Soviet vs. Japanese Fighters

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

It would be interesting to see how war between Japan and the USSR would have changed the face of the Pacific war.

The US was still staunchly anti-war during the summer of '41 and if Japan played their diplomacy right and not have attacked Pearl when they did and left British Crown possessions alone, I would imagine the US may have only had a limited hand in the European war ans not have had any involvement in the Pacific/CBI.
 
The US may have been staunchly anti-war, Roosevelt was not. By Oct of 1939 the "neutrality patrol" was going into operation with the US patrolling (read escorting) ships inside the neutral zone.


Part of the result of the "neutrality patrol" was

"For each incident of the neutrality patrol reporting a British ship in the Gulf of Mexico, several German ships were intercepted by Royal Navy units responding to the American reports. Of the 211 German merchant ships attempting return to Germany during the last four months of 1939, only 32 (37%) of the 85 ships leaving the western hemisphere through the declared neutrality zone were successful, while 100 (80%) of the 126 leaving other parts of the world successfully evaded Allied interception.[18]
 
Japan was putting much of its gdp to military spending and was running out of oil. It had to grab the DEI by early 1942 or the whole house of cards collapses.

The question is, would the USA declare war on Japan over the latter's seizure of the DEI? In Sept 1940, Japan seized French-Indochina and the USA didn't act. I'm not sure Japan can take the DEI without declaring war with Britain to seize or at least neutralize Malaya.
 
The next question is whether the Japanese could seize the DEI and leave the Philippines astride their new supply routes.

Also please define "act".

The Japanese did NOT invade ALL French-Indochina in Sept, 1940, they made demands and were in nagations although a small force may have entered a couple of border areas. Northern French Indochina was attacked and areas seized. However the big invasion did not occur until July 28th 1941 when 140,000 troops pushed into Southern French Indochina, at least according to some sources. Now please note that the Americans had implemented their oil embargo and frozen all Japanese assets in the US two days before, July 26th 1941.

The Dutch government in exile joined the embargo in Aug of 1941. at the urging of the US and British.

There was a considerable period of escalating tensions over several years and the Americans were not sitting around, fat dumb and happy just because they were not in actual war (as in shots fired) with the Japanese. The Americans, British and finally the Dutch had shut off oil to Japan and Japans ability to make war was going to go down hill quickly. Romania was in the top 4 oil producers but Japans ability to get Romanian oil was about zero.
 
You've got to just marvel at the Japanese logic in going after the oil in the DEI rather than pulling out from China. On the mainland Chiang and his KMT were socialist revolutionaries who weren't loved by the Imperialist powers. Nowadays, we'd be blockading China to stop their socialist contagion from spreading. Perhaps what the Japanese really needed to do was to get better spin doctors.
 
The question is, would Germany and the European Axis be willing to share that oil with Japan?

Plus, in keeping with the invasion of the USSR scenario, if the SU is now being hammered on both fronts, how would this affect Iraq's stance?

Britain worked hard to steer Iraq away from the Axis, which allowed them a route into the Soviet Union, however, that becomes moot if Mother Russia is not able to hang on.
 
Dimlee said:
Interesting remark about Romanian oil. Was it really inaccessible for Japan? Freight rates from the Black Sea were higher than from DEI, of course.
Click to expand...
Can you really see Germany letting much oil go to Japan in late 1941 after Germany had invaded Russia?

And it is not just the price of the freight rates, it is the fact that a tanker is going to take 3-4 times longer to get from the Black sea to Japan than from the DEI and if you don't really have enough tankers to begin with?
If the British are enforcing or aiding in the enforcement of the oil embargo are they going to let Japanese flagged ships carrying oil through the Suez canal?
If not add even more weeks to the trip.

With American, British, Dutch and a few other countries tanker ships out of the picture can Japan scrape up enough tankers to move even a small quantity of the fuel they need over that distance even if the Germans will sell them the fuel. Italy's fleet was often harbor bound due to lack of fuel, sending fuel halfway round the world to Japan when the Japanese are not even shooting at any of Germany's enemies seems a bit much.
 

I understand that Germany had influence over Romanian oils exports, I just don't know how much exactly, before and after June 1941.
Japan's tanker fleet, IMHO, was capable enough to fulfil the task. I don't have numbers for tankers but all merchant fleet was impressive, the third in the world in tonnage.
Transit time and embargo are critical factors in wartime, of course. So Romanian oil is out of the picture after Pearl Harbour. During peace, however, time is not so important if you manage your logistics in a smart way.

What puzzles me - why Japan did not try to get more oil from Romania before 1941. Bucharest's commitments to Berlin and no capacity for a new customer? Costs factor or else? Or was it just a result of Tokyo's narrow vision so typical for authoritarian regimes of that period. We need to expand or we will not survive, and we can expand only by military means...
Sad irony - oil deficit fears triggered decisions which brought the country to the national catastrophe while there were huge oil fields yet to be developed in Manchuria. Should Japan invest a small part of the military budget into oil research and drilling and discover Danqing Field 20 years earlier... But I digress too much.
 
