Japan and the Soviet Union

[Soren]

Originally Posted by 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.

Right back to the old insult you go, very typical of you when you're in a tight spot. But I'm not surprised you don't like anything axis either, also very typical of you.

But I take it that the Ju-87 & Hs-129 were both very maneuverable a/c in your opinion and would've been rated so when compared to actual fighter a/c? I must say that's new to me!

I'm also very interested in knowing how you concluded that either one was more maneuverabe than the Ki-46.

And you claim I need to be realistic? I believe you need to strive at this yourself more than me.

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

A weak undercarriage, something common with a/c that size. Still it doesn't seem like the Ki-46 had a high accident rate.

You can believe what you want but the fact is that its max load for Ki-51 normally was 4x50kg bombs.

Max bomb load ? Fact ? Prove it!

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.

What imaginary equipment ? You don't believe that the Japanese had 20mm & 30mm auto cannons or could develop the BK 3.7 under license ?? You believe that the Japanese were so far behind technologically that they couldn't develop high velocity 20mm & 30mm cannons at a low weight fit for being mounted on a/c ?

I must say you don't think to highly about the Japanese.

[proton45]

I'm not sure if I'm really part of this discussion (as I'm just throwing in a word or two, here and their_lol), but IMO their is a fair case to be made regarding the issue of weak supply capability for the IJA...however I also feel that with the German situation Russian supply support would be equally strained.

The issue of air superiority is not so clear...IJA did take a great loss in Nomonhan, however this was due, inlarge, to the fact that the Russians where allowed to replace and re-enforce their airfields. After the initial bombing raids on the Russian airfields the IJA airforce was told to stop...if they had maintained pressure on the airfields (bombing sorties) they may have been able to maintain air superiority.

In Nomonhan the most common light bomber (with dive capability) was the Ki-30. The most likely candidate for a ground attack airplane (by 1941) would be the Ki-45 KAIb (maybe the Ki-45KAIc)... Not as robust as the IL2 (by far), but with proper tactics and aircover they may have been quite effective against ground targets...(we will never truly know...lol)

[Juha]

Soren
look for ex fromRené Francillion's book (the standard work on japanese WWII a/c) for armament of Ki-51. There it is stated.
I happened to be fond with Sonia so I have changed e-mails with specialists of Japanese a/c. So i know that the Kamikaze version was modified to carry 1x250kg bomb under fuselage and that Ki-51s of 6 FB carried one 100kg bomb under each wing during shipping strikes during the liberation of Philippines in 1944. So its much better to read a good book on subject than waste one's and others' time in empty speculation, IMHO Japanese were clever enough to arm Ki-51s with 2x500kg bombs for shipping strikes if they had thought that possible.

I really don't believe that all rather small twins had weak undercarriage through their service life.

Did Japanese built BK 3.7 under license or not? The answer reveals is the scenario imaginary or not, simple than that. Try to accept that Axis lost the war or at least keep your dreams yourself. We can argue on the subject of this tread without fictional weapon systems.

Juha

[Juha]

Hello Proton
IIRC Ki-45 began its active service mid 42 after long and torturous development period.
On Nomonhan, IIRC the then newest (some 10 years ago) Russian research had came to conclusion that a/c losses were rather same on both sides but the Soviet losses were 10-25 a/c higher, I cannot remember exact figures, maybe some 250 a/c per side.

Juha

[Glider]

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.

As mentioned in an earlier posting, both Japan and Germany were facing a common enemy, the USA and the UK, both started out well but the tide turned and both were losing but at no time did they co operate, not to any practical level. The level of co operation between the Navy and the Army was also minimal, even to the point that the Japanese army built their own submarines to supply some of the islands as the navy didn't consider them a Navy responsibility

So the question is, Why would this change?

I totally agree that its the obvious thing to do, the logical thing to do and could write pages on the areas for co-operation big and small, but it didn't happen in real life when defeat was looming and to say it would happen because its a good idea, doesn't do it.

