Japan and the Soviet Union

[Juha]

Soren
seriously. Ki-51 bomb load was 200kg, yes two hundred kg, so its lifting capacity was entirely different class than that of Ju 87D/G, so if 87G could carry 2 37mm cannon that really doesn’t mean that Ki-51 could have done the same.

Ki-46 was rather un-manoeuvre a/c, and unprotected, so difficult to see how one could have made it a good ground attack a/c. Moreover, JAAF in real world developed a ground attack version of Ki-45 sometimes in1942/43, so it would have been the first choice. But its first service version, an escort fighter, began its operational life in mid-42, IIRC. Some realism in your scenarios, please.

Juha

[parsifal]

In fact the numbers of Zeroes available to the Japanese in December 1941 was 198 a/c, including the units attached to the carriers. My sources indicate that there were about 35 Oscars in and experimental trials unit, and a further 6 or 12 (records are unclear to me) of Tojos, again in an experimental unit.

The Ki-27s in front line service amounted to about 250 of which at least half were fully engaged in China. There were fewer than 50 Claudes in front line service, the remainder were in second line or training units. Dinahs amounted to less than 60 aircraft.There were hordes of Sonias, and these were effective ground support machines, but they were not pinpoint weapons, and could not hope to knock out Soviet tanks or pillboxes. They were roughly equivalent to the HS 123

There was little interservice co-operation and even less inter-Axis co-operation. The Japanese would never have asked, and the germans would never have provided, any help to the Japanese in the manner suggested.

Moreover whilst equipment was in short supply the over-riding determinant in Japanese air strength was the trained pilots they could call upon. There simply were not the depth of reserves to take on an opponent as prolific as the Russians. Even against the Allies, in the first half of 1942, they were pressed to win and maintain air supremacy. My best information is that in the period December 1941 to the end of April, the Japanese destroyed about 1200 allied aircraft, for the loss of about 250 of their own . Even if the Soviet loss rate is double that of the allies, and they lose 2400 aircraft to the Japanese 250,. I think the Russians would do far better than the allies actually, because they would be unlikley to be surprised (because the Soviet spy rings operating in Japan) and would be far more concentrated, and could rely on the generally attrocious operating conditions to take a heavy and steady toll. For comparison, in the first four months of Barbarossa, the germans had lost over 1200 aircraft to all causes against a Red Air Force only marginally larger than the Far Eastern air force.

I am not saying the Russians could not be beaten, but I also have strong doubts that it would a walkover either. I think in the space of a few short months the Japanese air forces would have been in deep trouble actually

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Juha

seriously. Ki-51 bomb load was 200kg, yes two hundred kg, so its lifting capacity was entirely different class than that of Ju 87D/G, so if 87G could carry 2 37mm cannon that really doesn’t mean that Ki-51 could have done the same.

What would keep it from mounting two 3.7cm cannons Juha ? I don't see why it wouldn't be capable of it. I should also mention that it did prove itself in the ground attack role in China & Burma. So I think you're underestimating this a/c quite a lot.

As for the 200 kg capacity, I'm sure it could bring along more, the A6M could afterall carry more than that. It was probably just the std. load out.

At any rate I'm sure that a/c such as the B5M & D3A could've performed quite satisfactorily in this role, being able to perform almost as good as the Stuka in the ground attack role I believe. The B5M could certainly easily accommodate two 3.7cm cannons, no problem, and I am sure the D3A easily could as-well.

Ki-46 was rather un-manoeuvre a/c, and unprotected, so difficult to see how one could have made it a good ground attack a/c.

Hold on a minute, where exactly do you have this from ? According to all I've read on Ki-46 it was a pretty good a/c with nice handling and a good load carrying capability. Now you're saying the exact opposite.

If you want realism Juha then how about you start basing your on arguments on it as-well.

Moreover, JAAF in real world developed a ground attack version of Ki-45 sometimes in1942/43, so it would have been the first choice. But its first service version, an escort fighter, began its operational life in mid-42, IIRC.

Some realism in your scenarios, please.

I can only suggest the same from you. I think my own arguments have been pretty well grounded so far.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

The Japanese successfully held on against the might of the US for over 4 years and some people now claim they couldn't have held their own in a war against a desperate USSR being steamrolled in the west by th German army. This is getting ridiculous..

You are right it is getting ridiculous. There is a huge difference between fighting on Pacific Islands and Jungles where the tactic is dig in and sell your lives at as high a price as you can. To fighting on the wide open plains of Russia with nowhere to hide, dreadfull armour few anti tank guns and limited transport against a Russian Army that has amroured divisions.

