Kevin J
Banned
Perhaps we could have staged a Gulf of Tonkin style incident to justify our invasion.
Soviet vs. Japanese Fighters
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Perhaps we could have staged a Gulf of Tonkin style incident to justify our invasion.
- Thread starter
- #63
Admiral Beez
Major
Hmmm..... I see your point. Let me connect this otherwise wandering thread by suggesting the French could have fought the Japanese in Soviet fighter planes. In November 1942 a squadron of Free French pilots formed up in Russia, flying Yakovlev-7 fighters. Let's move this squadron to the Far East in 1945, for the invasion of Manchuria. Perhaps Stalin wants them out of the way after De Gaulle's visit to Moscow in 1944, where the French leader asked for Soviet support of France's post-war demands.
Anyway, putting aside my fantasy French, Facing the Soviets was the Kwantung Army Air Force with the following fighter aircraft listed as "combat serviceable" as of August 1945.
40 x Ki-84
40 x Ki-44
70 x Ki-43
60 x Ki-27
45 x Ki-45 (twin engine, two-seat fighter)
I'd put the Nakajima Ki-84 up against anything the Soviets are flying in 1945, including the Yak-3 and Lavochkin La-7. Good thing the Soviets had hundreds or thousands of each.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I beg to differ.
There were massive anti-war rallies on campuses across the nation, folk songs and posters - in essence, an anti-Vietnam war movement, A La 1930's.
Plenty of information available, but that may be better placed in a dedicated thread rather than hijack this one
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Ivan,
When I saw this topic I became interested and went to my library and files to put together some matchups. While I was reading the posts in order to put together a time line of comparisons, I got lost in the holidays and research. This is a case where you can't just stack the numbers up against each other. In 1941 and most of 1942 aircraft production quality was very unstable for the Soviets. Between the factories having to uproot like Leningrad Plant 31 and Stalin's head hunting, it was not pretty for the USSR in these times. Anyway, I am in the process of updating my LaGG-3/La-5 files for comparison purposes. One note; It is very hard not to include the I-16 types 24 & 29 and Ki.27-1b as these were major contenders in the Far East in 1941.
Last edited:
Flatlander
Recruit
In the IL2-Sturovik community there was a piece of software that allowed you to compare two planes from a very long list.
you can find it here: Hardball's Aircraft Viewer.
Mission4Today › Downloads › HardBall's Aircraft Viewer 4.09 (Stand-alone, Non-Install Version)
It might have some more info on the planes you wish to compare.
~Flatlander
you can find it here: Hardball's Aircraft Viewer.
Mission4Today › Downloads › HardBall's Aircraft Viewer 4.09 (Stand-alone, Non-Install Version)
It might have some more info on the planes you wish to compare.
~Flatlander
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Last edited:
Ehm...
Yak-1 series 4, spring 1941, M-105P engine with inverted-g problem, indeed.
Yak-1 series 20, summer 1941, M-105PA engine with carburettor fixed for inverted-g.
Yak-1 series 79, late 1942, M-105PF forced engine which adds acceleration rate.
The feature here is that USSR documented own problems quite thoroughly.
While we have way too few information on reliability of Japanese fitters. We only know that some fighters were "more reliable" than others (like Ki-100 over Ki-61).
So, I would propose to discard the factor, since it's highly probably equal for both sides.
By the series 20, Yak-1 had some production problems solved, btw. But it took a long time to make cockpit glass not grow turbid.
Yak-1 was more fragile than LaGG-3 (which has construction made from heavier wooden-composite) or MiG-3 which, IMHO(but I can mistake) has more metal in construction.
It goes from the ideas designers put into own designs: Yak-1 manoeuvrable short-range front-line fighter with high vertical fight capabilties, LaGG-3 back-up fighter, MiG-3 high-altitude interceptor.
The successor, re-engined LaGG-5 (quickly renamed to La-5) is THE problem IJA could not cope until autumn 1944. But then La-7 emerges.
That's with logistics questions omitted.
With logistics in mind, I'd say minus 2-3 years of progress for both sides, and ten times lesser numbers of forces applied. Men, they fought Gladiator vs Chirri in 1942 in Sahara! Airplanes of 1936-1938! In 1942!
In whatif scenarios it's crucial to decide what exactly is changed.
If Japanese would attack USSR third time, USSR had used half of army forces ready. Not involved in Western front, waiting for Japanese threat resolved.
And Soviet tanks will sweep Japanese army momentarily. Ditto.
After USSR knew out that an industrially weak country was engaged with USA, it was obvious that Siberian armies would not see their potential enemies.
They were astonishingly rapidly transferred to Battle of Moscow and repulsed Wehrmacht. That became Hitlerkaput, eventually.
Last edited:
I really enjoyed reading this thread and there were several good posts in it. Another good one. The idea of the Japanese opening a second front against the Russians as a way for the Axis to win and for Japan herself to acquire some badly needed oil is very interesting indeed, especially as an alternative to attacking Pearl Harbor. It would have put the Americans and FDR in an extremely awkward position.
