Secret Japanese Aircraft

[andyo2000]

I know this is an international forum, but for those of us living in the US with basic cable, there was a 2-hour show on secret aircraft of World War II on The History Channel on Sunday, from 8 to 10. Maybe some of you in other countries can get this, maybe not, but if you can, I suggest you watch it if it comes on again, which is surely will.

In any case, the first hour was secret Japanese aircraft. This was very informative. Does anyone know anything about the German trading of designs with Japan about mid-way through the war? About the lighter, faster Me-262 the Japanese produced, which the called the "Keeko"? This plane was very fast, and basically a scaled-down version of the Me-262. It would have been devastating to US B-29s.

Corsarius will find this interesting if he doesn't already know it all: the Japanese also manufactured an Me-162. Theirs didn't fly with landing gear, had rockets, etc. However, they solved the exploding fuel problem. They also created a second version, which if I remember correctly, was called the R-2. It was a delta wing with flight controls in the front. It carried missiles, twin rockets, and much more fuel.

Another surprising new airplane was a jet-propelled Betty bomber. Basically, it was just a faster version to escape Allied fighters.

The Japanese hid their facilities in mountains, mostly in abandoned mineshafts. This protected them from Allied attacks, and the 100 or more factories would have been safe even from a direct nuclear attack on their positions. American spies didn't know anything about this until after the war.

Two more things of interest: The Japanese, according to the History Channel, had the first combat helicopter, which was used for artillery spotting and ASW operations. The second thing, which I did not know but I'm sure some of our more knowledgeable members do, is that the first jet to fly was the Heinkel 280. This became the He-260, and then the He-20, both of which were examined but not produced.

The second half was about secret Allied aircraft. One thing it covered was Hurricats, which some of you have undoubtedly heard of. The Hurricat was a plane launched by catapult by convoys to protect themselves from Fw 200 Condors. It was not very efficient, as they discovered the Condors were heavily armed, and when the pilot ditched in the sea, the plane tended to sink quickly and sometimes would kill the pilot. Still, the saved many a convoy.

Something which I thought was extremely interesting was a British proposal for "iceberg ships". Basically, a British scientist found that when ice water was mixed with sawdust, it became much stronger, and he called this substance "pycrite", I think it was spelled. They wanted to make floating ships out of it to launch airplanes from, and it was given serious consideration. The project was discarded when the Allied began to win the war with conventional methods. Even today, new-age hippies have suggested making a giant floating island out of pycrite and floating out to sea.

So, any comments?

[ickysdad]

Reliable information from the History Channel??? That says it all.

[tenmmike]

the history channel is famous for being ahhhh less then accurate they research there subjects very poorly..to put it one why...BTW the first jet to fly was the HE-178http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/he178-2.jpg

[PMN1]

It was called Pykrete after its inventor Geoffry? Pyke - I'll dig dsome information out and post it.

[andyo2000]

Yes, their research is sub-par

Something I didn't mention is that they mentioned the Okha as a secret aircraft. Apparently, none of the History Channel staff knew that the Okha flew many missions. I was very surprised at this.

[Ricky]

The History Channel -
I became disillusioned with them when they did a documentary which talked about the T-34 tank, and showed pictures of T-34s - The pictures included KV1s and Panzer IV tanks!

Maybe I am a sad bloke for getting so wound up about historical accuracy (don't even mention Troy...) but there has to be some limits, surely!

[Romantic Technofreak]

Dear Andy, here my comments:

quote:Does anyone know anything about the German trading of designs with Japan about mid-way through the war?

We gave the Japanese a lot, although it often was not very helpful, like the Bf 109 and the Me 410. The DB 601 inline engine was delivered, but the Japanese were not able to maintain their derivations Kawasaki Ha-40 and Aichi Atsuta, so they had to replace them by their radial engines. In return, we did not get the low-level torpedo that was so successfull at Pearl Harbor, nor did we get the Mitsubishi Ki-46. Equipped with BMW 801s, this racer would have made a crazily good destroyer. For traffic we used submarines and blockade runner ships.

quote:About the lighter, faster Me-262 the Japanese produced, which the called the "Keeko"?

This is the Nakajima Kikka:

http://www.j-aircraft.org/xplanes/hikoki_graphics/kikka04.jpg

Stupidly it was first planned as fast bomber, like Hitler´s order to pervert the Me 262. A true fighter version was the Nakajima Ki-201 Karyu.

quote:the Japanese also manufactured an Me-162

Me 163 please. This is the Mitsubishi J8M Shusui (artist impression):

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/green/wave/ki200.jpg

Exactly the Army version Ki-200.
Get this and much more from the Japanese X-planes site:

http://www.j-aircraft.org/xplanes/


quote:The Japanese, according to the History Channel, had the first combat helicopter

I don´t believe that. The Japanese had the Kabaya Ka-1 autogyro:

http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/spyww2/ka1-i.jpg

An autogyro is not a helicopter. I think autogyros in military roles were already used in the Spanish Civil war or even earlier. I would like to know which one was the first combat helicopter, i.e. the one that first fired missiles or dropped bombs on an enemy target.

quote:This became the He-260, and then the He-20, both of which were examined but not produced

The RLM (Reichsluftfahrtministerium) denomination number (8 for airplanes) 8-260 was not given to any aircraft. 8-20 was a big seaplane project by Dornier for pre-war transatlantic service that was not realized because the Lufthansa gave no order. The chance to use it as troop transporter or long-distance supplier was not seen.

quote:One thing it covered was Hurricats, which some of you have undoubtedly heard of. The Hurricat was a plane launched by catapult by convoys to protect themselves from Fw 200 Condors

I just learned that it was sometimes called Hurricat because the Hurricane was to be catapulted:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/images/hurrihist25.jpg