By summer 1941 the Japanese had ready 2,250,000 well trained troops and another 4,500,000 million reserves. The amphibious capabilities of the Japanese were not poor either, they successfully operated in the Pacific for over 4 years, landing masses of troops on various locations.

I suggest you look up the ability of the IJN to land fighting troops in any number, it was very small and no Tank Landing craft. Indeed the first TLC they had were copied from RN Landing craft used at Dieppe, (there you go, some technology that was transferred in this case because the Germans let the Japanese look at the landing craft used..

.

Without checking I believe around 600 Zeros could be deployed for attacks on the eastern border of Russia, and it wouldn't take long before they along with the number of Ki-43 and Ki-27 would sweep the VVS from the skies. .

In December 1941 the Japanese only had about 400 Zeros operational and were still in the process of equipping their front line units.

.

And as for the T-34 & KV-1 tanks being a shock to the German army, initially yes they were, but only because such a thing was never expected from the Soviets. The KV-1 proved difficult to knock out in the beginning, but on the other hand its' battlefield effectiveness was poor as-well, featuring no radio, poor optics and an ill trained crew. .

Can I ask how effective you think Japanese tanks would be as they also had no radio, ill trained crews (in tank warfare), as well as no anti tank guns (as most were fitted with a low velocity 57mm), no armour worth talking about (about 17mm in most), narrow tracks, slow speed and were also few in number?

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Parsifal

There was little interservice co-operation and even less inter-Axis co-operation. The Japanese would never have asked, and the germans would never have provided, any help to the Japanese in the manner suggested.

Oh I fully disagree. In a joint operation as suggested they would ofcourse co-operate, there's no question about it.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

Oh I fully disagree. In a joint operation as suggested they would ofcourse co-operate, there's no question about it.

Putting it simply. The IJN and the IJAAF didn't co-operate with each other, plus the Japanese and Germans didn't co-operate with each other in any meaningfull way until it was too late.
Apart from your assumption can I ask if you have anything to support your view?

[Soren]

Parsifal,

I just don't see how the USSR are gonna be capable of sacrificing any meaningful amount of their reserves to fight the Japanese in the East if the Germans were pushing forward with 25 to 30% more strength in the West than they originally did when occupied with the western allies.. esp. in terms of numbers of a/c.

If we conclude that the Japanese could muster up 400 Zeros for the operations in the East, then along with the numbers of Ki-27s & Ki-43's available that would be enough to control the skies there. The VVS would be forced to dispatch allmost all they had at the Germans, and the little they had left, while it possibly was more than what the Japanese had, wouldn't have been able to cope. We also have to remember that a/c need pilots to fly them as-well, and the VVS were getting robbed of this pretty severely in 41. So they might have had a good deal of reserve a/c parking in the east, but they needed pilots to fly as well.

So with the Japanese airforce in control of the skies the troops on the ground would have it a lot easier.

Also tanks such as the T-34 & KV-1 would've only been made available in the west, they were desperately needed there. So tanks such as the T-26 & T-28 were gonna be the armour available to the Soviet forces in the east, and these tanks were highly vulnerable to even the smallest of AT rifles. So the 57mm guns on the Japanese tanks would be sufficient against these.

[Amsel]

Originally Posted by Glider

Putting it simply. The IJN and the IJAAF didn't co-operate with each other, plus the Japanese and Germans didn't co-operate with each other in any meaningfull way until it was too late.
Apart from your assumption can I ask if you have anything to support your view?

Why wouldn't they cooperate if they are attacking the same nation at the same time? There would definantly be some sort of cooperation! Obviously it can't be documented because we are discussing alternate history.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Glider

Putting it simply. The IJN and the IJAAF didn't co-operate with each other, plus the Japanese and Germans didn't co-operate with each other in any meaningfull way until it was too late.
Apart from your assumption can I ask if you have anything to support your view?

Ofcourse I have something to support it. Take the cooperation between the Germany and its close allies in Europe for one. The Germans supplied them with a/c as-well as tanks. Why ? Because they were operating along side the Germans!

The Japanese never came to operate together with the Germans in the war, and that is what kept the technology from flowing between them.

Had they agreed upon a joint invasion of the USSR you can be sure that they would've worked together a lot more closely and shared both technology & equipment from the beginning.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Amsel

Why wouldn't they cooperate if they are attacking the same nation at the same time? There would definantly be some sort of cooperation! Obviously it can't be documented because we are discussing alternate history.

