PDA

View Full Version : OFF/Alternative history aerial war question



Wildnoob
02-11-2011, 05:03 AM
Hi,

I was wondering if the Japanese would be capable of bomb the Soviet industry beyond the Urals had they reach the Lake Baikal region as the IJA wished. I don't want enter in the question if they would achived this conquest or not, just the distances involved.

Wildnoob
02-11-2011, 05:03 AM
Hi,

I was wondering if the Japanese would be capable of bomb the Soviet industry beyond the Urals had they reach the Lake Baikal region as the IJA wished. I don't want enter in the question if they would achived this conquest or not, just the distances involved.

RSS-Martin
02-11-2011, 07:14 AM
I donīt think so as they had no heavy long range bombers, also simular to Germany a extrem fuel shortage. So I think one can safely say there was no chance at all of them being able to do anything like that.

Hawgdog
02-11-2011, 09:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
I donīt think so as they had no heavy long range bombers, also simular to Germany a extrem fuel shortage. So I think one can safely say there was no chance at all of them being able to do anything like that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

G4M Betty long range bomber escorted by Ki-83 their long range escort, no?
their Modus operandi wasn't geared that way however-

RSS-Martin
02-11-2011, 09:25 AM
Yes but the Betty is at best a medium bomber, and to knock out major industrial facillities normaly you would take a bomber that could carry a heavier load than a 800kg bomb. The Betty has the range but not really the payload.
Also one should add the constalation you mention would have been highly unlikely as the G4M was a navy plane and the Ki-83 is a army plane. Both did not really mingle.
What might have worked is the G8N1, but then the fuel problem and still it would have been a very long haul and the Russians certainly would not have sat still and watched, La7s I think could have been a big obsticule.

Wildnoob
02-11-2011, 10:01 AM
Thanks for the ansewers.

The G8N would be out of question. My question is in consideration of a USSR in the defensive by a Nippo German alliance 1941/42.

Ah, what about the Japanese given airfields for the Germans use the He 177 for such task? It would be more close to allow heavy bombing using this aircraft?

TungstenKid
02-12-2011, 06:52 AM
GB/USA weren't able to knock out German industry despite massive 4-engine heavy bomber raids by day and night, the Germans just kept on building tanks and planes and weapons right to the end of the war.
Likewise on the East Front German bombers weren't able to put Russian factories out of action on a large scale.
It follows that Japanese bombers wouldn't have been able to severely clobber Russian industry either.
I've always wondered why WW2 bombing wasn't more effective at demolishing industry, I mean, surely the high commands could have made a list of every factory and then gone out to bomb them one by one with precision strikes instead of wasteful carpet bombing of cities.

Ubi doesn't allow the use of the word Japs.

RSS-Martin
02-12-2011, 10:12 AM
Because all sides had the loony idea if you bomb the other side heavyly enough it will ruin moral, and the public will rebel. It did not work at all.
Only thing that did work was cutting fuel supplies massivly and hampering supplies. Concentrated blows to fuel dumps and fuel production facilities, and major rail junctions most likely would have had a better effect, even though these targest where eventually also hit.

Erkki_M
02-13-2011, 07:49 AM
Even if the Japanese would have had enough of the long range bombers and pilots for them, remember that G3M and G4M only carried a modest bomb load, primarily designed to long-range torpedo delivery machines, they would have lacked the airfields and logistics to attack anything from North China and Manchuria. Most of the Soviet war industry was still very far, extreme ranges for even G4M.

But what maybe could have been attacked were the Soviet oil fields at Sakhalin and Kamtsatka...

VW-IceFire
02-13-2011, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
Thanks for the ansewers.

The G8N would be out of question. My question is in consideration of a USSR in the defensive by a Nippo German alliance 1941/42.

Ah, what about the Japanese given airfields for the Germans use the He 177 for such task? It would be more close to allow heavy bombing using this aircraft? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That would be an interesting notion given that the Japanese and Germans had very little coordination.