Sometimes the pilot had the chance not to ditch his airplane but to reach friendly territory, e.g. arctic Russia. I would have liked to know how the Hurricat would have made it against the Messerschmitt Me 261 or, nearer to the shore, the Heinkel He 119.
In another thread, I already proposed a swimmable fighter to prevent the problems of regularly having to ditch a non-swimmable plane[^][^].

quote:Something which I thought was extremely interesting was a British proposal for "iceberg ships". Basically, a British scientist found that when ice water was mixed with sawdust, it became much stronger, and he called this substance "pycrite", I think it was spelled


When I heared about this first I thought this project really had to be a crazy fantasy, but it wasn´t. The "Project Habbakuk" really existed. The argument "can´t be sunk, it is already water!" is convincing, isn´t it?[8D]:D:)

Read more about it in Admiral U. Furashita´s (speak that with Japanese pronounciation of the "r"!:D) fleet:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/habbak_f.htm

[PMN1]

Various Pykrete links

http://warshipprojects.board.dk3.com/2/viewtopic.php?t=225&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Scroll down tp page 2

The most odd warship project of WWII has to be the Churchills Ice Berg Aircraft Carrier (no it did consist of aircraft made from ice bergs rather that the ship itself was to be made from ice). The idea first seems to have came up in late 1940 when Churchill suggested that ice bergs themselves may be turned into floating air bases to allow aircraft to stop off and refeul while on their anti U-boat patrols over the atlantic. It was well known that ice bergs were resistant to both gunfire and torpedoes and by having such floating airfields then the range that could be covered by aircraft would be greatly extended.
Churchill often came with such ideas that overlooked many practicallities and as will be noted in the cruiser section later, the DNC loved Churchill but sometimes found he could very annoying with some of the projects his team were often asked to waste time on. One factor which is easliy overlooked is that ice bergs do not come in consistent shapes and sizes. Even towing one is a very dangerous task. The writer (CrystalEye) remembers seeing footage whereby during one towing operation the ice berg suddenly turned over. The turning ice berg nearly rolled over the towing ship and the crew barely escaped with their lives.
None the less the idea of ice carriers was revived in 1942 after Lord Louis Mountbatten presented him a new piece of ice called Pykrete (which was named after Geoffrey Pyke by the 2 american guys who invented it). The story goes that Winnie was taking a bath when suddenly Mountbatten came in presenting this piece of ice that when place into Winnies bath, refused to melt (believe this at your own expense). Churchill and Mountbatten were so impressed that it was not long before ice ship prototypes were being built in the Rookies.
For those who do not know, Lord Mountbatten was chief of combined operations which looked into special craft for offensive operations. Geoffrey Pyke was scientific adviser and eccentric (the story goes that he held telephone meetings in his bed which were surrounded in bear bottles for urine - he did this so that he did not loose too much working on his inventions - believe that if you will. Perhaps he can up with the never melting ice idea after he found all drinks he poured just melted the ice!). Pyke's idea was to built berg ships 4000ft by 600ft by 130ft - that supposedly be made cheaply, insulted and cooled, invulnerable to torpedoes and bombs able to provide an air base at anytime anyplace and anywhere.
Churchill upon seeing this idea wanted them ASAP. For these ships would solve 2 manjor headaches namely how to cover the mid atlantic air gap against U-Boats and how to provide fighters for covering an invasion force.
Geoffrey Pyke had discovered that at low temperatures, ice acts just like concrete (I wonder what he would have dream't up if he had known that at really really low temperatures ice acts like steel!). To make Pykete you merely mix a little wood pulp with water before freezing. Not only does it make ice very ressistant to melting (hours or days instead of minutes for ice cube) but also it increases its strength too (crush strength raising from around 1000 lb per square inch for ice to over 3000 for Pykrete). You only need between 4 and 14% pulp to do this.
One experiement was built at Chateau Lake louis near Banff Alberta. This experiement was to find out was of rienforcing ice units. The experiment determined that a hull side of at least 35ft think would be needed to resist bomb and torpedoes.
The other experiment was at Patricia Lake, Jasper, Alberta and was carried out to work out how on earth to built the thing and the thermal effects of ice in summer. This mini prototype was disguised to look like a house boat and displaced some 1100 tons, was 60ft by 30ft and some 19.5 ft high and was insulated by 3 Freon compressors driven by 10hp motors that distrubuted cold air in a net work 6in galvanised tubes.
By now the ice carrier had been named Habakkuk "Behold ye among the heathen, and regard and wonder marvellouslly: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told to you." The experiments showed that cheap ice were unbelievable and indeed down right expensive - at least for the first one.
For Pyke had earlier stated that not only could ice carriers be built but ice frieghters too, each invulnerable and so large that they could carry the same as 8 liberty ships. Unloading would be done by cutting holes into the ships side and bringing things ashore by ice barges (each 200$ a piece!). Once finished the hole would be frozen up again. There were large Pykrete carriers 4000ft long as well as smaller ships. And it did not matter too much if a torpedo did breech the hull because well ice floats anyway!
An Aircraft carrier was detailed designed which had the following stats;

2,000,000 tons (more than all the US std displacement carriers of WWII)
2000 * 300 * 150ft (freeboard 50ft)
200 Spitfires or 100 Mosquitos
62 guns consisting of 4.5in and 40mm
26 propellers all electrically powered for 7kts
Armour 40ft ice deck, sides and hull.