Soren
Of course 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!

No they supplied them because they didn't have first line aircraft of their own. To fit this scenario they have to give these countries the ability to build 109's, 190's and so on. As far as I know they nearest they came was giving the Italians the DB601 and DB605 which is matched by giving the Japanese the DB601.

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.

I covered this in my previous reply suffice to say I am not sure of the co operation, more than planning and objectives.

[Soren]

Glider,

You seem to forget that the Bf-109 for one was produced in both Romania & Hungary, very late in the case of Romania.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

Glider,

You seem to forget that the Bf-109 for one was produced in both Romania & Hungary, very late in the case of Romania.

It wasn't a case of forgetting, it was a case of not knowing, hell we all learn. Any idea as to how many they produced.

[Soren]

[QUOTE=Juha;523466]Soren
look for ex fromRené Francillion's book (the standard work on japanese WWII a/c) for armament of Ki-51. There it is stated.[/qoute]

Does it state maximum load ?

I happened to be fond with Sonia so I have changed e-mails with specialists of Japanese a/c. So i know that the Kamikaze version was modified to carry 1x250kg bomb under fuselage and that Ki-51s of 6 FB carried one 100kg bomb under each wing during shipping strikes during the liberation of Philippines in 1944. So its much better to read a good book on subject than waste one's and others' time in empty speculation, IMHO Japanese were clever enough to arm Ki-51s with 2x500kg bombs for shipping strikes if they had thought that possible.

Well maybe they wanted the a/c to be capable of actually slipping past the AA defenses, did you think of that ? With two 500 kg bombs under each wing that wouldn't be possible. Also lets keep in mind that the BK 3.7 only weighed half this.

But nevermind that, even if the Ki-51 couldn't mount a weapon like the BK 3.7 under each wing it wouldn't have to either, a couple of 20mm cannons would suffice. A weapon like the Ho-3 would be able to open up a T-26 like a sardine can with ease.

Did Japanese built BK 3.7 under license or not? The answer reveals is the scenario imaginary or not, simple than that. Try to accept that Axis lost the war or at least keep your dreams yourself. We can argue on the subject of this tread without fictional weapon systems.

What kind of question is that ? This whole discussion is about a 'what if' scenario, did that slip passed your nose ??

Had the Germans & Japanese co-operated in an invasion of the USSR there's every reason to believe that a lot more material would be license built by the Japanese, and one of these could've been the BK 3.7, unless ofcourse the Japanese concieved something even better..

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Glider

It wasn't a case of forgetting, it was a case of not knowing, hell we all learn. Any idea as to how many they produced.

Hungary produced around 600 Bf-109G's. As for Romania, I'll have to look that up.

[Glider]

Many thanks for the build numbers.

The following is a good link for the Ki46 and supports what I have in other books.
The Mitsubishi Ki-46 "Dinah"

[Njaco]

Some realism in your scenarios, please.

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

Right back to the old insult you go, very typical of you when you're in a tight spot. But I'm not surprised you don't like anything axis either, also very typical of you.

Try to accept that Axis lost the war or at least keep your dreams yourself.

Can everybody stop with the sly insults?! Just state your point and move on.

Once again I see a thread being locked.

[imalko]

Originally Posted by renrich

What would have happened if, instead of attacking the US at Pearl Harbor, Japan had only attacked the British in China and Burma and the Dutch in the East Indies and had mounted an attack against the Soviet Union in the Spring of 1942?

I think this discussion shifted completely off topic. If we stick to the Renrich's original premise then all 'what if' theories about cooperation, sharing technology and licence production between Japan and Third Reich don't stand. Basic premise is that after their failure at the gates of Moscow in December 1941 Germans somehow managed to persuade their Japanese Axis Allies to help their 1942 summer offensive by attacking USSR in the Far East. So up to that point we need to stick to the true time line. And in this time line there wasn't any large scale sharing of technology between two countries and since they would had only about six months to prepare this 'coordinated' operation both Axis powers would be forced to use resources they had at their disposal at that time. There wouldn't be enough time for establishing licence production of German technology in Japan, etc, etc. In my opinion, when you consider how things unfolded for Germany in Caucasus and at Stalingrad in 1942, even with Japanese involvement Axis would be defeated anyway. More so, because according to basic premise Japan hadn't attacked USA but did attacked the British in China and Burma and the Dutch in the East Indies...

