The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war.

If the Japanese had won at midway and continued operations geared toward further territorial gains they would have been making a terrible mistake. By the end of April they had just about reached the limits of their logistics such many othe
r advances or commitments were simply going to overload their supply network even further than it already suffered from.

A few exceptions to this generalisation can be made most notably moresby and Milne bay. Such advances were more consolidation than offensive in nature

In realot the Japanese offensive capability

There are some quite detailed military war games that cover this whole subject quite well
I am still not a great fan of the available computer Sims. I prefer the operational level Sims. My fave is the spi war in the Pacific covering the war at individual ship level 10 plane air point level and Regimemental combat level. Covers the whole Pacific war and Japan wi s by not losing before December 45. There is an updated version put out by another company but I e only played the original. By far the best approach by the Japanese after the initial smash and grab operation is not fight midway. It is important for the i
IJN to pick off one or two US carriers whist building up two reaction fleets and two major airbase one near rabaul and one near mean. If t he IJN can build these two for es they can effe timely deter much from the western allies u til early 44 by which time it all be too late to meet the game deadli rd

How's realistic a y of this is wide open to Debate. But does offer a different way of considering the alternatives

Those old board games are great, and some of the computer games are pretty good too believe it or not) but even an SPI game is made with certain assumptions in mind, I'm not sure it would even let you play out an Indian Ocean strategy for example.

QUOTE="Schweik, post: 1468346, member: 73921"]Those old board games are great, and some of the computer games are pretty good too believe it or not) but even an SPI game is made with certain assumptions in mind, I'm not sure it would even let you play out an Indian Ocean strategy for example.[/QUOTE]
It does but I'm not sure it's assumptions are all that good. Depending on where and in what strength the Japanese intervene up to 10 CW divs as well as a sizable portion of the RN appear on the western map edgr. Separately the British have some compulsory transfers for Madagascar etc. Overall however the whole CBI is handled in rather averagely

There is older less accurate SIM from a firm called GDW called pearl harbour I think which has options for European axis intervention and variable commitment levels to the Europe first strategy. Makes for interesting outcomes

WITP has some interesting mechanics that can easily absorb house rules. I particularly
Like giving the US and Japan the choice of how much production they have access to.baseline us allocation to 20percent giving them to the end of 1945 to win. We normally allow the US player the option of varying that percentage in exchange for shortening or lengthening that time limit. A similar but smaller arrangement can be made by the Japanese player. This system is also handy as a handicap system for players of different abilities

IF, big if, the Japanese do more than stage one raid into the Indian ocean early in WW II, what else don't they do?

That's up to the Japanese player. The entire Japanese war potential is on the map whereas only a portion of allied capability is under player control

A bigger conundrum is what to do with the Soviet union. WITP I was researched back in the 70s when our knowledge of Soviet forces was far more limited

Just from looking around the internet in the last few hours, The British had a problem with the "Indians" and other local populations/troops who might have believed Japanese propaganda that the Japanese would free them from British rule. This gives something of window for local rebellions/mutinies making it harder for the British to defend. As the war goes on I would imagine that the local populations, much as they may resent the British, might come to see them as the lesser of two evils.
Many units/locations remained loyal making this a rather hit or miss proposition.

Some of the later Japanese adventures in the Indian Ocean were hardly up to their earlier standards and begin to resemble a black comedy.

British subs sink 3 Japanese/axis subs and two light cruisers.
Two 21 kt armed merchant ships (with up to eight 5.5in guns) attack a 14 kt tanker with a 4 in gun and a Bathurst class minesweeper/corvette with a 3in gun. One merchant raider is sunk, the empty tanker is torpedoed, abandoned, reboarded and brought into port.

3 Large cruisers break into the Indian Ocean in March of 1944, they sink one 6,100 ton merchant before retiring to base under the assumption somebody heard the victims distress call.

The possibility of an Indian uprising was something mutaguchi was hoping for in his 1944 invasion of India. Certainly the famine in Bengal Fed into that dynamic. And it is arguable either way really. But what disincli es me to agreeing to the possibility is that in the historical model there was little or no evidence of large scale Indian support to support projapanes indepependsnve. The psychology of Indian society was much more closely aligned to obedience and submission than is the case in conventional western society


The game does offer some possobilolities for raising projapanes Indian and Burmese forces but their numbers and capabilities are pretty limotrd

Coming late to the party but...

For many years I speculated on what would have happened at Midway had the Enterprise and Hornet been sunk. After reading Shattered Sword, many of the questions raised here (and in my mind over the years) are pretty much dealt with if not answered outright. If you haven't read Shattered Sword, my advice is to read it, you'll see some exhaustive research with details laid out in full on just about anything related to that battle. See Appendix 5 for their perspective on the Japanese actually trying to invade Midway, their analysis does NOT bode well for the Japanese.