She would need 280,000 Pykrete blocks needing 8000 men 8 months to build. The price was a $100 million dollers for the first ship and was seemed far too expensive for a ship which would be left to melt after the war. Mountbatten tried to get the Americans to take over the project. It is said that during one demostration he fired his gun into a piece a Pykrete which bounced back and struck one senior officer present - luckerly he lived but the project did not.
For by now it was late 1943, the battle of the Atlantic had been won and steel Aircraft carriers were being built in considerable numbers. Perhaps surprisingly the idea was not onced looked at by The Future Building Committee dispite the serious carrier shortage. But then again given the very secret nature of the project, they were probably not aware of it.

More on the ice Giant carrier.....

I have come across more info on this ship. And well, the detailed hanger diagrams are amazing.

The Hangers were 50ft high (so no problem using US aircraft types).

Hanger Airgroup was as follows;
200 Spitfires (wings folded)
136 Mosquitos (Wings NOT folded)
6 Wellington bombers (wings not folded).

Some aircraft would also be kept on a permament deck park, around 4 more wellingtons, a dozen mosquitos and 30 odd spitfires - and this would still leeve miles of space for sending mass strikes (and she really could send mass strikes).

Gun armament was 8* 4.5in , 60 40mm bofors all in twins.
Note also, further aircraft could be stored on the hanger roof (although you would sacrifice the use of a monorail for moving aircraft around. And by using mosquitos with folding wings, you will increase capacity a lot further (there is suffuciant space for getting another row of spitfires in the mosquito hangers if need be).


http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/1928/pykrete.htm

http://www.combinedops.com/Pykrete.htm

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/7/floatingisland.php (I often wonder what would have happened if Mountbatten had killed Admiral King!! - given what some in the RN thought of him, probably another medal for servic es rendered)

http://www.combinedops.com/Geoffrey%20Pyke.htm

[B-24WillowRun]

Thanks for the good info. I found some of that stuff while reading about the RAF and carriers. As for a swimming plane the Japanese developed a float version of the Zero to use for forward airfields where land bases were slow to be built. Also The Hurricaine could have had floats attatched, I will try to look for that. I am not shore why that proposal was not addressed. But that Catapolt lunched Hurricat's were just a stop gap really. The attlantic was begining to be covered with small carriers and the escourt groups were understandiing the German U-boat tatics a lot better. [:o)]

[Corsarius]

The Spitfire V(I think) was also converted to work with floats. Only a couple of experimental models were flown.

The Susuei version of the Me-163 is doubly interesting as it was constructed from incomplete technical drawings. More complete ones were forthcoming, as well as a completed airframe in a U-boat which was sunk en route to Japan. With what little info they had, the Japanese put together an interesting aircraft. If it had seen service it may (that's MAY, people) have been a good deterrent to the B-29. Then again, the Japanese may also have been plagued with the over-high speed of the thing which the Germans also were. A decent gunsight and protocols for their use were only just being developed when the war ended. *sigh* I STILL like JG 400 though.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

The Spitfire V(I think) was also converted to work with floats. Only a couple of experimental models were flown.



From what I've read there was a float conversion of a MkVB in 1942 (Folland did the conversion) and a similar one of a MkIX in 1943.

Apparently this conversion was quite successful but never put into production.

[B-24WillowRun]

Thanks all. I do find it strange the Japanese were scrambeing for high altitude aircraft as the B-29s were developing the crazy idea of the low leval fire bombing.

So if Japan would have talked to Germany sooner would have that made a differance? [B)]

[Romantic Technofreak]

I always say the Axis only had a chance to win by close strategical and technical cooperation, because they were attacking from a weaker position. But believing in their racial and political superiority, they did not want to realize that inflaming this kind of war rather sure means their end.

[GregP]

Most Axis weapons were as good or better than the complimentary Allied weapons. The Nazi U-Boats were better than US , British, or French submarines. The Nazi fighters were equal to or slightly better than the Allied fighters. The Spitfire was always equal to the Bf-109 ... until new German models came out. Then the Spit was improved and got a bit better, until the Germans made their improvements. It was a seesaw battle for all to WWII between the Germans and the British with fighters ... until the German jets. The German tanks were better, too.

I think the Axis were defeated due mostly to completely inept leadership. No worse planner of an aerial armada can be imagined than Herman Goering. Hitler fostered competition and devisiveness among his senior staff instead of cooperation. He was dumb enough to start a 2-front war (or 3-front if you incude Africa) when it was noit necessary.

So, in the end, I maintain the Axis were defeated by themselves, the Russian winter, and the fact that they were not friendly to peoples they conquered. This was incentive enough for almost all peoples they defeated to form resistance unit that tied up many badly-need troops elsewhere. Thank heaven they were as they were. Otherwise, we might be speaking German.

I have found modern Germans to be friendly, ready to laught, and very hospitable. Too bad the ecomonic situation in the 9120s and 1930s didn't foster some desire in the future Allies to support a free and democratic Germany.

We are faced with somewhat similar circumstances today. Germany is an ally, and Russia is an ally in most situations. The "other side" today is the Arab world ... and not ALL of it either.

If we can find a way to let the Arabs prosper along with the rest of the world, maybe we can find a way to peace. I hope so, but I certainly won't count on it.

Wonder what the Chinese want to coexist peacefully?

I hope the politicians can find out but, alas, their record isn't exactly wonderful, is it?

[ickysdad]

gregp,
I agree that axis equipment was equal to the allies, on aircraft I'd say the prop jobs were equal to allied types but not slightly better. On subs the U-Boats in and of thenselves were probably better than USN/RN types but the latter benefitted from radar of immense importance also more print matter is given to US torpedoes being defective but very little is given to the severe problem Germany had with defective torpedoes. On tanks yes Germans were definately better in a head on shootout,but as good part of that was like the US Army refusing to listen to the ground forces and mounting larger guns on the Sherman. I'm not going into details on that here since this is plane forum but my point is that the Allies were misguided at times to not only in weapons development but strategy.Loosers always get thier strategy analised victors rarely do. . Most of the time people talk about the axis changing things that would have helped them in the war,however one can look at alot of things the allies did change them and the war may have been over in the allies favor way before D-Day! Luck was always thought to be on the Allied side ,but the axis sure had thier fair share.