Strike one! Exactly Amsel.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Hi Joe

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you on this one



In Russia, the Germans did rely on horse drawn transport, but not for their "long range" supply. Horses were used mostly to transport the artillery, and for local supply close to the front. Vehicles provided over 90% of the lift capability for the LOC supply requirements.

For the record also, whilst you are correct to say that the japanese were able to launch major offensives in 1941-2, the scale of these offensives were no where near those of a 22 division attack against the Soviets. And these extremely limited offensives very nearly derailed the japanese logistics network. The offensive into Burma in 1942 was by two divs, the offensive into Malaya was by three Divs, and in each case they very nearly ran out of supply, mostly because of a shortage of trucks. The two offensives of 1944 into southern China did involve about 18 Divs, however at no time were more than 8 Divs engaged in offensive operations at any given time. There is no instance that I know of after 1940 that the Japanese engaged in a major land offensive bigger than 10 divs.

It's not so much disagreeing with me. There are sources discussing their actual plans. You are rejecting them based on an out of thin air analysis you did before learning of those actual plans, it seems.

The German campaign in Russia in 1941 gained fewer miles per day than the French one in 1812. Obviously armies do not inherently require motor vehicles to conduct long range offensives. That assertion or implication doesn't stand even a cursory reading of military history. And anyway comparison to offensives against the Soviet west are not on point because the Japanese Manchurian base of operations was so much closer to the planned objective, Maritime Province. And a second stage longer range offensive going west, if that point had been reached, would obviously have relied on *rail* logistics. Also, considering only the Japanese offensives in 1941-42, most of which were supplied by sea over long distances from Japan, with *shipping* the critical logistical element, is comparing apples and oranges. The Japanese conducted much larger continental land offensives, as large or larger than the proposed one v Soviets, in China, and over much greater distances than an offensive from eastern Manchuria into the Soviet Maritime Province. Read "The History of the Sino Japanese War" by Hsu and Chang, the KMT official history, but it's accurate in basic description of campaigns. Tactically the KMT and Soviets were different, but it shows your analysis of inherent Japanese inability to conduct large long range offensives on land to be clearly wrong. The Japanese could, and had already.

So, your logistical theory why the Japanese would be greatly outnumbered against the Soviets in FE is just wrong. It's especially obvious considering opening border battles of such a campaign, where the Japanese force would be operating right from its bases, ridiculous in that case to assert a 5:1 Soviet numbers advantage, the Japanese had those 20+ divisions in Manchuria, that wasn't a plan but a fact. Then the initial offensives objectives were not all that far away in logistical terms. So the logistically incapable, or vastly outnumbered because of logistics, argument can be firmly rejected based on the facts.

As to whether an IJA offensive would have succeeded in terms of tactical and operational *combat* factors, that can be reasonably debated. However the IJA proved itself clearly superior man for man, combat power for combat power, in combat in relatively closed terrain v second string Allied ground units in 41-42, IOW v countries putting their highest military priorities elsewhere. The IJA was generally outnumbered in those campaigns but scored consistently rapid successes. It was of course always heavily outnumbered in China. But it would have had at least numerical parity with the Soviets in a campaign launched from eastern Manchuria, especially considering the numbers for Soviet FE are for the whole large region, only some of those opposite eastern Manchuria. And if the Japanese had found a way to wait* until the 1942 campaign season, they'd have had a pretty big numerical advantage, and lower quality of Soviet forces remaining.

*the main reason this is all moot is the US/Brit/Dutch oil embargo of July '41, in response to Vichy agreement to Japanese demand for bases in southern Indochina. Once that happened the Japanese had to either make big concessions to the West to get the embargo lifted (it was made it clear that just reversing the bases agreement wasn't enough) or attack the West. If attacking the West they obviously couldn't prevail against the Soviets at the same time as even they realized, which is why they rejected the IJA's plan to attack the USSR. So any 'what if' of Soviet-Japanese war has to assume the Japanese prevent the oil embargo, and also that the West doesn't slap on the embargo *for* attacking Britain's ally of convenience, the Soviets. But just assuming Japan can buy Western oil, they could choose '41 or '42 to attack the Soviets. The latter is as realistic at what is as the former.

Joe

[Juha]

Soren
Quote:” What would keep it from mounting two 3.7cm cannons Juha ?”

Simply weight, the 37mm BK 3,7 cannon alone weighted 295kg, add fittings, the gun gondola and ammo, even the limited amount it used, you have the weight over 3 times what the wing had designed to carry (2x 50kg bombs) plus the massive recoil.