Also, as far as the IJA/IJN "Handling" British colonial forces, they (Parshall and Tully) also point out that many of their success' were flanking or end runs with numerical advantages of rather high ratios. Direct assaults they (the Japanese) rightly had trouble with, see Wake Island for example.

What If's are interesting but in reality, there was no way Japan was going to succeed in the war they purchased for themselves, just consider that the economy of the United States, while running at less than full capacity coming out of the Great Depression, was still five times that of Japan's which was running at full throttle.

Also, fast carrier groups that began appearing in 1943 proved there was no defensive perimeter that would forestall American/Allied thrusts into the Empire. Hell, even small single and twin carrier groups of the USN were bypassing Japanese outer defenses for raids (and the battle of the Coral Sea) in 1942. So the idea of a ring of iron protecting Japan thousands of miles from her home shores is a pure myth.

parsifal said:

There are some quite detailed military war games that cover this whole subject quite well
I am still not a great fan of the available computer Sims. I prefer the operational level Sims. My fave is the spi war in the Pacific covering the war at individual ship level 10 plane air point level and Regimemental combat level. Covers the whole Pacific war and Japan wi s by not losing before December 45. There is an updated version put out by another company but I e only played the original. By far the best approach by the Japanese after the initial smash and grab operation is not fight midway. It is important for the i
IJN to pick off one or two US carriers whist building up two reaction fleets and two major airbase one near rabaul and one near mean. If t he IJN can build these two for es they can effe timely deter much from the western allies u til early 44 by which time it all be too late to meet the game deadli rd

How's realistic a y of this is wide open to Debate. But does offer a different way of considering the alternatives

Click to expand...

My friends and I were big AH and SPI gamers in high school in the late 70s. If you have started and finished a game of WITP its an achievement. We gamed the Midway Era scenario, and I remember the Japanese player opted to invade Noumea vs Midway. I played the USN side, and I remember because using the intelligence rule I was lucky enough to draw the chit that told me where he was going. The good old days. The monster games were great in high school, you had time, the mental power to read and absorb 50 pages of rule books, and opponents. I finally sold my copy of SPIs War in Europe a couple years ago on Ebay. I thought it was someone else's turn to try it.

I've played the campaign to full conclusion 5 times and refereed maybe as many again. I consider it a flawed masterpiece i have designed and built a commercial prototype for the full global wars.far too big to be considered playable.i would really love to play the modernised version of WITP by decision games cut the cost of the copy can't really be justified.

As the allied player I could generally bring the Japanese to their knees using avoidance strategies. Defensively you hold what you must and attack where he is weakest. Subs are a big part of your offensive strategy.the Japanese have no answer really. As the US you want for nothing but until you have overwhelming carrier strength you pound the Japanese bases mercilessly with those b24s

Going back to the original topic, it's very interesting. I've been thinking about it before for some time. Unfortunately, I think the answer is probably the BF 109. I'll explain why. I see WW2 as mainly three theatres, the Western, Eastern and Pacific. Of these three, the Eastern front was by far the biggest. Aircraft such as the Hellcat may have decimated the Japanese carrier air force and the TBF/M sank a staggering amount of Japanese shipping, but their impact was really only limited to one of the 2 smaller fronts.

Also, while the big, famous battles like Midway are important, all the hundreds of smaller battles and skirmishes that slowly wore down the enemy are equally or more important and directly impacted the big battles. Stalingrad is a prime example; it's where the attrition the Germans had suffered finally caught up with them and no amount of tactical superiority could protect them against the vast resources of the Soviet Union.

With that in mind, here are my picks:

Spitfire

West:

- Made a major contribution to the Battle of Britain. More kills per aircraft and lower loss rate than the Hurricane.
- Played a major role in the defense of Malta and establishing air superiority over North Africa. This eventually led to the invasion of Italy.
- Ground the Luftwaffe in Northern France down for years, despite a slight pause when the FW 190 appeared. Continued to constantly bleed the Luftwaffe with the mark IX and later marks from mid 1942 onwards.

East:

- The Mark V was used by the Russians, but was not very well liked; it was good at high altitudes, where not much combat took place.

Pacific:

- Played an important role in the defense of Darwin and some other local theatres.

B 24 Liberator

West:

- Attacked the Romanian oilfields and contributed to the CBO over Germany from 1944. This would eventually lead to Germany's chronic lack of resources and final collapse.
- Helped close the mid-Atlantic gap.

Pacific:

- Plays a significant role in bombing Japanese bases due to range.