[GregP]

Good points, Ikysdad,

I disagree about German propeller fighters of course.

I think that when the Messerschmitt Bf-109 came out, it was superior to all Allied fighters. The Allies caught up. When the Fw-190 came out, it again brought superiority back to Germany. Again, the Allies caught up. The Spitfire went from a 300 mph aircraft to pushing 500 mph during WWII.

The Allies then added a number of excellent aircraft, but none were particularly superior to the Fw-190D-9 or the Ta-152 series at high altitude and, while most Allied fighters were very good, a well-flown Bf-109F or K was a pretty tough opponent in a one-on-one situation.

Of course, by the late war, there weren't many one-on-one encounters due to the Allied numeric superiority, but the 109 was still a world-class aircraft at the war's end (particularly at low airspeeds), as was the Fw-190 / Ta-152 series (not necesarily at low airspeeds).

Lest you all attack me in numbers, I realize the Spitfire, the Mustang, the Hellcat, the P-38, and the Yaks were also excellent fighters. I simply believe that an excellent pilot familiar with the plane in any of these mounts was probably an odds-on favorite to win any fight. That means the planes were roughly equivalent to one another in many meaningful ways, and the Germans usually came out with the "next step" first.

The 109 was first; then the 190; then the jets. So at any particular time, the Germans were pushing technology faster than we were ...and we had to "catch up." We DID, but the push was still from the Axis side.

So I salute German inventiveness with the reservation that the Allies proved themselves capable of matching and sometimes even besting the Nazi technological juggernaut. Nevertheless, it was the Germans who usually "sprung a surprise" on the Allies, not the other way around.

In recognition of your contention, yes ... the Allies had better aircraft at times, too. It all depended on WHEN you choose as the time of interest.

[ickysdad]

I don't necessarily disagree greg but there's one other point on Allied fighters,especially USAAF one's, is the need for long range and the wanting them to be first class fighter-bombers as well,versatility is a quality all it's own(I know I copied that phrase). The P-47J was an experimental interceptor model with extremely good performance but the USAAF didn't need an interceptor but a long range fighter. I'm sure the P-72 could have been put into service very quickly but the US thought more in terms of a "good enough plane" in quantity and that meant not interupting production lines.The P-38 should have recieved mod's in early '43 that would have made the best, or at least equal to the best of any nation,but it would have meant shutting production lines down for a month. The USAAF flatly refused. However I'm just be-laboring a point for basically any early '44 model fighter was equal to another's early '44 model fighter. Germany tried to win a war in the early 40's by developing 1950's technology whereas the Allies just took technology from the 30's and pushed it to it's limits though I think if jets would have became more of a problem the Allies could develop thier own and very quickly. One thing though the A-Bombthe US(Or rather the Allies developed,foriegn scientists were instrumental in it's development) was in a league of it's own.

[B-24WillowRun]

Ok I have a question, if the US production of fighters was in full swing and P-38s were on multiple lies why not move one to the new plane? The P-38 was a grand plane that could have been the best for a little while. The USAAC just did not want to have the mest, or a marke but more a work hoares type.[:I]

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

... but the US thought more in terms of a "good enough plane" in quantity and that meant not interupting production lines.The P-38 should have recieved mod's in early '43 that would have made the best, or at least equal to the best of any nation,but it would have meant shutting production lines down for a month. The USAAF flatly refused. ... Germany tried to win a war in the early 40's by developing 1950's technology whereas the Allies just took technology from the 30's and pushed it to it's limits though I think if jets would have became more of a problem the Allies could develop thier own and very quickly.


And who won?
Germany's practical interest in jets came somewhat late. The Gloster Meteor was flying and was slated for production before the Me262 flew under jet power. In spring 1945 the allies had both the de Havilland Vampire and the Lockheed P/F80 entering production. The Vampire had been held up by over commitment in de Havilland's works (but not by much looking at typical WWII first flight/service entry dates). Both were more capable than the Me262/He162 etc. as well as having reliable centrifugal jet engines. In both cases the production lines were tooled up by April 1945.
Had the Me262 ever seemed more than a pretty, and very expensive, toy (militarily speaking) I expect the de Havilland and Lockheed programmes would have been given higher priority and more urgency and squadron service would have occurred by early 1945 rather than token quantities in the middle of the year (early jets didn't have the legs for the Pacific theatre, by February 1945 their priority would have hit the back-burner).

[ickysdad]

Oh, I definately agree carmudgeon. Wartime isn't the time to delve into developing "luxory weapons".

[GregP]

Back to the topic at hand .... Secret Japanese Aircraft.

There were many very good Japanese prototypes. The basic problem for Japan was that late in the war, their production centers were known, so they couldn't really finish a new prototype before we bombed it.

They also had a systemic problem in that the Japanese Army and Navy were seemingly unable to find enough mechanics skilled in tuning liquid-cooled engines to keep any liquid-cooled aircraft series flying. They were steeped in air-cooled radials and had little skill with in-line liquid-cooled engines.

If the Germans had supplied them with 1000 DB605 engines, the Japanese couldn't have kept them running for m ore than a few months.

Some of their interesting prototypes were as follows:

1) The Aichi B7A Ryusei. Not really a prototype since 114 were bilt, but it was the best Japanese torpedo medium bomber of the war. Hauled an 800 kg torpedo (or bombs) at 565 kph. That's like a 350 mph Grummann Avenger!

2) Aichi M6A Seiran. 28 built. An excellent powerful floatplane. Built to attack the Panama Canal.

