Luftwaffe vs IJAAS/IJNAS

[JoblinTheGoblin]

Inclusive of aircraft designs, both operational and prototype examples, from September 1931 with the Mukden Incident to the official Japanese surrender in September 1945 (funny coincidence there), how did the Japanese aerospace industry truly compare to its fellow Axis counterpart, and if it's possible to answer with any degree of seriousness, how would Japanese aircraft and Japanese pilots fare in battle against German opponents, both in Western and Eastern Europe—I hesitate to mention North Africa because the Japanese would not have had any significant experience, with desert environments.

In certain technologies like liquid-cooled engines and, most importantly, jet technology, Germany was considerably superior, to the point that the Japanese either used German examples of such technologies to bolster their own air forces, or they copied them. The Japanese appeared to be quite capable in manufacturing light and manoeuvrable fighters, and their aircraft in general had relatively long ranges, albeit at the cost of power and/or payloads, among other sacrifices. That's not to speak of the Japanese plane the Germans were, according to hearsay on the internet, interested in, the capable Ki-46.

According to recent discussion on the forum, increasingly obsolete Japanese aircraft were still competitive against later Allied designs, though in numerous instances, they either outnumbered their opponents, especially in ambushes, their opponents were escorting bombers or engaged in bombing missions, the fighting was taking place at lower altitudes where any differences in speed would be reduced, or their opponents were simply inexperienced. Such conditions would also exacerbate any flaws of heavier, less manoeuvrable aircraft such as the P-38. In any potential fantastical scenarios that may be discussed in this thread, the Japanese aircraft may find themselves in similarly vulnerable situations, escorting bombers, lacking the element of surprise, engaging in CAS or other bombing missions, among other disadvantageous factors.

Ultimately, regardless of their advantages, some of which I haven't listed, I don't think the Japanese will come out looking good in this comparison.

PS: And it's not because of baked-crosses, luftwaffles or any other foods for that matter.

 

[GrauGeist]

Japanese aircraft had two lineages unlike Germany - the Army types and the Naval types. Add to this, the operational requirements within Japan's territory overall, and you'll find that Japan's aircraft evolved in a much different manner than Germany and Italy.

One such requirement that Japan needed for both branches, was extreme range, since the bulk of the Japanese Empire was maritime. The result of this need saw their aircraft being built much lighter than their European counterparts (meaning weight-saving, not "flimsy").

In Europe, the need for long range was not seen as a nessecity, though it would have certainly helped the Luftwaffe in both the Battle of Britain as well as strategic bombing of Soviet assets to the east.

If Japan were pitted against Germany, I would have to assume that the two nations would have a common ground where they contested. Perhaps middle Asia? If so, I imagine that it would be later in the war and the newer and more powerful and heavily armed Japanese types like the KI-100, N1K-J, KI-84 and the J2M would come into play.

These would be some serious trouble for the Fw190A, Fw190D and Bf109K.

 

[JoblinTheGoblin]

Japanese aircraft had two lineages unlike Germany - the Army types and the Naval types. Add to this, the operational requirements within Japan's territory overall, and you'll find that Japan's aircraft evolved in a much different manner than Germany and Italy.

One such requirement that Japan needed for both branches, was extreme range, since the bulk of the Japanese Empire was maritime. The result of this need saw their aircraft being built much lighter than their European counterparts (meaning weight-saving, not "flimsy").

In Europe, the need for long range was not seen as a nessecity, though it would have certainly helped the Luftwaffe in both the Battle of Britain as well as strategic bombing of Soviet assets to the east.

I agree.

If Japan were pitted against Germany, I would have to assume that the two nations would have a common ground where they contested. Perhaps middle Asia? If so, I imagine that it would be later in the war and the newer and more powerful and heavily armed Japanese types like the KI-100, N1K-J, KI-84 and the J2M would come into play.

I'm thinking a wide range of scenarios, some ridiculous, like swapping Allied aircraft and pilots for Japanese equivalents, and such a hypothetical has been mentioned in a past topic I created, and other slightly more logical scenarios such as yours, or perhaps, Germans over China, to give an example.