The He177 wasn't really up to the task no matter the political situation. Overly complex engines and ridiculous official requirements for it to be a dive bomber really screwed the design up.

RSS-Martin
02-13-2011, 11:37 AM
Well not only the design flaws would have been a issue. That plane even if disassembled could not easily have been transported by submarine.

That would have been the only possible way of transporting it, as it was first put into service in 1943, at this time transportation per ship would have been out of the question.

But even then one aircraft would acceive nothing, it would have to be copied in significent numbers, which would be another time delay, Japan also had its own problems with engines, and then having strong enough and relyable enough ones for such a flight? Also at a time where the US pretty much had air dominance?

If one really wanted to ponder about a "what if" scenario. I would take a look at the Me264, the first protypes where doing test flights in 1942, if they had not been destroyed by a allied bombing attack, and a sample some how reached Japan?
Althought shipping would have had only a very small time window, but I would say a more likely candidate than the some what misfortunate He177.
But then this is all pure speculation, of what could have happened if the Me264s had not been destroyed.
Messerschmitt Me 264 Amerika Bomber (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdUAucryZII)

Kurfurst__
02-14-2011, 04:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
Thanks for the ansewers.

The G8N would be out of question. My question is in consideration of a USSR in the defensive by a Nippo German alliance 1941/42.

Ah, what about the Japanese given airfields for the Germans use the He 177 for such task? It would be more close to allow heavy bombing using this aircraft? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That would be an interesting notion given that the Japanese and Germans had very little coordination. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wouldn't help much - the distance between German controlled territories (Finland, Kiev, area near Leningrad etc.) was ca. 2000 km, compared to ca 1500 km from the Lake Baikal - and back. The distances in Russia were vast, for any heavy bomber of the era, except the B-29. The He 177 had sufficient flying range, even longer than the Fw 200 (2200 km with 7.2 tons, 5300 km with 1 ton, with two out the three bomb bays used for fuel tanks), though bomb load would have to reduced still to about half I guess.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The He177 wasn't really up to the task no matter the political situation. Overly complex engines and ridiculous official requirements for it to be a dive bomber really screwed the design up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn't that bad actually. The plane had its share of teething troubles when it was developed, but the major issue was not the complexity of the engine installation (this was fixed on the earliest variants), rather the problems with the reliability DB 605 engines themselves in mid-war, ie. 1942-43. It wasn't related to the 177 only, 109s and 110s equally suffered from the faulty lubrication design. DB did fix the problems (by fitting an oil de-aerator) by the automn of 1943 however, and the engines were fine, and so was the 177. It was around towards the end of 1943 when the 177 began to see actual mass production (previously only penny pocket numbers were built), and begin to be available in significant numbers in frontline KGs. By mid 1944 about 200 were at the frontline units, but the plane could never prove itself, as its service introduction run parallel to the Allied fuel offensive, which deprieved the LW of its fuel reserves. As a consequence, all German bomber units were largely grounded to save fuel for the fighters.. you can't really blame the plane for that unfortunate coincidence.

horseback
02-14-2011, 10:29 AM
Generally, Japanese bombers were of the medium size range, but these aircraft could carry a useful load quite a bit farther than their German contemporaries in the early war years (say, prior to 1943). Similarly, the IJAAF's primary single engine fighter, the Ki-43, was considerably longer ranged than the FW or 109; it was however, considerably slower and more lightly armed.

However, the Japanese were hamstrung more by the cost of combat operations than by the capabilities of their (early war) aircraft or pilots. They simply lacked the industrial or training base to be able to take any meaningful casualties and maintain the operational tempo required to actually destroy defended industrial targets.