3) Aichi S1A Denko night fighter. 2 built. Both destroyed in U.S. bombing raids.

4) Kawanishi N1K. Floatplane fighter that gave birth to the N1K2-J Shinden-Kai interceptor. A great floatplane. 89 built, so maybe that is a bit more than a prototype, but not much better.

5) Kawasaki Ki-64. 1 built. Contraprops. Liquid-cooled inline engine, so they didn't know what to do with it.

6) Kawasaki Ki-96. 3 built. Experimental fighter. An excellent aircraft, but only served as a stepping stone to the Ki-102. The Ki-102 was built in 238 specimens, but was not a factor due to low production numbers.

7) Mitsubishi A7M Reppu. 8 built, Intended to replace the Zero. 628 kph. Too little, too late.

8) Mitsubishi Ki-83 Heavy Escort Fighter. 4 built. A superb aircraft. Why didn't they produce it?

9) Mitsubishi Ki-109 Heavy Interceptor. Could have stayed out of range of the B-29's defensive armament and shot at the bombers with BIG armament.

10) Nakajima G6N and G8N Bombers. Why didn't they build them?

11) Nakajima Ki-87. Turbocharged high altitude interceptor. Badly needed by the Japanese AAF, but not built, except for 1 prototype.

12) Rikugun Ki-93. Heavy fighter. Laminar flow wing and powerful engines. 2 built. Only flown once before an accident and U.S. bombing raids destroyed both.

There were others, but you get the idea. They seemed to have built several very excellent aircraft but were put off by either accidents (that happen in development) or by bombing raids.

[B-24WillowRun]

GregP, I think the info you have is very good. I had to look up the some of it because I thought you were wrong, but that was me, and remembering poorly. But I would say that some were very good and thay could have feilded aircraft that would have flown circles around the USN and USAAC.

But I would have to ask you about the source for the In-engines? They did not use them that much because of the dedication and reliability of the air-cooled radials and that they had problums produceing the in-line engines. But the Japanese did use them until the plant was bombed and the Ki-100 was born. [B)]

[GregP]

Actually, that came from several sources. According to the stories I have read in many places, the Japanese Army and Navy didn't ever have a good service school for liquid-cooled engine mechanics, and they never developed any good tuners for these engines.

Additionally, many texts, including "General View of Japanese Military Aircaft in the pacific War", Nippon Gunyoki No Zenbo, Kantosha, Tokyo, Japan, published for Airview in both Japanese and English says the liquid-cooled Japanese Ha-140 engines intended for use in the Ki-61 were notoriously unreliable ... and this from a Japanese text written by the Japanese!

Anyway, it really doesn't matter why the Japanese weren't successful with a liquid-cooled engine; the fact remains that they simply weren't successful at it. Anyone who says otherwise isn't reading the same 100+ texts that I have.

Of course, there might well be a secret, undocumented success story with liquid-cooled engines in WWII Japan. If so, I haven't uncovered any evidence of it to date.

[Romantic Technofreak]

For to give some explanations to Greg´s "whys", I would like to state the following:

1. Japan wasn´t an industrialized country before the war like the modern Japan we know today. Compared to the USA, also Italy and even Germany weren´t. The motorization in the US was a lot bigger than in all Axis countries, e.g. the amount of educated drivers per population was much higher.

2. As B-24WillowRun´s standing quotation of Yamamoto says, the Japanese had no idea how to win the war. They refused to join an anti-British alliance with Germany and Italy in early 1939, because they wanted to keep their diplomatic scope. They opened negotiations with the USA in early 1941, thus bringing them into dependence of American goodwill. They didn´t believe they could keep the USA out of the war for a longer time by attacking only British and Dutch posessions. They entered the war much too late, when nothing but an initial success could have been expected. They did not take Hawaii when they could have done it. And they considered an invasion of Australia and New Zealand as impossible to do.

3. The Axis should have known by 1937/38 that the USA could not be kept out of the coming war forever. So they should have known, because they were attacking from a weaker position, their only chance besides superior strategy and motivation would have been technological superiority. German, and other, inventiveness could have done the job. But Axis leaders did not make use of it. They were not logical thinkers. They thought the world is what they believe it is, not what it is in reality. Their initial sucesses based on the fact that their fast armament was on the newest weapons of that point of time, a superiority that would fade the more the longer the war would last. They wanted to get short, impressive successes to keep the war short. They did not believe the Allies having the guts to resist them in a long war and to fight for a world without them.

4. Also, the Japanese tactics were never sufficient. Refusing to employ self-sealing fuel tanks (for gaining range) made the Japanese planes an easy prey for even inferior Allied opponents, killing in ratio much more Japanese aviators and turning a big amount of planes that made it home into wrecks. Their airforce leaders never allowed their subordinate pilots develop new tactics, so they were never able to do something to crack up the deadly "Thatch-Flatley weave". I am not sure, but can imagine that a lot of their engine trouble was caused (like in Germany) because very much of high-valued material went into production of sea monsters like the Yamato, Musashi and Shinano (in Germany into the tank production), which never gained a serious influence onm the outcome of the war (you need e.g. nickel for high-temparature-stable aircraft engines as well as for armour plates). And it often happened to Japanese soldiers that their rifles exploded on their cheeks, for the use of poor steel...[B)][xx(].

5. So nearly all planes Greg quotes came too late (except the G6N that was refused for poor performance, although it wasn´t worse than the Halifax, and the N1K, which was unsuitable for frontline service). Like in Germany, near the end of the war there were a lot of efforts made to turn the tide by new developments. Even if some of them were promising, at least the lack of educated pilots and of fuel would have killed every chance. And they would have changed nothing in the main fact of the Axis´defeat: the key for systematic warfare was lost long time ago.