But let me play devils advocate a bit.
I'm not sure the Soviets would have been overwhelmed by the Japanese the second time around. Compared to Khalkhin Gol in 1939, by 1942 the Soviets arguably had advantages in their land army. By 1943 I think it is not debatable that they had a substantially superior land army.
In 1942 (this is from memory so forgive me if I make a couple of errors)
Soviet Fighters
I-153 - 4 x 7.62mm, 276 mph
I-16 / 24 2 x 20mm, 2 x 7.62mm ~ 320 mph
LaGG-3 1 x 20mm, 2 x 7.62mm 330-340 mph
Yak-1 1 x 20mm, 1 x 7.62mm ~ 350 mph
Yak-1B 1 x 20mm, 1 x 12.7mm ~ 365 mph
Yak-7 1 x 20mm, 1 x 12.7mm ~ 350 mph
Yak-7B 1 x 20mm, 1 x 12.7mm ~ 360 mph
Lavochkin La-5 20 x 20mm, ~ 370 mph (guessing)
MiG-3 1 x 20mm, 2 x 7.62mm ~ 400 mph at high altitude, 314 mph at sea level (per Wikipedia anyway, probably a bit less in real life)
Hurricane Mk II 4 x 20mm or 12 x .303 ~ 330 mph
Tomahawk 2 x 12.7mm (some had 4 x .30 cal) ~ 350 mph
P-40D/E 4 or 6 x 12.7mm ~340 mph
P-40K 6 x 12.7mm ~ 360 mph
Soviet Bombers
Su-2 dive bomber - 6 x 7.62mm, 300 mph, dive bomber 1,300 lbs bombs, 680 mile range
Pe-2 dive bomber - 1 x 12.7mm, 3 x defensive machine guns, ~330 mph, 2,200 lbs bombs, 720 mile range
Il-4 bomber 3 x defensive machine guns, ~ 250 mph, 2,100 lbs of bombs, 2,400 mile range
SB bomber 4 x defensive guns, ~1,000 lbs of bombers, 1,400 mile range, 280 mph
A-20
B-25
Il-2
Bristol Blenheim
Japanese Fighters
Ki-27 2 x 7.7mm, ~ 270 mph
Ki-43-I 1 x 12.7mm & 1 x 7.7mm, ~ 300 mph
Ki-44 ( very small numbers available) 4 x 12.7mm mg, 370 mph
Ki-45 heavy fighter ~ 330 mph, 1 x 20mm cannon, 1 x 37mm cannon, 1 x defensive LMG, 1,200 mile range
Japanese Bombers
Ki-21 - 300 mph, 1,700 mile range
Ki-48 - 314 mph, 1500 mile range
Ki-49 - 306 mph 1x 20mm cannon, 5 x 7.7mm, 2205 lb bombs, 1,200 mile range - armor and self sealing fuel tanks (later models).
Ki-46 - 360 mph (recon)
Advantages for the Russians - generally speed, they have a lot of relatively fast and agile fighters and two pretty fast bombers, cannon armament, armor and self sealing tanks.
Advantages for the Japanese - maneuverability, range, build quality, altitude performance.
The Japanese would have some trouble with the Soviet bombers and the more heavily armed Lend Lease American bombers (as they did in the Pacific and in China) due mainly to speed but also to lack of heavy firepower. The Pe-2 would excel and the Su 2 may have been pretty useful too. The Il-4 would be fairly vulnerable and the A-20 would be about average probably. The Soviets did have their heavy fighter the Ki-45 which had the range and altitude capacity to be a pretty good bomber interceptor.
The Soviets had P-40s which we know did quite well against Japanese army aircraft.
On the ground,
The Soviets have KV heavy tanks, T-34 /76 mediums, and T-60 (20mm gun) and T-70 (45 mm gun) light tank, and American M3 Stuarts and M3 medium tanks, and British Valentines. They had American trucks and halftracks and plenty of 45mm and 76mm AT guns. They had Katyusha rockets and PPSh 41 sub machine guns, lots of artillery and various medium and heavy machine guns. Now it's likely the best of this kit is going to be thrown into the breach against the Germans, including probably all of the KVs and most of the T-34s.
But against the IJA they should have enough T-34s AT guns and artillery to spare to have major advantage in armor, which would be particularly telling on the open steppe or the fringes of the Gobi desert. T-60 and T-70 light tanks were not particularly useful against the Germans, but I think they could have been pretty good against Japanese tanks and tankettes - and they had more than 12,000 of these light tanks! Keep about 2,000 in the West for scouting or screening flanks etc., and send the rest to fight the Japanese. Do the same with the M3 Stuarts and M3 mediums, and maybe some of the Valentines. They would all be much more effective against the IJA than against the Germans.