P 40

West:

- Played an important role in North Africa. Less so after D-day.

East:

- The Russians liked their ruggedness and low altitude performance. Second only to the P39 in popularity for lend-lease aircraft.

Pacific:

- Important in the early years in the Pacific, especially over China and New Guinea

Yak fighter family

East:

- The Yak 1 was about the only decent fighter the Soviets had at the start of the invasion (e.g. it wouldn't rip the wings off if you farted)
- The Yak 9 was the newest and best Soviet fighter over Stalingrad and was produced in larger numbers than any other Soviet fighter.
- From mid 1944, the Yak 3 was the best low-altitude dogfighter in the world; German fighters would do all they could to avoid it rather than risking a dogfight.

Il 2 Sturmovik

East:

- Not very accurate, but built in such vast numbers they destroyed an enormous amount of German tanks and equipment. It didn't hurt that German troops were scared to death of them.
- Forced the Luftwaffe to expend an enormous amount of resources to try and bring the endless waves down. So tough that the Germans called them "the concrete aeroplane".

BF 109

West:

- The Germans were smart and lucky when they conquered France. Without the 109 covering the Stuka's and bombers, the outcome could have been very different.
- The only aircraft to do any serious damage to fighter command over Britain.
- Inflicted horrific losses on the Mighty 8th during 1943. Remained a threat right up until the end.
- Was present in every major war Germany fought in the West and was pivotal in Scandinavia, the Balkans, North Africa, Greece etc.

East:

- Absolutely dominated the skies over Russia right up until 1943. It's doubtful the Germans would have gotten anywhere near Moscow without it.
- History's greatest aces all flew the 109. Their kills range in the hundreds and there were many of them. The best Western allied aces scored below 50.


Less relevant than people think: B 29

- Based on discussions among the Japanese high command during the final days of the war, there is significant evidence that Japan surrendered largely because the Soviet Union entered the war. For months, B 29's had been firebombing Japanese cities, causing far more civilian deaths than the 2 atom bombs would. As many people have pointed out, civilian deaths seem to have had almost no impact on the will to fight in any country throughout the war. By contrast, the Soviets handed the Japanese army their ass in Manchuria within a matter of days. With supplies now cut off from all angles, the Japanese warlords shat their pants.


So hence my conclusion. Much as I'd like it to be an Allied aircraft, without the BF 109, there my not have been much of a war to begin with. It was present and decisive in every major battle the Germans fought. Superior aircraft did appear, but it remained at least competitive and influential from 1939 all the way to 1945.

Esvees said:

- The Yak 9 was the newest and best Soviet fighter over Stalingrad and was produced in larger numbers than any other Soviet fighter.

Click to expand...

Yak-9 over Stalingrad is typical misconception. There is no evidence.
Total production of this type in 1942 did not exceed 60 aircraft.
The misconception most probably came from the book of Alexander Yakovlev himself "Tsel Zhizni"("The Purpose of Life") where he mentioned 434th IAP (fighter regiment) as equipped with Yak-9 near Stalingrad. In reality this IAP has received first Yak-9s only in February 1943 and far away from Stalingrad.

Dimlee said:

Yak-9 over Stalingrad is typical misconception. There is no evidence.
Total production of this type in 1942 did not exceed 60 aircraft.
The misconception most probably came from the book of Alexander Yakovlev himself "Tsel Zhizni"("The Purpose of Life") where he mentioned 434th IAP (fighter regiment) as equipped with Yak-9 near Stalingrad. In reality this IAP has received first Yak-9s only in February 1943 and far away from Stalingrad.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm more and more skeptical about information published in the Soviet Union about their War Production. We only have the narrative that we have been given by the Russians. The more I read, the less I believe 36,000 Sturmovicks, and 60,000 T-34s were built.

If the Germans could build over 30,000 Bf109s while being bombed, why couldn't the Soviets build 36,000 Il-2s?

nuuumannn said:

The US did not have another type that could carry the atom bombs in 1944/1945, except the B-29. There wasn't another type.

Click to expand...

Yes there was. In July 1945, the 386th Bomb Squadron completed its transition to the Consolidated B-32 Dominator, flying six more combat missions before the war ended.

Dimlee said:

Yak-9 over Stalingrad is typical misconception. There is no evidence.
Total production of this type in 1942 did not exceed 60 aircraft.
The misconception most probably came from the book of Alexander Yakovlev himself "Tsel Zhizni"("The Purpose of Life") where he mentioned 434th IAP (fighter regiment) as equipped with Yak-9 near Stalingrad. In reality this IAP has received first Yak-9s only in February 1943 and far away from Stalingrad.

Click to expand...