[B-24WillowRun]

RT -that was great! I do agree that Yamamoto was corect, because he had seen the US in person. I would have to say that I am not going to agree about Hawaii though. They could have desimated the oil, drydocks, and subpens at Pearl and maybe held the USN up almost a year longer. But still after mobilazation the clock was counting. As for the war with the British, it is my personal belief that the Japanese never really wanted a long war. Only to take control of an empire similar to what Europe had done when it was carving up China and south Asia. To secure its own expansion. The USN was in that way. They hped to make massive loss and then tal peace, or fight to a standstill.

But that is all my own thoughts. The war could have gone very differently and if Japan were fighting the British in 1939 it would have delayed the expansions into the Central Pacific. [B)]

[ickysdad]

The only problem with "what iffing" is that you have to allow the other side to "what if" and in that case the Allies probably would still have more aces in the hole. Other than the V-1 & V-2's the Allies were, or certainly could have been, able to match whatever the Axis threw at them and the Axis never even came close to the A-bomb. ON weapons take jets if German jets had become a more serious problem I'm sure the Allies could have developed them much faster than they did historically... On strategy it's the same thing, Britain coming to the aid of greece in '41 instead of driving the Axis clear out of North Africa is a great example. France 1940 was a very near run thing for Germany coupe of changes and france may very well have held out for much longer. How about the book "1943, The Victory That Never Was" which details that the Allies could have invaded France in '43 with just some subtle changes in strategy & allocation of resources.
Oh well I'm just ranting and this an airplane board. I do have one question though how would those advanced airplanes have held up against say more advanced fighters like the P-51H, P-47M, F8F, or advanced planes that weren't put into production like P-72 or P-47J?

[GregP]

Nice comments RT. I know Japan wasn't as industrialized before WWII as they are today. In point of fact, they weren't as industrialized as late as 1958. However, they DID invent the Mitsubishi Zero, the Ki-46 Dinah, the Emily flying boat, and other rather remarkable aircraft ... as well as a host of other pretty decent weapons.

Their radial engines were pretty good and decently reliable. They also had major problems with getting good fuel and hard-hitting aerial armament, but gave a good account of themselves until the combination of the Hellcat, Corsair, P-47, and P-38 got into the fray. In defense of the Japanese, this team of U.S. aircfraft was a pretty good team.

I'm just saying that they DID invent some good aircraft, but never took advantage of that fact after the war started, except for the Shinden-kai and the Emily.

Nothing more.

[Romantic Technofreak]

Dear Greg, I did not want to critcize you. My thoughts were only for completion.;)
Of course, ickysdad and B-24 (thank you), I know that my speculations need not to be more than fantasy. But I think it is very logical to say that Britain would have not been able to resist a concentrated attack of all three major Axis states in 1940, and without Britain, not only as an ally, but keeping a big number of world-strategic possessions, even for the USA it would have been hard to gain more than a stalemate against the Axis.
In my four "Scourges of the Seas" topics, I speculate how an Axis victory over the Allied naval powers could have taken place.

For a comparison, I would suggest to open "duel" topics between the mentioned planes by ickysdad (and more) and some Japanese X-planes, and time by time I am going to do that myself. Although, about X-planes it surely is impossible to gain roll and turn rates (hey Greg, is my link in the other thread in any way sufficient for you?[?])

One last comment about Japanese radial engines: Once I read that the Nakajima Homare 11 engines of the Yokosuka P1Y Ginga were also hard to maintain, what reduced the servicability of the aircraft considerably.

[GregP]

Hi RT,

The link is very good, but the roll rates are most probably assumed, as are the turn rates. Most WWII fighters have pre-WWII airfoils and pre-WWII aerodynamics. That means a SLOW rate of roll compared with modern aircraft and some pretty LARGE changes in trim with speed changes.

For instance, a Tempest could be easily out-rolled by a Spitfire at slow speeds, but the Tempest could out-roll a Spitfire when the speeds got high.

Since I have not found the rates of turn and roll at any other site or reference, I cannot accept rates of turn and roll from a gaming site. They are probably applied with an eye toward even flying qualities.

As for turn rates (same as ° per second) a Zero could get on the tail of a Wildcat in real life in ONE loop from level flight at 250 mph). This characteristic is not evident in the gaming site.

So, I am still in search of accurate turning comparisons in real ° per second. Ickysdad has sent me some documents that may help.

If so, I will share my findings. If not, I will refrain from speculation in the absence of facts. I like a good argument, but wish to argue from a position of knowledge.

I'll shut up about roll and turn rates until I can find some FACTS.

In any case, thanks RT!

[B-24WillowRun]

Our discussion is going well, but the aircraft we are talkig about have limited combat proformance, well some of the X-planes and then ones like the P-47M. ;)

[ickysdad]

The P-47M & P-72 limited performance????????

[Romantic Technofreak]

I think B-24 means "combat experience". Of course, when we make "what iffing" about planes that never saw combat we have to deal with assumptions.
Of course, Ickysdad, the Axis sources were limited, while the Allied, esp. the US ones, look immeasurable. The USA had 10 million men in uniform and still produced the A-bomb, the B-29, the Essex and later Midway class carriers, the Liberty ships and and and and and... . We won´t find out, in a discussion forum, how near to the edge the Allied resources were (I tried already in my "The Best and its Preconditions" thread). So, just let´s continue a "never ending discussion" about this, o.k.?[8D]

[B-24WillowRun]

RT -max production, but we are getting pritty thin. But that is for another topic, yes? To continue why not set up some frame for the discussion? :)

[Romantic Technofreak]

B24, war economy is a very difficult thing, I think too difficult for a general duscussion here. We all are only semi-historians here (maybe except Robert), spending some free time for interesting topics. But this kind of work needs hard studies and very tricky argumentations, and I fear we just can´t gain the knowledge for doing that. Although we can try, if specific themes are given.