Quote:” According to all I've read on Ki-46 it was a pretty good a/c with nice handling and a good load carrying capability”

For ex Green’s and Swanborough’s Mitsubishi Ki. 46 in Air International Nov 1980 p. 232 On Ki-46 “Lacking agility desirable in a fighter” also on its use as a fighter p. 233 “lacked the ability to absorb much battle damage.” To me it sounds that Ki-46 wasn’t very suitable to ground attack plane.

Ki-46 also suffered through its service life from weak undercarriage, so what are your sources?

Quote:” I think my own arguments have been pretty well grounded so far.”

Now I must say that I disagree on that.

Quote:” The VVS would be forced to dispatch allmost all they had at the Germans, and the little they had left”

Have you info what they had?

Quote:” T-28 were gonna be the armour available to the Soviet forces in the east, and these tanks were highly vulnerable to even the smallest of AT rifles.”

Now pre-war T-28 had 20-30mm armour, I would say that that was rather thick armour against the smallest of AT rifle. And already during very late 1939 Soviets began uparmour them, so from early 40 onwards their front armour was 80mm and side armour 40mm. So would you be so kind and post a photo on AT rifle that could easily penetrate 80mm armour?
Not that has much to do the situation in FE in 1941, IMHO there were no T-28s anymore in FE.

Juha

[Juha]

Amsel and Soren
Quote:” Why wouldn't they cooperate if they are attacking the same nation at the same time? There would definantly be some sort of cooperation! Obviously it can't be documented because we are discussing alternate history.”

Quote:” Ofcourse I have something to support it. Take the cooperation between the Germany and its close allies in Europe for one. The Germans supplied them with a/c as-well as tanks. Why ? Because they were operating along side the Germans!”

Now of course the might have been so co-operation but not much. A look on a world map shows why. And how Germans treated their smaller Allies wasn’t so generous, they usually gave them some second-rate equipments and then complained that for ex Romanians didn’t stand Soviet attacks. Only from late 43 onwards Germans became generous and then it was too late, some of the equipment were used only against Germans, they arrived so late.

Juha

[Soren]

Juha,

Are you seriously suggesting that because an a/c didn't function well as a fighter then it couldn't be used as a ground attack a/c ? Now you're just not making any sense at all! Was the Ju-87 a great fighter ? Did it sport better performance? You're grasping for straws at this point!

As for a source on the Dinah, I'll have to check the book you mention at the library tomorrow if they have it, but as for my own sources are the US evaluations during the war and the general Japanese opinion good enough for you? According to these the Ki-46 sported great handling for an a/c its size and weight, good performance and a good load carrying capability. So the Ki-46 could've very likely have performed the ground attack duty in a similar fashion as for example the Hs-129. The a/c was more than fast enough, so it could easily be armoured for the role without becoming too slow & cumbersome.

Next is the Ki-51. I believe it could easily take 500 kg on each wing if need be, no problem, so the 295 kg BK 3.7 could be mounted easily I believe. Also the recoil wasn't that bad as a hydraulic recoil damper was used. But even if this wasn't gonna work out then just a pair of 20mm auto cannons was more than enough against anything the Soviets could deploy. And a weapon similar to the German 3cm Mk103 could surely be mounted if need be as-well, this gun only weighed ~140 kg.

And as for the T-26 tank, it featured a mere 6 to 10mm of armour, with AP ammunition German MG's could shoot through that at 500m! The T-28 was admittedly a different target all together, but I doubt it was available. I was thinking about the T-27 before, which was just as weakly armoured as the T-26.

[Juha]

Soren
IMHO a good ground attack a/c needes some manoeuvrability and ability to absorbe battle damage, not surprised that you have other ideas.

from where you have read the US evalution on Ki-46, source please? I have TAIC info but it is all on specs nothing on handling. And the weak undescarriage is also mentioned in Frankillion's Japanese a/c of the Pacific War

You can believe what you want but the fact is that its max load for Ki-51 normally was 4x50kg bombs. As Kamikaze plane it could take 250kg load. That's the fact, I'm really not interested someone's claims unsupported by facts. Have you some fancy idea why Japanese didn't put those 2 500kg bombs on their Kamikaze Ki-51s?

I'm bit puzzled all those imaginary equipment you are adding to Japanese armoury. Try to keep in the equipment that were available in that time. Nobody is giving to Soviet Union side T-34/85s or Kalashnikovs.

Yes T-26 and amphibious T-37 and T-38 were very weakly armoured as were BT series tanks which had been the main tanks of Soviets during Nomonhan fighting.

Juha