The Japanese have their highly motivated and disciplined infantry which does mean something, and probably equals out the Soviet advantage in armor and things like submachine guns somewhat. But overall in the land war I think you have a stalemate. The Soviets might lose more like they did at Khalkhin Gol but assuming that, as in that battle with general Zhukov in charge, they have competent leadership, they should be able to manage a fighting retreat with a lot of counter attacks and make the invasion very costly for the Japanese while actually getting some use for a lot of equipment that was virtually useless against the Germans.
Reverse Siberian transfer
The main theory I have is along those same lines with the planes. They (the Soviets) had a lot of planes that were almost useless against the Germans (essentially because they were too slow) but might prove of some merit against the Japanese who themselves had slower fighters. The I-16 which was their best fighter at Khalkhin Gol is now up-gunned with a pair of excellent 20mm ShVak cannons. That makes it a potentially dangerous opponent for Ki-27s and even Ki-43s and any Japanese bomber they can catch. The I-153 is improved a bit and carries rockets, falling into more of a ground attack niche but with it's excellent maneuverability it should be able to tangle with Ki-27s and Ki43s somwhat. LaGG-3s aren't very good in 1942 vintage but would probably do better against Ki-27s than against Bf 109s and could catch Ki-21 bombers. MiG-3 would be a pretty good interceptor against any high flying Japanese bombers or the Ki-45 heavy fighters, though I suspect they would be dead meat against a Ki-43 if caught (they should stay up high).
The interesting bit of course is how do the Yak fighters stack up against the Ki-43-I. I'd say the Ki-43 probably dominates the I-153, I-16/24, LaGG-3 and early Yaks - though probably not enough to avoid taking steady losses. The later model Yak 1b and 7b and the La 5 I'm not so sure. They are comparatively fast enough to hit and run and have good enough climb performance and acceleration to fight in the vertical. So maybe about even, who knows. The later model Yak-1b and the La 5 might be able to run rings around the Ki-43 down low anyway. The Ki-44 could give them a run for their money but only about ~100 are available in 1942.
The Soviet bombers also pose a problem for the Japanese, in that they are relatively fast, have armor and self-sealing tanks, and the Pe-2 in particular is not only faster than the Ki-43 but it also has fairly heavy defensive guns The Su-2 and the Pe-2 are both dive bombers and the Il-2 is a close support / point attack bomber of course. Meaning they are arguably more accurate for ground support than any of the Japanese Army bombers which are all level bombers. I think the Ki-43 is going to have a hard time intercepting Pe-2s and may struggle a bit catching Su-2s. Il-4 and SB are probably within their grasp. The Il-2 is going to be a challenge to bring down with that light armament in the IJA fighters. The Japanese also don't have anywhere near the kind of AAA capacity the German army has, especially in terms of mobile assets. I suspect if even a small number of Il-2s could prove to be a major problem for the Japanese army.
That said the Japanese bombers pose some problems for the Soviets with their long range, relatively high ceilings and high speed. The Ki-49 in particular is going to be probably fairly immune to interception except maybe from the MiG-3s.
The other key issue is how many of the better fighters do the Soviets send East. They are probably going to keep most of those Yak-1bs, Yak-7bs, La 5 and Kittyhawks on the front line. And of course their Spitfires which I didn't even mention because they won't go East. Instead they will probably send all or most of their remaining I-16, MiG-3, Su-2, Hurricanes, LaGG-3s, Tomahawks and a large proportion of their I-153, early Yak 1 and Yak 7s, as well as most of their remaining Tupolev SB bombers and Blenheims. If they were smart they would send a few Il2s and some Pe-2s, and maybe the majority of their B-25s since they didn't find these could handle German AAA in daylight. We know B-25s did well against the Japanese in the Pacific. Chennaults 23 FG had just a few of those and wrought a lot of destruction with them. The Soviet Navy had an important niche for the A-20s so they will probably keep those in the Baltic.
How it pans out
So I see it like this. Against basically the rejects from the Western front, the Japanese will face this motley assortment of kit in Siberia, initially I see the Japanese having a slight advantage. Their ground army has excellent discipline and a high morale, their pilots are good and their aircraft are superior in many respects. But even if we say the Japanese are initially winning at a rate of roughly 2-1 or 3-2, as they did at Khalkhin Gol, the attrition rate will start to catch up with them especially in the air battle. In 1939 I don't think the Soviet fighters had armor or self sealing tanks, but in 1942 I believe most of them did. The Soviets were also good at recovering & repairing their tanks, and they adapted quickly to tank warfare. If they had even a few T-34s and maybe some heavier M3 mediums and Valentines and the like, they should be able to quickly assert a decisive advantage in armor. Probably artillery too. And if they bring even a few Il2s and Pe2s this should become more perilous for the IJA. I could see some Japanese forces initially victorious but suddenly collapsing once the Soviets get a relatively thick concentration of armor together for a well coordinated attack.
