Standard fighter for both IJN and IJA.

[Nodeo-Franvier]

If both of Japanese Empire air service use the same fighter design (ex.Ki-18/Ki-33 and A5M) would they be able to field more aircraft and would this alter the course of the war?

 

[ThomasP]

Short answer:

re: "would they be able to field more aircraft" - yes
re: "would this alter the course of the war" - not significantly

Not so short answer:

Relative to the overall war effort, a shortage of existing flyable airframes was not a problem. There were occasionally local shortages of aircraft, but this was due to logistics (ie getting the airframes to where they were needed), not production numbers (I think).

 

[GrauGeist]

Japan (like Germany) had a limited supply of raw materials.
If the IJN and IJA settled on a common fighter type, say the A6M for example, it *may* have provided a greater number of fighters available.
However, Japan needed pilots for the aircraft, they needed fuel, oil, tires, replacement engines and so on. With the U.S. destroying their supply chain, they lacked the ability to sustain significant front line numbers and the course of the war would have remained the same.

 

[tomo pauk]

Standardizing between IJA and IJN with regard to types of aircraft certainly improves Japanese production numbers and serviceability. Leaving aside the other Japanese problems (lack of fuel, lack of trained manpower and bad altitude to those, wholesale lack of industrial might to fight USA and others), on what specifics the IJA and IJN should agree for joint fighters?

 

[Nodeo-Franvier]

Standardizing between IJA and IJN with regard to types of aircraft certainly improves Japanese production numbers and serviceability. Leaving aside the other Japanese problems (lack of fuel, lack of trained manpower and bad altitude to those, wholesale lack of industrial might to fight USA and others), on what specifics the IJA and IJN should agree for joint fighters?

At the very least all land based IJN aircraft should be the same as the IJA ,I'm not sure about IJA adopting variants of Carrier aircraft because these tend to be inferior to land based design(Ki-27 is superior to A5M in almost every way) i could be wrong though.

 

[tomo pauk]

At the very least all land based IJN aircraft should be the same as the IJA ,I'm not sure about IJA adopting variants of Carrier aircraft because these tend to be inferior to land based design(Ki-27 is superior to A5M in almost every way) i could be wrong though.

For the ground-based fighters:
Ki-43 instead of Zero - we do loose cannon armament.
Ki-44 instead of Zero - we gain a jump in performance and high-speed handling; low-speed qualities are worse (no free lunch applies); loss of range is the main shortcoming (Ki-44 carried less fuel for it's thirstier engine)
Ki-61 instead of Zero - jump in performance, improvment of range; major loss of reliability and availability - the whole saga of DB 601A production in Japan was a wrong idea

Nakajima was making Zeroes under licence, so there is enough of production capability left over without Zero being produced by them. Mitsubishi can design a new-gen carrier-borne fighter in a timely manner without Raiden taking out time and resources.

Bombers:
G4M was probably superior than anything Japanese fielded until Ki-67?

(my take is that whole Japanese inventory of combat aircraft was in dire need for overhaul, even without the IJA and IJN buying separate designs)

 

[Nodeo-Franvier]

For the ground-based fighters:
Ki-43 instead of Zero - we do loose cannon armament.
Ki-44 instead of Zero - we gain a jump in performance and high-speed handling; low-speed qualities are worse (no free lunch applies); loss of range is the main shortcoming (Ki-44 carried less fuel for it's thirstier engine)
Ki-61 instead of Zero - jump in performance, improvment of range; major loss of reliability and availability - the whole saga of DB 601A production in Japan was a wrong idea

Nakajima was making Zeroes under licence, so there is enough of production capability left over without Zero being produced by them. Mitsubishi can design a new-gen carrier-borne fighter in a timely manner without Raiden taking out time and resources.

Bombers:
G4M was probably superior than anything Japanese fielded until Ki-67?

(my take is that whole Japanese inventory of combat aircraft was in dire need for overhaul, even without the IJA and IJN buying separate designs)

Something like Ki-100 filling the gap would be good, I alway have the feeling that it could be made carrier borne.