You've got to just marvel at the Japanese logic in going after the oil in the DEI rather than pulling out from China.
Click to expand...

However there was an existing ideology of the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere ..............It also declared the intention to create a self-sufficient "bloc of Asian nations led by the Japanese and free of Western powers". It was announced in a radio address entitled "The International Situation and Japan's Position" by Foreign Minister Hachirō Arita on 29 June 1940.......................

As China received alot of armaments from USSR I think Japan should have capitalised on its weakness due to German invasion, but also the European war was a chance to knock British Empire out of Asia when they were also distracted by the European war!
 

Even if the UK was not at war with Japan, they're likely to be a bit leery of shipping between two German allies while they were at war.

Getting that oil from Romania to Japan -- and did Japan have refineries with the capability of converting Romanian oil to gasoline -- would be a challenge. The land route is impractical, as the USSR is unlikely to allow transshipment on its rail lines and the RN may consider Axis-flagged tankers to be targets.

Also, Germany would probably demonstrate the same skilled diplomacy in keeping the US out of the war that they showed in a previous war. The US would be involved in the war no later than May 1942.
 

Depends on the "peace time" you are in.
from this web site but I have no idea if it is accurate.
"Ulei Română" During World War II and Beyond: Development of the Romanian Oil Industry | The Yale Review of International Studies

" On March 7, 1936, Germany seized the Rhine, to which Romania responded by increasing the price of oil shipments—a strategic move given that 37% of Germany's oil came from Romania. "
"More importantly, 58 percent of Germany's total oil imports in 1940 came from the fields at Ploiești "

One can imagine (and might be wrong?) what the percentage of German oil imports from Ploiesti were in July/Aug of 1941 in the 2nd and 3rd months of the Russian invasion which is when the oil embargo was placed on Japan. Could the Germans afford to allow the export of significant amounts of Romanian oil to Japan at this point in time? The Embargo cut Japan's oil supply by 90%.

Japan was not in a shooting war with the US and Britain but obviously there was an economic war going on. Romania's ability to export oil as she wished was pretty much gone by late summer of of 1941 with the only border not occupied by the Germans being Bulgaria.

The Japanese may have seen Romanian oil as too iffy a proposition given it's distance and unfriendly (to Japan) areas it would have to transit. Help build up the stock pile a bit perhaps but as an ongoing source of of supply it was much too uncertain.
 
Shortround6 said:
Romania's ability to export oil as she wished was pretty much gone by late summer of of 1941 with the only border not occupied by the Germans being Bulgaria.
Click to expand...
Bulgaria joined the Axis in March '41 - also if Japan was able to have access to Romanian oil, that meant that they would need to have access to the Black Sea unless the oil was transported by rail to Greece, which would put it at risk by partisan action.
 
Dimlee said:
Japan's tanker fleet, IMHO, was capable enough to fulfil the task. I don't have numbers for tankers but all merchant fleet was impressive, the third in the world in tonnage.
Click to expand...

Just read a small article by Peter Davies on Japanese merchant shipping and he concludes that (with hindsight) Japan's two most important wartime weaknesses were a lack of oil and an inadequate merchant navy.
To illustrate this he cites they only had 42 oil tankers (356,000 tons) in 1941.
 

Hello GrauGeist,

This was also the time that the US was re routing 100 P-40 fighters from British contracts to send to China and allowing CAMCO to recruit US military pilots to serve as mercenaries in China.

- Ivan.
 

I think it's not accurate to say that the US was anti-war; the US -- even the isolationists -- were far from anti-war, as they were generally in support of interventions in Central America, the Caribbean, China, against various pro-independence movements in the Philippines (some of which dated to before the Spanish-American War). What's more accurate is that the isolationists were opposed to war in Europe.
 
It's too bad that on condition of sending the BEF to defend France that Britain didn't demand to place an infantry division into FIC. Certainly once France surrendered the Brits felt it necessary to attack their former ally's territory in North Africa and Madagascar. If the latter was considered a valid war aim, why didn't Britain march into FIC before the Japanese? G'ah, I find my British people to be a frustrating lot, almost deserving to lose their empire through neglectful and irresolute dithering.

Of course that would have complicated the 1940 Franco-Thai War, but having British forces in FIC might have reduced Thailand's territorial demands on a defeated France. Is there any record of the Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 fighting Japanese aircraft. M.S.406 vs. Zero will not end well, though the latter flies impressively enough in this vid.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Aerodynamics of Japanese fighters
2 3
Replies
47
Views
4K
Holtzauge
Japanese built airfields
Replies
1
Views
149
NevadaK
N
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
spicmart
S
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
5
Views
427
Aeroweanie
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register