The Japanese never had that many Ki-43s to begin with by that time and they would begin losing them too quickly in this scenario I think. The initial advantage would shrink as the Soviet fighters improve (especially in build quality) through the course of the year of 1942 and the Soviet pilots learn the lessons of war. Newer Soviet planes are going to keep coming out. More of the improved Yaks. The Ki-43-II will arrive in December of 42 but it's not a major improvement, incremental at best. The Soviets on the other hand will soon have the La-5FN and the Yak-9 which I think should have a substantial advantage over any model Ki-43 at least at lower altitudes. I could imagine the Soviets bringing a squadron or two of their biplanes to join with the faster newer fighters, so that the Ki-43 pilots will be in trouble if they turn and in trouble if they boom and zsoom. The Japanese will get more of their fast Ki-44 and then some Ki-61s in 1943, but probably not enough to make a difference. And if there are Il-2s on the battlefield then the fighting is going to be focused down low over the army like in the West.
My one big question is based on the Soviet Eastern oilfields. Where were / are they? How far would the Japanese have to go? If the distance wasn't too great, like something they could reach in say 2-3 months of steady gains, maybe the IJA could take it in a costly Blitzkrieg action. Then they have to hold it so the battle keeps going. How much of a hit losing that oil would be to the Soviets is another interesting question.
But it seems to me like the Soviets had literally thousands of tanks and airplanes that were all but useless against the Germans but could do some damage to the Japanese. The Soviets made 6,800 I-16s between 1934 and 1942. Probably at least half of those were gone by the time this hypothetical war starts up but that still leaves probably at least a couple thousand to send. They built 6,500 LaGG-3s, mostly before 1943. Send 2,000 of those to fight the Japanese. And you have 3,000 Hurricanes that have been sent to Russia. They can't help much against Bf 109s any more. Send however many are left, 500 or 1,000 to the East. Now just with those three types you already probably outnumber them substantially in fighters. They have made roughly 6,000 T-60 tanks and 6,000 T-70 tanks. Again probably a good number are already gone or unserviceable by early 1942 but no doubt quite a few are still left. Put them on the train and send them to fight the Japanese. They built an astounding 35,000 T-34s with the short 76 mm gun. Surely they could spare 2-300 or so to fight the Japanese. A few dozen Katyusha rocket launchers would also be nice. And etc.
While the risk of collapse in a war on two fronts was real, a successful counterattack, maybe after a nice feigned retreat and a double envelopment, could have been a major morale boost for the Soviets and a major shock for the Japanese. The Soviets could even move out to take a bunch of land in Manchuria and gain some resources.
But let me play devils advocate a bit.
I'm not sure the Soviets would have been overwhelmed by the Japanese the second time around. Compared to Khalkhin Gol in 1939, by 1942 the Soviets arguably had advantages in their land army. By 1943 I think it is not debatable that they had a substantially superior land army.
In 1942 (this is from memory so forgive me if I make a couple of errors)
Soviet Fighters
I-153 - 4 x 7.62mm, 276 mph
I-16 / 24 2 x 20mm, 2 x 7.62mm ~ 320 mph
LaGG-3 1 x 20mm, 2 x 7.62mm 330-340 mph
Yak-1 1 x 20mm, 1 x 7.62mm ~ 350 mph
Yak-1B 1 x 20mm, 1 x 12.7mm ~ 365 mph
Yak-7 1 x 20mm, 1 x 12.7mm ~ 350 mph
Yak-7B 1 x 20mm, 1 x 12.7mm ~ 360 mph
Lavochkin La-5 20 x 20mm, ~ 370 mph (guessing)
MiG-3 1 x 20mm, 2 x 7.62mm ~ 400 mph at high altitude, 314 mph at sea level (per Wikipedia anyway, probably a bit less in real life)
Hurricane Mk II 4 x 20mm or 12 x .303 ~ 330 mph
Tomahawk 2 x 12.7mm (some had 4 x .30 cal) ~ 350 mph
P-40D/E 4 or 6 x 12.7mm ~340 mph
P-40K 6 x 12.7mm ~ 360 mph
Soviet Bombers
Su-2 dive bomber - 6 x 7.62mm, 300 mph, dive bomber 1,300 lbs bombs, 680 mile range
Pe-2 dive bomber - 1 x 12.7mm, 3 x defensive machine guns, ~330 mph, 2,200 lbs bombs, 720 mile range
Il-4 bomber 3 x defensive machine guns, ~ 250 mph, 2,100 lbs of bombs, 2,400 mile range
SB bomber 4 x defensive guns, ~1,000 lbs of bombers, 1,400 mile range, 280 mph
A-20
B-25
Il-2
Bristol Blenheim
Japanese Fighters
Ki-27 2 x 7.7mm, ~ 270 mph
Ki-43-I 1 x 12.7mm & 1 x 7.7mm, ~ 300 mph
Ki-44 ( very small numbers available) 4 x 12.7mm mg, 370 mph
Ki-45 heavy fighter ~ 330 mph, 1 x 20mm cannon, 1 x 37mm cannon, 1 x defensive LMG, 1,200 mile range
Japanese Bombers
Ki-21 - 300 mph, 1,700 mile range
Ki-48 - 314 mph, 1500 mile range
Ki-49 - 306 mph 1x 20mm cannon, 5 x 7.7mm, 2205 lb bombs, 1,200 mile range - armor and self sealing fuel tanks (later models).