Had the Japanese fantasy of India rebelling against the British (and the Allies) and joining with the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere led by Japan, these aircraft might have had some effect on the far Eastern fringes of the North African theater, but after getting their fannies kicked up past their shoulder blades in Mongolia by the Soviets, I don't think that they would want to provoke Stalin again, even in their fantasies.

cheers

horseback

Metatron_123
02-14-2011, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TungstenKid:
I've always wondered why WW2 bombing wasn't more effective at demolishing industry, I mean, surely the high commands could have made a list of every factory and then gone out to bomb them one by one with precision strikes instead of wasteful carpet bombing of cities. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason they couldn't knock out the industry was the fact that even once a factory was bombed, production would often continue in the bombed out building, and during the last part of the war production was dispersed to less vulnerable areas, including underground facilities.

An aerial photograph showing a factory with no roof was misleading as it would often still be very much operational.

ElAurens
02-14-2011, 06:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TungstenKid:

Ubi doesn't allow the use of the word Japs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is only on this forum and was the cause celeb of one moderator, who is now not a mod here.

I assure you that on other UBI forums that pertain to WW2 the word "Japs" is not an issue.

WTE_Galway
02-14-2011, 07:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
Because all sides had the loony idea if you bomb the other side heavyly enough it will ruin moral, and the public will rebel. It did not work at all.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "bomb them into submission" theory is always a favorite of politicians and armchair civilian tacticians and is usually opposed by the military who are well aware bombing civilian targets actually increases enemy determination to fight, leads to more desperate often suicidal defensive tactics and long term engenders partisan resistance and sabotage after occupation.

RSS-Martin
02-14-2011, 09:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
Because all sides had the loony idea if you bomb the other side heavyly enough it will ruin moral, and the public will rebel. It did not work at all.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "bomb them into submission" theory is always a favorite of politicians and armchair civilian tacticians and is usually opposed by the military who are well aware bombing civilian targets actually increases enemy determination to fight, leads to more desperate often suicidal defensive tactics and long term engenders partisan resistance and sabotage after occupation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you are forgetting Arthur Harris, as he was rather pro for that idea, although he should have known from London and Coventry that, that does not work. Only thing that works is hitting fuel supplies and major transportation junctions, and everything comes fairly soon to a stand still.

WTE_Galway
02-14-2011, 11:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
Because all sides had the loony idea if you bomb the other side heavyly enough it will ruin moral, and the public will rebel. It did not work at all.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "bomb them into submission" theory is always a favorite of politicians and armchair civilian tacticians and is usually opposed by the military who are well aware bombing civilian targets actually increases enemy determination to fight, leads to more desperate often suicidal defensive tactics and long term engenders partisan resistance and sabotage after occupation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you are forgetting Arthur Harris, as he was rather pro for that idea, although he should have known from London and Coventry that, that does not work. Only thing that works is hitting fuel supplies and major transportation junctions, and everything comes fairly soon to a stand still. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Harris formed his ideas about bombing civilian populations during a stint with the RAF in the middle east during the Mesopotamia conflict in the early 1920's.

Whether it worked in Iraq and Syria in the roaring '20s or not is beside the point. By mid WWII the US commanders (and most of the RAF ones as well) disagreed with him but he had Churchill's ear.

M_Gunz
02-15-2011, 12:01 AM
What Harris did worked wonders for British civilian morale.

Wildnoob
02-15-2011, 04:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
but after getting their fannies kicked up past their shoulder blades in Mongolia by the Soviets, I don't think that they would want to provoke Stalin again, even in their fantasies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually there's much exaggeration about this. Specially with the <span class="ev_code_RED">ZHUKOV's</span> name. The IJA did lost at least part of an Army there, but it operated with restrictions; like in the aerial operations and with orders of almost independent Kwantung Army officers lacking coordenation wanting to provoke a full scale war among other things.

The Japanese never feared the Soviet Union. The attack on the Pacific was a necessity of blockade china of the LL and obtain the resources due to the embargo of oil and other resources by the West.

You can read more about this here: http://wikibin.org/articles/ja...of-the-far-east.html (http://wikibin.org/articles/japanese-planned-republic-of-the-far-east.html)

While not the best source, the keys points can be all confirmed by the Japanese government members in the World at War Banzai episodie.