These would be some serious trouble for the Fw190A, Fw190D and Bf109K.

Maybe. At least with the Ki-84, according to recorded Japanese accounts, the plane was less manoeuvrable than its predecessor, the Ki-43, and was less survivable against faster fighters like the P-51 when they dived as it couldn't turn as quickly. I'm thinking that this would be the case for the other aircraft as well, especially the similar N1K2-J, besides the slower Ki-100. I've heard that Japanese aircraft also struggled to maintain speeds at higher altitudes, and in the case of the Homare, if not other Japanese engines, problems with reliability and maintaining power. On a side note, I'm assuming that the Ki-84 could achieve a maximum speed below 650kph, judging from the information provided here. I'm imagining that the N1K2-J, and perhaps, the J2M, could also achieve similarly slow speeds.

 

[Howard Gibson]

According to recent discussion on the forum, increasingly obsolete Japanese aircraft were still competitive against later Allied designs, though in numerous instances, they either outnumbered their opponents, especially in ambushes, their opponents were escorting bombers or engaged in bombing missions, the fighting was taking place at lower altitudes where any differences in speed would be reduced, or their opponents were simply inexperienced. Such conditions would also exacerbate any flaws of heavier, less manoeuvrable aircraft such as the P-38. In any potential fantastical scenarios that may be discussed in this thread, the Japanese aircraft may find themselves in similarly vulnerable situations, escorting bombers, lacking the element of surprise, engaging in CAS or other bombing missions, among other disadvantageous factors.

Ultimately, regardless of their advantages, some of which I haven't listed, I don't think the Japanese will come out looking good in this comparison.

PS: And it's not because of baked-crosses, luftwaffles or any other foods for that matter.

In early 1940, the Messerschitt Bf109 was...

1. ...the least manoeuverable single engined fighter in service in the European theatre of the war and...
2. ...the most successful.

The Germans simply did not dogfight. They took advantage of the Bf109 superior speed and climb, and they used hit and run tactics. This frustrated the British no end, and it would have worked against the Japanese. The British and Americans tried to dogfight Zeros, to their grief. The Bf109E was faster than the Zero. The two aircraft had about the same climb rate as far as I can tell.

 

[tomo pauk]

Inclusive of aircraft designs, both operational and prototype examples, from September 1931 with the Mukden Incident to the official Japanese surrender in September 1945 (funny coincidence there), how did the Japanese aerospace industry truly compare to its fellow Axis counterpart, and if it's possible to answer with any degree of seriousness, how would Japanese aircraft and Japanese pilots fare in battle against German opponents, both in Western and Eastern Europe—I hesitate to mention North Africa because the Japanese would not have had any significant experience, with desert environments.

German aero-industry was on of the leaders, come mid-1930s. Japanese forte was the long-range work, but there was a host of German aircraft that were also very rangy.

LW fighter pilots didn't dabble in the turning fights, sylabus emphasized boom & zoom. The finger 4 formation, borne after the SCW lessons sunk in, was the novelty that worked against the opponents that used the 3-ship formations.
Neither of the sides was with amazing bombers, LW types carrying more, while Japanese types usually having the edge in range. German bombers were flying with self-sealing tanks and armor several years earlier; there was a lot of Japanese types that even in 1945 were with very modest protection.
German aircraft have had much greater guns' firepower on average, their fighters were carrying greater bomb load when pressed to do the fighter-bomber duty.

We also have a major thing of German aero industry churning out far greater number of aircraft than their Japanese counterpart did.

 

[J.A.W.]

I've seen a postwar USN report that officially regarded Nippon's Airforces as "5th Rate"!

Perhaps some views from Allied pilots with combat experience against both Nazi & Imperial fliers could confirm?

 

[GrauGeist]

I've seen a postwar USN report that officially regarded Nippon's Airforces as "5th Rate"!

Perhaps some views from Allied pilots with combat experience against both Nazi & Imperial fliers could confirm?