But plenty of Yak-1, 1B and 7 right? Very similar aircraft from my perspective - similar dimensions, same engine, very similar weight, similar armament. The Yak 9 seems like an incremental improvement over the Yak-1B to me, and to the late model Yak 7 which it was developed from. It was a bit like a Yak 7 brought up to 1B standard, with the chopped down rear deck etc.

La 5 was also there at Stalingrad and for this one, we have a bit of a discrepancy between Soviet and German sources - the Soviets all seemed to love it and say it was pivotal to their success, the Germans seemed to dismiss it and not think much of it. The perception of the Fw 190 seems to go the opposite way.

I think it's a bit odd that we seem to accept German numbers so readily and dismiss Soviet numbers so completely. Surely both were authoritarian States that engaged in mass-murder of civilians under their control, heavily relied on propaganda, and didn't care too much for the truth. But even the Democracies could be accused of similar attitudes and ruthlessness - if not as much to their own people certainly toward neutral or occupied states and enemy civilians. It was Total War.

I just consistently find it odd that we seem to embrace the German records even when they are propaganda and laud the German kit even where it exceeded it's limitations and began to have problems, but at the same time just dismiss everything from the Soviets and diminish the merits of their kit like the Yak and La fighters and the Il-2, even though these were the tools that actually brought the Nazi regime down.

Schweik said:

But plenty of Yak-1, 1B and 7 right? Very similar aircraft from my perspective - similar dimensions, same engine, very similar weight, similar armament. The Yak 9 seems like an incremental improvement over the Yak-1B to me, and to the late model Yak 7 which it was developed from. It was a bit like a Yak 7 brought up to 1B standard, with the chopped down rear deck etc.

La 5 was also there at Stalingrad and for this one, we have a bit of a discrepancy between Soviet and German sources - the Soviets all seemed to love it and say it was pivotal to their success, the Germans seemed to dismiss it and not think much of it. The perception of the Fw 190 seems to go the opposite way.

I think it's a bit odd that we seem to accept German numbers so readily and dismiss Soviet numbers so completely. Surely both were authoritarian States that engaged in mass-murder of civilians under their control, heavily relied on propaganda, and didn't care too much for the truth. But even the Democracies could be accused of similar attitudes and ruthlessness - if not as much to their own people certainly toward neutral or occupied states and enemy civilians. It was Total War.

I just consistently find it odd that we seem to embrace the German records even when they are propaganda and laud the German kit even where it exceeded it's limitations and began to have problems, but at the same time just dismiss everything from the Soviets and diminish the merits of their kit like the Yak and La fighters and the Il-2, even though these were the tools that actually brought the Nazi regime down.

Click to expand...

The performance of neither the Yak-1 nor early variant La-5 were spectacular. The Yak-1 was outclassed by the Bf 109F and the La-5 by the Fw 190A. Improvements came later. Although apparently, a Yak-7 could take on a Fw 190A and win. AFAIK small numbers of of Yak-1b's & 9's became available in November 1942. Small numbers of Curtiss Kittyhawks were also deployed and were considered superior to the Bf109F. The Yak-9 was a development of the Yak-7, the Yak-3 from the Yak-1m, a derivative of the Yak-1b. The Yak-3 outclassed all German fighters, the La-5F/FN had issues, but was extremely good with most of their top aces either flying them or the P-39, in equal measures. The Yak's were escort fighters and so their pilots never racked up such high scores as they had to stay with their bombers and assault aircraft, driving off German fighters was their role, not necessarily shooting them down.

pinehilljoe said:

We only have the narrative that we have been given by the Russians. The more I read, the less I believe 36,000 Sturmovicks, and 60,000 T-34s were built.

Click to expand...

Initial narrative was given by the Soviets. Then, it was checked, double-checked, disputed, corrected, disputed again - in post USSR states and in other countries.
I'm very sceptical about Soviet statistical data in general, military or civilian*. Yet in this particular case (Il-2/Il-10) post Soviet authors did not find major discrepancies so far. Numbers given by Oleg Rastrenin (who has done probably the most extensive research of this aircraft) in one of his latest editions: 33,083 of Il-2 (all modifications) and of Il-10 were delivered to "sturm" regiments of VVS from 1941 to 01st June 1945, including: 8,067 one-seaters, 23,882 two-seaters, 1,134 Il-10. And since there were some numbers in Navy, in reserve, in schools and elsewhere, total of 35,000-36,000 seems to be realistic, IMHO.

*)Just for information. Issues with Soviet statistics were not limited by ideological bias only. Data collection system in some industries and departments was of horrible quality. There was also typical phenomenon of pripiski on many levels, top down. Even the dreaded and regularly purged NKVD(KGB) was not exemplary. Corrupted society = corrupted data...