Ki-46 - 360 mph (recon)
Advantages for the Russians - generally speed, they have a lot of relatively fast and agile fighters and two pretty fast bombers, cannon armament, armor and self sealing tanks.
Advantages for the Japanese - maneuverability, range, build quality, altitude performance.
The Japanese would have some trouble with the Soviet bombers and the more heavily armed Lend Lease American bombers (as they did in the Pacific and in China) due mainly to speed but also to lack of heavy firepower. The Pe-2 would excel and the Su 2 may have been pretty useful too. The Il-4 would be fairly vulnerable and the A-20 would be about average probably. The Soviets did have their heavy fighter the Ki-45 which had the range and altitude capacity to be a pretty good bomber interceptor.
The Soviets had P-40s which we know did quite well against Japanese army aircraft.
On the ground,
The Soviets have KV heavy tanks, T-34 /76 mediums, and T-60 (20mm gun) and T-70 (45 mm gun) light tank, and American M3 Stuarts and M3 medium tanks, and British Valentines. They had American trucks and halftracks and plenty of 45mm and 76mm AT guns. They had Katyusha rockets and PPSh 41 sub machine guns, lots of artillery and various medium and heavy machine guns. Now it's likely the best of this kit is going to be thrown into the breach against the Germans, including probably all of the KVs and most of the T-34s.
But against the IJA they should have enough T-34s AT guns and artillery to spare to have major advantage in armor, which would be particularly telling on the open steppe or the fringes of the Gobi desert. T-60 and T-70 light tanks were not particularly useful against the Germans, but I think they could have been pretty good against Japanese tanks and tankettes - and they had more than 12,000 of these light tanks! Keep about 2,000 in the West for scouting or screening flanks etc., and send the rest to fight the Japanese. Do the same with the M3 Stuarts and M3 mediums, and maybe some of the Valentines. They would all be much more effective against the IJA than against the Germans.
The Japanese have their highly motivated and disciplined infantry which does mean something, and probably equals out the Soviet advantage in armor and things like submachine guns somewhat. But overall in the land war I think you have a stalemate. The Soviets might lose more like they did at Khalkhin Gol but assuming that, as in that battle with general Zhukov in charge, they have competent leadership, they should be able to manage a fighting retreat with a lot of counter attacks and make the invasion very costly for the Japanese while actually getting some use for a lot of equipment that was virtually useless against the Germans.
Reverse Siberian transfer
The main theory I have is along those same lines with the planes. They (the Soviets) had a lot of planes that were almost useless against the Germans (essentially because they were too slow) but might prove of some merit against the Japanese who themselves had slower fighters. The I-16 which was their best fighter at Khalkhin Gol is now up-gunned with a pair of excellent 20mm ShVak cannons. That makes it a potentially dangerous opponent for Ki-27s and even Ki-43s and any Japanese bomber they can catch. The I-153 is improved a bit and carries rockets, falling into more of a ground attack niche but with it's excellent maneuverability it should be able to tangle with Ki-27s and Ki43s somwhat. LaGG-3s aren't very good in 1942 vintage but would probably do better against Ki-27s than against Bf 109s and could catch Ki-21 bombers. MiG-3 would be a pretty good interceptor against any high flying Japanese bombers or the Ki-45 heavy fighters, though I suspect they would be dead meat against a Ki-43 if caught (they should stay up high).
The interesting bit of course is how do the Yak fighters stack up against the Ki-43-I. I'd say the Ki-43 probably dominates the I-153, I-16/24, LaGG-3 and early Yaks - though probably not enough to avoid taking steady losses. The later model Yak 1b and 7b and the La 5 I'm not so sure. They are comparatively fast enough to hit and run and have good enough climb performance and acceleration to fight in the vertical. So maybe about even, who knows. The later model Yak-1b and the La 5 might be able to run rings around the Ki-43 down low anyway. The Ki-44 could give them a run for their money but only about ~100 are available in 1942.
The Soviet bombers also pose a problem for the Japanese, in that they are relatively fast, have armor and self-sealing tanks, and the Pe-2 in particular is not only faster than the Ki-43 but it also has fairly heavy defensive guns The Su-2 and the Pe-2 are both dive bombers and the Il-2 is a close support / point attack bomber of course. Meaning they are arguably more accurate for ground support than any of the Japanese Army bombers which are all level bombers. I think the Ki-43 is going to have a hard time intercepting Pe-2s and may struggle a bit catching Su-2s. Il-4 and SB are probably within their grasp. The Il-2 is going to be a challenge to bring down with that light armament in the IJA fighters. The Japanese also don't have anywhere near the kind of AAA capacity the German army has, especially in terms of mobile assets. I suspect if even a small number of Il-2s could prove to be a major problem for the Japanese army.