 

[tomo pauk]

Kawasaki could've made an 'early Ki-100' by designing the Ki-61 around the Ha-41 radial engine instead of around the Ha-40 V12 engine.

 

[Nodeo-Franvier]

Kawasaki could've made an 'early Ki-100' by designing the Ki-61 around the Ha-41 radial engine instead of around the Ha-40 V12 engine.

Maybe that could happen if the Japanese air ministry like the Italian decided to focus solely on radial engine. I have read US WWII report that rated ki-61 as barely better than the Wildcat,Kawasaki should really have tried different option.

 

[tomo pauk]

Maybe that could happen if the Japanese air ministry like the Italian decided to focus solely on radial engine.

I'm not sure that there was such a thing as Japanese Air Ministry (yet one of their mistakes).
But yes - deciding that only radial engines will be bought by both IJA and IJN would've meant considerably better engine production at Kawasaki. They were making Nakajima's radials under licence before and during V12 engines' production. Having them to keep making Sakae line in an ever increasing numbers frees Nakajima to phase out the Sakae from their production and focus on Ha-41/-109 line of engines. Ha-109 was about as powerful as BMW 801C, while weighting much less, being of a bit smaller frontal area, and not having the reliability issues like the 801.

FWIW:

 

[tomo pauk]

I've butchered the table a bit, making it easier to see the yearly totals. The 'Ha 140' remark in red is to note that resepctive numbers are not for yet another Ha-40 totals. Ha 13 was a 9 cyl radial, the Ha 25 and 115 were of the same familiy as the Sakae engines, Ha 45 is a.k.a. Homare.



As for the major reduction of fighter types made in Japan, with the very, very unlikely agreement that both services will buy the same gear, I'd start from carrier-capable fighters and work from there, not vice-versa. Any carrier-capable fighter can operate from terra firma, while the opposite might not be always the case.

 

[Nodeo-Franvier]

I've butchered the table a bit, making it easier to see the yearly totals. The 'Ha 140' remark in red is to note that resepctive numbers are not for yet another Ha-40 totals. Ha 13 was a 9 cyl radial, the Ha 25 and 115 were of the same familiy as the Sakae engines, Ha 45 is a.k.a. Homare.

View attachment 605238

As for the major reduction of fighter types made in Japan, with the very, very unlikely agreement that both services will buy the same gear, I'd start from carrier-capable fighters and work from there, not vice-versa. Any carrier-capable fighter can operate from terra firma, while the opposite might not be always the case.

Standardization in aircraft probably will also include armament,that probably will be Ho-103 heavy machine gun and type-99 cannon.

Carrier fighter seem to be much more difficult to develop than their land based counterparts so that might not be a good idea, they will probably not get past A6M8 level of performance.

 

[tomo pauk]

Carrier fighter seem to be much more difficult to develop than their land based counterparts so that might not be a good idea, they will probably not get past A6M8 level of performance.

Japanese wasted a lot of resources for 'single-use' aircraft. Raiden was a dedicated land-based fighter of IJN; Kawanishi floatplane recons (E15) or fighters (N1K1), that later become and N1K1-J and N1K2-J land-based fighter, that later (too late) became prototypes for a carrier-based N1K3-J. Saiun was probably a most advanced carrier-based aircraft anywhere in the world when deployed, at least when we talk about airframe, yet it was just a recon. All of them used far better engines than Zero had, including the M8 version. Then we have Aichi and other Kawanishi floatplane recons (aparently nobody considered sticking the floats on the Aichi Val instead).
So instead of having Mitsubishi, Kawanishi and Nakajima doing single-use aircraft, make the darned fighters 1st with actually powerful engines (Ha 41/-109 line, Kasei, Kinsei). Kinsei was powering the G4M 1941, Ha-41 was powering the Ki-49 in 1941. Land basing such fighters is there by default. They could have gotten a 370-380 mph fighter in service by 1942/early 1943.
After that and if you must, make the floatplane fighters or/and recons by adding floats to the existing fighters or dive-bombers, just like it was done with Zero.

