air support system. They shared sharing these hard won lessons with the Americans who were lagging behind in 1943 but learned pretty quickly.

I doubt the British armies (and air and naval forces) in the Far East were really inferior in terms of men, they just hadn't gone through this shakeout process and it took longer and more effort to upgrade their kit and improve logistics etc. so there was more of a lag.

The Australian militia, (their regular army being mostly in the Middle East) got up to speed and fought very effectively in New Guinea etc., in spite of many disadvantages. So did their air forces in spite of a near vertical learning curve and conditions almost too brutal to even grasp.