Read USN action reports - the IJN and IJA fighters were still bouncing Allied elements and remained dangerous right to war's end.

 

[J.A.W.]

As were Luftwaffe pilots doing in the ETO too, its a given fighter pilot SOP - if they got the drop...

 

[GrauGeist]

Like the Luftwaffe, the Japanese pilot pool was dwindling both in numbers and experience.

Japan was producing some lethal fighter types late war, which were on an equal footing with Allied types, but held the majority of them back for defense of the home Islands and simply did not have enough pilots to operate in force in foreward areas.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I've seen a postwar USN report that officially regarded Nippon's Airforces as "5th Rate"!

Isn't that the sort of presumptive thinking that got so many Allied pilots killed from 1940-45?

 

[tomo pauk]

Japan was producing some lethal fighter types late war, which were on an equal footing with Allied types, but held the majority of them back for defense of the home Islands and simply did not have enough pilots to operate in force in foreward areas.

Dave - what would've been those Japanese types?

 

[J.A.W.]

Isn't that the sort of presumptive thinking that got so many Allied pilots killed from 1940-45?

No, that was a postwar appraisal - but I did wonder how the USAAF rated - in the USN assessment.

 

[GrauGeist]

Dave - what would've been those Japanese types?

Tomo, the KI-84, J2M3, KI-100 and N1K2-J in particular.

 

[Shortround6]

Tomo, the KI-84, J2M3, KI-100 and N1K2-J in particular.

Trouble for the Japanese was that they should have had them in 1943, not 1944/45.

 

[tomo pauk]

Tomo, the KI-84, J2M3, KI-100 and N1K2-J in particular.

Ki-84, and if we accept the best performance figures, were supposed to be lethal (ie. to perform close to what the Allied best - P-51B/C/D, P-47D/N) were capable for), and at altitudes under 20000 ft. Rest of them, again with the best figures (~400 mph for the Jack and Gerorge) and not what Japanese were saying (~370 mph) would've been indeed lethal in 1942-43, but not by mid-1945.

Ki-100 was the Spitfire Vb equivalent in performance and firepower, these were pasee already by late 1942.

 

[GrauGeist]

However, if we set aside performance charts, postwar test figures and such, and instead read about actual wartime encounters, we'll find that these types were engaging Allied types on an equal footing and either came out on top in several occasions or fought the Allied types to a draw.

As mentioned above, the IJN/IJA needed these at least a year sooner (if not more) and it's very fortunate this did not happen.

Like the Germans, the Japanese were not going to win, but having parity with Allied types earlier, would have protracted the war and cost more lives (on both sides).

 

[tomo pauk]

However, if we set aside performance charts, postwar test figures and such, and instead read about actual wartime encounters, we'll find that these types were engaging Allied types on an equal footing and either came out on top in several occasions or fought the Allied types to a draw.

If the Allied fighter was Hellcat, then indeed it seems like they were achieving good results. (Un)fortunately, Hellcat (after the Spitfire V) was the lowest performing Allied fighter, eg. some 40-50 mph slower than the P-47D or a Merlin Mustang.

As mentioned above, the IJN/IJA needed these at least a year sooner (if not more) and it's very fortunate this did not happen.

Like the Germans, the Japanese were not going to win, but having parity with Allied types earlier, would have protracted the war and cost more lives (on both sides).

Agreed.

 

[Shortround6]

Ki-100 was the Spitfire Vb equivalent in performance and firepower, these were pasee already by late 1942.

Basically the Ki-100 could do what the Ki-61 could do after they stuck better guns in the Ki-61.
Advantage was that the engine in the Ki-100 may have been more reliable.
Replacing a 360mph at 16,000ft fighter with a 360mph at 20,000ft fighter almost 2 years later should not have been considered a raging success.

The other thing was the very small production of two of the types.
Under 400 Ki-100 starting in March (1 in Feb) wasn't going to change anything.
The 621 J2Ms dribbled out over 3 years and with about 11 different versions also wasn't going to change much.