That said the Japanese bombers pose some problems for the Soviets with their long range, relatively high ceilings and high speed. The Ki-49 in particular is going to be probably fairly immune to interception except maybe from the MiG-3s.
The other key issue is how many of the better fighters do the Soviets send East. They are probably going to keep most of those Yak-1bs, Yak-7bs, La 5 and Kittyhawks on the front line. And of course their Spitfires which I didn't even mention because they won't go East. Instead they will probably send all or most of their remaining I-16, MiG-3, Su-2, Hurricanes, LaGG-3s, Tomahawks and a large proportion of their I-153, early Yak 1 and Yak 7s, as well as most of their remaining Tupolev SB bombers and Blenheims. If they were smart they would send a few Il2s and some Pe-2s, and maybe the majority of their B-25s since they didn't find these could handle German AAA in daylight. We know B-25s did well against the Japanese in the Pacific. Chennaults 23 FG had just a few of those and wrought a lot of destruction with them. The Soviet Navy had an important niche for the A-20s so they will probably keep those in the Baltic.
How it pans out
So I see it like this. Against basically the rejects from the Western front, the Japanese will face this motley assortment of kit in Siberia, initially I see the Japanese having a slight advantage. Their ground army has excellent discipline and a high morale, their pilots are good and their aircraft are superior in many respects. But even if we say the Japanese are initially winning at a rate of roughly 2-1 or 3-2, as they did at Khalkhin Gol, the attrition rate will start to catch up with them especially in the air battle. In 1939 I don't think the Soviet fighters had armor or self sealing tanks, but in 1942 I believe most of them did. The Soviets were also good at recovering & repairing their tanks, and they adapted quickly to tank warfare. If they had even a few T-34s and maybe some heavier M3 mediums and Valentines and the like, they should be able to quickly assert a decisive advantage in armor. Probably artillery too. And if they bring even a few Il2s and Pe2s this should become more perilous for the IJA. I could see some Japanese forces initially victorious but suddenly collapsing once the Soviets get a relatively thick concentration of armor together for a well coordinated attack.
The Japanese never had that many Ki-43s to begin with by that time and they would begin losing them too quickly in this scenario I think. The initial advantage would shrink as the Soviet fighters improve (especially in build quality) through the course of the year of 1942 and the Soviet pilots learn the lessons of war. Newer Soviet planes are going to keep coming out. More of the improved Yaks. The Ki-43-II will arrive in December of 42 but it's not a major improvement, incremental at best. The Soviets on the other hand will soon have the La-5FN and the Yak-9 which I think should have a substantial advantage over any model Ki-43 at least at lower altitudes. I could imagine the Soviets bringing a squadron or two of their biplanes to join with the faster newer fighters, so that the Ki-43 pilots will be in trouble if they turn and in trouble if they boom and zsoom. The Japanese will get more of their fast Ki-44 and then some Ki-61s in 1943, but probably not enough to make a difference. And if there are Il-2s on the battlefield then the fighting is going to be focused down low over the army like in the West.
My one big question is based on the Soviet Eastern oilfields. Where were / are they? How far would the Japanese have to go? If the distance wasn't too great, like something they could reach in say 2-3 months of steady gains, maybe the IJA could take it in a costly Blitzkrieg action. Then they have to hold it so the battle keeps going. How much of a hit losing that oil would be to the Soviets is another interesting question.
But it seems to me like the Soviets had literally thousands of tanks and airplanes that were all but useless against the Germans but could do some damage to the Japanese. The Soviets made 6,800 I-16s between 1934 and 1942. Probably at least half of those were gone by the time this hypothetical war starts up but that still leaves probably at least a couple thousand to send. They built 6,500 LaGG-3s, mostly before 1943. Send 2,000 of those to fight the Japanese. And you have 3,000 Hurricanes that have been sent to Russia. They can't help much against Bf 109s any more. Send however many are left, 500 or 1,000 to the East. Now just with those three types you already probably outnumber them substantially in fighters. They have made roughly 6,000 T-60 tanks and 6,000 T-70 tanks. Again probably a good number are already gone or unserviceable by early 1942 but no doubt quite a few are still left. Put them on the train and send them to fight the Japanese. They built an astounding 35,000 T-34s with the short 76 mm gun. Surely they could spare 2-300 or so to fight the Japanese. A few dozen Katyusha rocket launchers would also be nice. And etc.
While the risk of collapse in a war on two fronts was real, a successful counterattack, maybe after a nice feigned retreat and a double envelopment, could have been a major morale boost for the Soviets and a major shock for the Japanese. The Soviets could even move out to take a bunch of land in Manchuria and gain some resources.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Two key points here:
The Soviet Union was fighting for it's life and much needed men and equipment was sent west to stop the Germans.