[B-24WillowRun]

True, but then I will back off and say that the US production was booming and the Japanese production was being picked appart. They could not move things to new areas that were safe. Germany and Russia were able to move production to safe areas, but Japan was not. Even with Manturia and Eastern China they did not try to get factories there to my understanding. The islands were slowly being picked clean of any type of production.:(

[zerox]

i saw the show to and it said pycrite i8s as hard as concrete and can richochet bullets.

[gweggles]

Ahh the 'History' channel and it's dodgy research...I saw one program that described the attack on Darwin by the Japanese as a singular event...Darwin was 'Pearled' 65 times! Time and time again the subject being talked about doesn't match up with the images..the T34/KV1 example fully summing up another person's point here.
Another one describing a commando raid by Aussies (my father was in this very raid) at Balikpapan, Borneo as being relatively minor...it was the actual reason we were able to 'take' Borneo.
Sadly...to the rest of the world watching these programs further adds to the notion of insular America..as tho WWII was won singlehandedly by John Wayne storming Omaha Beach with a loose fitting helmet and a Cuban hanging out his mouth....LOL!
There's a whole other world out there History Channel 'researchers'...you might wish to take a look!

[gweggles]

I take great exception to Romantic Technofreak's point 2 in his posit. I Japan wasn't hell bent on invading Australia, why then the 65 raids on Darwin AND the mini sub attacks in Sydney in may '42. That's a hell of a lot of hardware to throw out for a recon run surely?
Macarthur himself had drawn up what was called the 'Brisbane Line', allowing Japanese invasion a good thousand miles south of our northernmost regions. We basically said to him "Hey China...how would you feel if you let Tojo come as far east as Minnesota?! Because that's the kind of distances we're talking here." DO THE RESEARCH!

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by gweggles

I take great exception to Romantic Technofreak's point 2 in his posit. I Japan wasn't hell bent on invading Australia, why then the 65 raids on Darwin AND the mini sub attacks in Sydney in may '42. That's a hell of a lot of hardware to throw out for a recon run surely?...


Hmmm. I missed that. It's true Japan did indeed want to invade. (Austrailia) Through the cob webs of my memory I'm pretty sure there were instances of invasion flotillas being repelled or taken out while in the beginning stages of formation.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by gweggles

I take great exception to Romantic Technofreak's point 2 in his posit. I Japan wasn't hell bent on invading Australia, why then the 65 raids on Darwin AND the mini sub attacks in Sydney in may '42. That's a hell of a lot of hardware to throw out for a recon run surely?
Macarthur himself had drawn up what was called the 'Brisbane Line', allowing Japanese invasion a good thousand miles south of our northernmost regions. We basically said to him "Hey China...how would you feel if you let Tojo come as far east as Minnesota?! Because that's the kind of distances we're talking here." DO THE RESEARCH!

Sorry gweggles you are wrong. The Japanese army was interested in invading Australia but the navy (who would have to get them here) was not. The battle in PNG was over control of that area (then legally Australia ... which is why the militia could be sent). With New Guinea occupied and the Pacific Islands through Fiji occupied Australia would be cut off and useless.
The Japanese army moving south was actually quite small and entering Australia would have been a dumb move. N of Brisbane it would have been like invading Russia. At that time sugar cane and diffuse cattle properties and few enough other resources ... and good tank country. I live N of the Brisbane line. It is (or can quickly be made) hard country.

[gweggles]

Gee...all those 65 raids on Darwin huh? Sounds very much like prepatory for invasion...sure as a the most obvious supply port to New Guinea, Darwin is the bomb, but why then that screaming misadventure into Sydney? Heck the 1st official Japanese POW was taken by a Melville Islander, a twelve year old no less...Darwin control had done the classic Pearl and ignored the warnings coming from advance radio bases, to wit..one Zero shot down over Melville, pilot parachutes into a clearing, mum with child sees someone coming from the sky and bolts..leaving child....pilot is nursing child then hears "Stick em up Mister!" then promptly frog marched back to Melville base by a 12 yo Melville Islander holding a stick!
Meanwhile in Darwin, upper eshelons of Aussie military scarper south, leaving the majors and the captains to hold ground; they found a brigadier in Adelaide....LOL! Check a docco called 'No gongs no glory' re the POW story....

[Ricky]

Was there really any Japanese intention to invade Australia? All the maps etc I have seen of their planned 'Japanese zone' in the Pacific stopped at New Guinea. As pointed out before, Invading Australia would have been really very dumb - essentially another China as far as the Japanese were concerned (though with a smaller population;)).

I don't doubt that the Allies thought that Australia was a target - they would have been criminally stupid not to have prepared - but that doesn't mean that it was.

As for there being 65 raids on Darwin - that is almost certainly because it is an important port that played a big role in the logistics of the New Guinea campaign. Look how often Tobruk was plastered (by both sides) even when it was deep behind enemy lines.

[gweggles]

Hmm..funny..I didnt stop Hilter invading Russia, never mind the lesson of Napoleon, see what dodgy mysticism and a history of convenience can for you? LOL! Thus the landscape argument if fairly superfluous as regards, as is most of this thread actually.
Another great 'what if'..the one reason the Nazis were so sucessful was down to the Czech tanks they'd seized (that and the old blitzkrieg of course), they were superior to the panzer Is and IIs, and even at the end of it all...they were numerically outnumbered by the Allies of the time.
Ironic eh..Iraq I and Iraq II ( I dont call them the 'Gulf War's because the original one was Iran/Iraq in the 80s)...not even the BBC would call the allied tactics blitzkrieg, yet ironically I was vindicated by the History Channel by a program of the very same name, wherein they drew the obvious parralels between Nazi tactics and US tactics....LOL!