For the record, Axis powers were never allied in the same manner or not even close as Allies. Hitler haven't consulted with Japanese nor he asked their opinion when he concluded non aggression pact with Stalin, neither Japanese shared with Hitler their planes on waging war against USA. Hitler didn't included Japan in his war plans against USSR because he believed that Germany can defeat Soviet Union on her own. Therefore its unrealistic to speculate that Germany and Japan would have made coordinated plans for attack on USSR in 1941.

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by imalko

...Basic premise is that after their failure at the gates of Moscow in December 1941Germans somehow...

That's quite an assumption
one I don't recall Renrich citing; the premise here is the cause and effect of no US in the war, the cause being no attack on Pearl Harbour, the effect likely being Germany now able to focus her full military attention on the Eastern Front. What clear-cut reasoning leads you to believe that Germany would 'fail at the gates of Moscow'?

[imalko]

Originally Posted by Colin1

That's quite an assumption
one I don't recall Renrich citing; the premise here is the cause and effect of no US in the war, the cause being no attack on Pearl Harbour, the effect likely being Germany now able to focus her full military attention on the Eastern Front. What clear-cut reasoning leads you to believe that Germany would 'fail at the gates of Moscow'?

Because they did fail in true time line... Soviet counteroffensive started on 5 December and Perl Harbor occurred on 7th December. In the event Perl Harbor had no effect on German defeat at Moscow what so ever. They were defeated with Perl Harbor same as they would have been without it. Germany felt the effect of US entering the war only later during 1942 but not instantly in December 1941.

As I understood Renrich's premise - Japan doesn't attack US in December 1941 but USSR in spring 1942. Up to that point everything else on Eastern front unfolds same as in true time line. Germany did "focused her full military attention on the Eastern Front" in true time line in 1941 and still failed. There is no reason to assume otherwise for this what if scenario.

[m kenny]

Originally Posted by Soren

The T-34 & KV-1 both featurd piss poor optics, ill trained crews, no radios etc etc................
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

You keep saying this but never give references confirming anything.
Perhaps this would help, they are all German accounts:

Jentz, Panzertruppen 1

page 205:


The Russian tanks usually formed in a half circle, open
fire with their 7.62 cm guns on our Panzers already at a range
of 1000 meters and deliver enormous penetration energy with
high accuracy.
Our 5 cm Kw.K. tank guns can achieve penetrations only
on vulnerable locations under very special favorable condi-
tions at very close ranges under 50 meters. Our Panzers are
already knocked out at a range of several hundred meters.
Many times our Panzers were split open or the complete
commander's cupola of the Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV flew off from
one frontal hit. This is proof that the armor is insufficient, the
mounting for the commander's cupola on our Panzers is de-
ficient, and the accuracy and penetration ability of the Rus-
sian 7.62 cm tank guns are high.

page 206
The Panzer crews know they can already be knocked out at long range by enemy (Soviet) tanks

page 231
In correctly recognising his technical superiority in weapons the T34 already opens fire on German Panzers at ranges from 1200 to 1800 meters

page 233

Russian tank forces are good. The level of training also good
page 233
The rumors that Russian armor quality has become poorer are emphaticaly denied.
page 243
firing at long range they cause considerable losses to the German Panzers


The fantastic combat moral of the Russian tank crews has led to having to destroy stationary tanks that have already been hit five or six times.........the Russian crews remained fighting in their tanks so long as their weapons still could be fired


http://www.rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.c...sign_tanks.htm