 

[Dimlee]

Probably, all things considered, "standard fighter" could be A6M followed by N1K.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If both of Japanese Empire air service use the same fighter design (ex.Ki-18/Ki-33 and A5M) would they be able to field more aircraft and would this alter the course of the war?

I like the idea, and there's precedent in Britain, where the bespoke single-seat FAA fighter is a rare bird. You have the Gloster Nightjar, Fairey Flycatcher and postwar Blackburn Firebrand, Hawker Sea Hawk, Supermarine Attacker and Scimitar. That's it, every other single-seat FAA fighter was a modified RAF design, including the Sea Fury (albeit canceled by the RAF), Sea Harrier and today's Lightning.

There's no downside to replacing all the Ki-27 and Ki-43 with A5M and A6M. But there'd better be a A6M replacement in the works to enter IJA/N service by end 1942.

 

[Nodeo-Franvier]

I like the idea, and there's precedent in Britain, where the bespoke single-seat FAA fighter is a rare bird. You have the Gloster Nightjar, Fairey Flycatcher and postwar Blackburn Firebrand, Hawker Sea Hawk, Supermarine Attacker and Scimitar. That's it, every other single-seat FAA fighter was a modified RAF design, including the Sea Fury (albeit canceled by the RAF), Sea Harrier and today's Lightning.

There's no downside to replacing all the Ki-27 and Ki-43 with A5M and A6M. But there'd better be a A6M replacement in the works to enter IJA/N service by end 1942.

Ki-18/A5M would be the most likely standard fighter,After that Nakajima and Kawasaki probably will step up their game and make carrier capable aircrafts too.

 

[taly01]

Things that could have effected the outcome of some campaigns were not so much the plane/s but things like poor or no radios, reading about Guadalcanal battles the Zero escorts continually failed to be at the right place to protect the G4M raids.

The Zero should have got the Kinsei ~1300hp engine in early 1943 not mid 1945, and be a land based plane with some seat armour.

IJA were slow in adopting a fighter 20mm gun, it could have made a real difference with Ki-43.

 

[nuuumannn]

(my take is that whole Japanese inventory of combat aircraft was in dire need for overhaul, even without the IJA and IJN buying separate designs)

Most definitely right and no, there wasn't an 'Air Ministry', as the aviation needs of the navy and army were handled internally within the massive bureaucracy that was each military division. Like in Nazi Germany, where jealousy and spite was prevalent among rival companies and services, each of these jealously guarded their own turf, each seconding work to favoured manufacturers, such as Mitsubishi and Nakajima, who were their own private enterprises, which incorporated a huge spread of factories producing raw materials and so forth for the aircraft building factories - and great rivals to one another. This most unproductive atmosphere was perhaps the biggest impediment to a joint Army/Navy aircraft programme.

 

[tomo pauk]

Things that could have effected the outcome of some campaigns were not so much the plane/s but things like poor or no radios, reading about Guadalcanal battles the Zero escorts continually failed to be at the right place to protect the G4M raids.

The Zero should have got the Kinsei ~1300hp engine in early 1943 not mid 1945, and be a land based plane with some seat armour.

Radios indeed make a difference, even if the job is not escorting the bombers across 500+ miles of Pacific or other unhospitable surface.
Zeros should've gotten the Ha-41 of 1250 HP already in 1941/42. Removes the need for the J2M, so Mistubishi can do the next-gen carrier-borne fighter design.

IJA were slow in adopting a fighter 20mm gun, it could have made a real difference with Ki-43.

Yes, very slow with 20mm adoption indeed. Even another pair of 7.7mm would've improved the firepower of the Ki-43, let alone another pair of 12.7mm guns. They sometimes carried just one 12.7mm + 7.7mm, sometimes it was just a pair of 7.7mm MGs.

 

[Admiral Beez]

. Like in Nazi Germany, where jealousy and spite was prevalent among rival companies and services, each of these jealously guarded their own turf, .

Agreed. It must have angered the IJN when the IJA commissioned their own aircraft carriers, likely intended as a thumb in the Navy's eye. The Japanese Army Aircraft Carriers

But if we don't put aside the political and service infighting, this discussion can't go further. And I'd like to consider a non-Mitsubishi fleet fighter.