Secondly, with a Japanese offensive in the East, how will the Allies provide lend-lease aircraft to Soviet Russia?
The main route for aircraft from the US was from Alaska with the British providing aircraft via Iraq and other Asian routes.
The Soviet Union was fighting for it's life and much needed men and equipment was sent west to stop the Germans.
Secondly, with a Japanese offensive in the East, how will the Allies provide lend-lease aircraft to Soviet Russia?
The main route for aircraft from the US was from Alaska with the British providing aircraft via Iraq and other Asian routes.
There is still the Iran route which is in fact how a lot of stuff got there, and the North sea route as perilous as it was, is how most of those Hurricanes and Tomahawks got there, and if the Japanese do intercept the ASLB route then they have started / are starting the war with the US, which we know how that goes. (Well enough at first, then quickly taking a turn to disaster).
As for the stuff sent to stop the Germans, my point is that in terms of the equipment and in particular planes (but also a whole lot of lighter weight tanks) the Soviets had a lot of stuff which while pretty good by World standards, wasn't up to tangling with the German kit. It was being lost at such a rate that it was effectively wasted against the German war machine. For planes mainly due to speed which was the principal German advantage with the Bf 109. The Ki43, though highly maneuverable, was not so fast and that meant the Soviet planes, or at least some of them, did have a fighting chance against it.
In terms of raw manpower as I think was already mentioned the Soviets did have a lot of people on the border there. A big chunk were sent to help relieve Moscow but not all. With their advantage in armor (even using mostly their second-rate armor) the Soviets could probably hold off the IJA without anywhere near the kind of catastrophic manpower losses they faced against the Germans with their well integrated combined arms divisions and armored spearheads.
As for the stuff sent to stop the Germans, my point is that in terms of the equipment and in particular planes (but also a whole lot of lighter weight tanks) the Soviets had a lot of stuff which while pretty good by World standards, wasn't up to tangling with the German kit. It was being lost at such a rate that it was effectively wasted against the German war machine. For planes mainly due to speed which was the principal German advantage with the Bf 109. The Ki43, though highly maneuverable, was not so fast and that meant the Soviet planes, or at least some of them, did have a fighting chance against it.
In terms of raw manpower as I think was already mentioned the Soviets did have a lot of people on the border there. A big chunk were sent to help relieve Moscow but not all. With their advantage in armor (even using mostly their second-rate armor) the Soviets could probably hold off the IJA without anywhere near the kind of catastrophic manpower losses they faced against the Germans with their well integrated combined arms divisions and armored spearheads.
USSR far east would be a low priority for Stalin, even if Japanese invaded, as German army was immediate threat to industrial centres.
Remember also Finnish Buffalo 239 (F2A-1) had no trouble against the Soviet planes it faced until 1943. So as Japanese fighters Ki-43 and especially A6M2 ate Buffalo 339's (probably a bit worse than 239) I don't think they would be overwhelmed by anything the Soviets could spare in 1941-42.
P.S. soviet tank reliability in 1941-42 was woeful.
Remember also Finnish Buffalo 239 (F2A-1) had no trouble against the Soviet planes it faced until 1943. So as Japanese fighters Ki-43 and especially A6M2 ate Buffalo 339's (probably a bit worse than 239) I don't think they would be overwhelmed by anything the Soviets could spare in 1941-42.
P.S. soviet tank reliability in 1941-42 was woeful.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
I beg to differ.
There were massive anti-war rallies on campuses across the nation, folk songs and posters - in essence, an anti-Vietnam war movement, A La 1930's.
Plenty of information available, but that may be better placed in a dedicated thread rather than hijack this one
And I beg to differ further.
Yes there were protests, but like with Nixon and Vietnam, the government selectively ignored them . The reason Japan attacked PH and the PI was that the anti-European war powers in the US government had, in the Japanese opinion, militarily interfered with with the Japanese invasion (liberation) of Manchuria and, by supplying weapons and staff to groups like the AVG, to all practical purposes the US was engaged in a war against Japan. To add to this the US had placed embargoes on Japan, reinforced with warships, designed to guarantee that Japan would soon run out of oil, rubber and other essentials.
Lets be brutally honest here. If the roles were reversed would America have allowed itself to be deprived of those commodities or would the US have come out fighting?
And yes, this should be a separate thread
Last edited:
Agreed. Hence the assumption that what would be sent East would be the more obsolete or less successful types of equipment.
Here we part ways, as I don't think it works like that. The Finnish had little trouble fighting the Russians in 1942 with many aircraft including much older and less capable designs than the F2A, as we all know. Fokker DXXI, Fiat G.50, Hawk 75 etc. They also, unlike the Japanese, fared well in a land war against the Russians prior to WW2 proper despite having a similarly low level of tank or anti-tank equipment. Terrain, admittedly, was in their favor.
The Finns, as we know, had excellent pilots and had developed the best tactics in the world at that time, they were arguably the inventor of the 'finger-four'.