[ChrisMcD]

You do wonder how much the Japanese war plan was based on an economics geography textbook.

They went to war because the US denied them oil and scrap iron.

They went south to get the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies - so good you could burn it in a battleship without refining.

Western Australia is now the biggest supplier of iron ore to both China and Japan.

What I do not know is how well known the iron deposits were in 1940, but they are open cast so hardly hidden and that fact that Oz is full of minerals is hardly news.

Nobody ever said that the Japanese are not logical.

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by gweggles

Hmm..funny..I didnt stop Hilter invading Russia, never mind the lesson of Napoleon, see what dodgy mysticism and a history of convenience can for you? LOL! Thus the landscape argument if fairly superfluous as regards, as is most of this thread actually.

It is true that a decision being dumb does not mean that it won't be taken. However, do you know of any definate intention by the Japanese to invade Australia? So far your claim is based on 65 air raids and a handful of midget sub attacks.

[Double T]

Based on my readings--and the fact the Japanese were intoxicated by their early victories--I would assert they would have added Australia to their East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere if the opportunity presented itself. Whether that would have been ill-advised is another discussion in itself...
USN forces were pushed back to Darwin as it was, and the victories in New Guinea would have made much resupply--and the ability to wage war in that region--difficult at best, and perhaps unlikely. Was that not the reason that Guadalcanal became the Allies "Line in the Sand?"
I'm of the belief that the only weapon to make a real difference at that point in the Pacific War was the presence of USN Gato-class fleet subs and the smaller S-series boats that kept the Japanese honest... bad torpedoes or not.
The Japanese were dependent on their merchant fleet of Maru's for supply of vital resources to fuel their war-machine. The United States had a decided advantage in that respect.

Tim

[gweggles]

Ricky..my 'claim' is based on the fact my father was involved in this..he was a commando in WWII, along with myriad other convos with other local vets.
The eternal 'bang on' about the infamy of Pearl gets a wee bit tiring compared to the constant attacks on Darwin, yet that is rarely touched on apart from here.
The very fact the warning signals were ignored shows up the West's arrogance of the time...need I mention Singapore?!!! LOL!
Thus is why Bob Menzies (Au's PM at the outbreak of war in '39) was called 'Pig Iron Bob' (He was Australia's longest serving PM with an unhealthy obsession re the queen! LOL!)...the waterside workers christened him 'Pig iron Bob' because they refused to sell scrap iron to the Japanese in 1938.
Hell I remember mum telling me how the Australian government were even offered sale of the zero prior to 41, but a mix of round eye arrogance and loyalty to an empire soon to be lost nipped that one in the bud....and for the record..she was in the airforce during WWII..wireless operator.

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Double T

Based on my readings--and the fact the Japanese were intoxicated by their early victories--I would assert they would have added Australia to their East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere if the opportunity presented itself. Whether that would have been ill-advised is another discussion in itself...
USN forces were pushed back to Darwin as it was, and the victories in New Guinea would have made much resupply--and the ability to wage war in that region--difficult at best, and perhaps unlikely. Was that not the reason that Guadalcanal became the Allies "Line in the Sand?"
I'm of the belief that the only weapon to make a real difference at that point in the Pacific War was the presence of USN Gato-class fleet subs and the smaller S-series boats that kept the Japanese honest... bad torpedoes or not.
The Japanese were dependent on their merchant fleet of Maru's for supply of vital resources to fuel their war-machine. The United States had a decided advantage in that respect.

Tim

You know, I think it was some reading about the Fifth Air Force's Gen. Kenny and his murderous, field modified Mitchell bombers that touched upon the urgency of destroying shipping especially "invasion" barges and just about anything that floated to stave off invasion threats to Austrailia especially Port Moresby.

[Double T]

Trexx:
I agree that the innovative skip-bombing techniques and "Pappy Gunn" armed B-25s made invaluable contributions during those desperate times. Some of those B-25s were actually liberated Dutch aircraft that were pressed into USAAF service when the Germans overran their homeland if I recall.

Tim

[curmudgeon]

Sigh ... buy an atlas.

1) Darwin was an almost unsuppliable part of Australia ... very poor roads, largely impassable in the monsoon, no railway, dependent on sea transport. Of course Gibraltar also had supply problems!
2) Darwin is close to Indonesia (then Dutch East Indies) - it was being used as a base for long range aircraft and submarines operating in the Indonesian archipelago. After the air raids the submarines based in Freemantle, a significant deployment cost.
3) Darwin also represented one strategic point on the Indian Ocean, an area the Japanese wished to clear (hence their fleet sweep to Sri Lanka (Ceylon)). Darwin was hit as the fleet passed by ... plus some long range stuff

4) The New Guinea campaign was supported from the east coast of Australia - Sydney, Brisbane and Townsville. Townsville became one of the largest airbases in the world as it was the fitting out and repair base for the SWP theater (McArthur's command). Townsville was also subjected to some token nuisance bombing from Rabaul.
5) The Sydney attacks were an attempt to take out fleet elements that could have been expected to be there (the mini sub got a moored ferry, but it was aiming for a cruiser) as well as to create FUD

In the 1940s Australia's known mineral resources were confined to the southern area ... the Pilbara iron was only discovered in the 1960s, and took decades to exploit.

[gweggles]

Dont bloody patronize me Curmie..fair suck of the sav mate! Geo's one of my strong points...I take my research direct as opposed to 1942 blogs...LOL!

[Trexx]

Arguabley, The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere that was touted by the Bushido-Buddists undoubtedly called for the submission of Austrialia. And not just part. The whole bloody thing, Sparky.