More fundamentally, I don't think that if an aircraft works out well in one Theater it automatically follows that it will do well in another. Or the converse. We have been discussing this quite a bit lately in some other threads. The P-39 did well for the Soviets but poorly everywhere else - including (in American hands) against the Japanese. Which is why I didn't include it in my post (though it also wasn't really available in any numbers until 1943). The Spitfire also did well in NW Europe but arguably not as well in the Pacific. Our only clue as to how well Soviet aircraft (including P-63s and P-39s actually) would do against the Japanese is from the very, very late battles of 1945. By then we give the Japanese the benefit of the doubt because their entire war machine has been so battered.
The big question of course is how does the mid series Yak 1 and the early La 5 stack up against the best Japanese fighter, the Ki 43.
The Japanese Army doesn't have Zeros though they did get to use some to make up for deficiencies with the Ki 43, so it's certainly not inconceivable that the Japanese throw some A6Ms into the fray, and that does make their hand stronger I think.
I don't doubt it. But I also doubt Japanese tank reliability could be characterized any differently. And if the Soviets could make good use of their tanks in 1939 I think they'd do considerably better with them in 1942, all things being equal.
As to the dates, the specific date of this hypothetical invasion would be important and yet it was never precisely established so far as I know. I had gathered the notion was early 1942 as a replacement for the war against the US. If it was in 1941 I think the Russians might have a bit more of a problem, I'm not sure. If it was later (after Stalingrad) I think the Japanese would be in trouble right out of the gate.
It probably should be a separate thread, and it's quite topical since the US is still relying on "sanctions" and embargoes to pressure numerous other States today. The outcome may be the same.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,020
- Jun 25, 2013
I beg to differ.
There were massive anti-war rallies on campuses across the nation, folk songs and posters - in essence, an anti-Vietnam war movement, A La 1930's.
Plenty of information available, but that may be better placed in a dedicated thread rather than hijack this one
A question is whether these were generically anti-war or specifically anti-war in Europe. Lindbergh, for example, was opposed to the war in Europe (possibly related to his illegitimate children in Germany), but not against Japan. A lot of isolationists were opposed to war in Europe, but not to war in Asia, Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Conversely, there were US groups who wanted an earlier intervention in Europe, e.g., Polish-Americans. Since the US tended not to kill or imprison dissidents (most of the time), some quite large scale protests could (and, hopefully, can) occur, without retribution, when people disagreed (or disagree) with the government.
Since, well before Pearl Harbor, American servicemen had been killed by Axis actions, for example, in the USS Reuben James, I don't think Japan attacking Pearl Harbor was a necessary condition for US entry into WW2. Hitler was more aggressive than Wilhelm II (and his minders), and I think it unlikely that the United States becoming an active belligerent in WW2 would be much later than early 1942.
Back, at least vaguely, on topic. The IJA was not enjoying a peaceful respite in China. Neither the KMT nor the CCP were standing around handing the IJA tea and cookies, and the IJA had to devote a lot of troops to attacking the Chinese forces. The US, for a number of reasons, was supporting China, and this support, in and of itself, was an offense to Japanese government sensibilities: it's not unlikely that the Japanese government thought that this insult must be dealt with. The Japanese government would also have to consider that the US, while not being militarily confrontational, was being diplomatically aggressive and could switch from mean talking (and sanctions) to mean talking and direct military action: this means that Japan would need to keep a lot of military force available in case the US decided to take action. Attacking the USSR (which hadn't worked well a few years earlier) would weaken Japanese forces elsewhere, possibly to the point where Japan's military planners felt an opportunistic US would start military action.
Good points but here is a counterpoint - the Japanese had their huge land army which was arguably their greatest asset. Opening a second front against the Russians would put extra strain on it especially in terms of logistics, but it would arguably also mean engaging with some of their most effective assets for more immediate potential gain, if indeed there were oil fields in reach.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Soviets were also providing considerable assistance to the Communist Chinese...
[QUOTE="swampyankee, post: 1522400, member: 56136" Lindbergh, for example, was opposed to the war in Europe (possibly related to his illegitimate children in Germany), but not against Japan. [/QUOTE]
I think a lot of us are aware of Lindbergh's infidelities, but that was well after WW2.
I've never read of even a rumor of him having any relations with German women ( in Germany) before WW2.
I think a lot of us are aware of Lindbergh's infidelities, but that was well after WW2.
I've never read of even a rumor of him having any relations with German women ( in Germany) before WW2.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,020
- Jun 25, 2013
I think a lot of us are aware of Lindbergh's infidelities, but that was well after WW2.
I've never read of even a rumor of him having any relations with German women ( in Germany) before WW2.[/QUOTE]
I hadn't checked the timeline of his infidelities; I knew the Lindberghs had moved to Europe in 1935. Lindbergh was not particularly condemnatory towards either Hitler or the nazis; he was openly antisemitic (). He was also far from alone in his views (Henry Ford's antisemitic writings were on many a nazi shelf).
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
