Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

Japanese Aircraft in Europe


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,701 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 5 Months and 29 Days
  • 188 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 27 December 2017 - 04:01 PM

     Is there any aircraft that was used by the Japanese that might have

performed better in the ETO than their German counterparts?

 

     If this topic has been posted before, void where prohibited by law.

 

A small list comes to mind.

1. J2M3 bomber interceptor.

2. Fast reconnaissance Ki.46?

3. Nakajima Ki.84 with German engineering in early 1944?

4. Graf Zeppelin loaded with 20 A6M2?



#2 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,300 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 4 Months and 17 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 27 December 2017 - 10:00 PM

Europe was a high-altitude war, so-forced by the Germans.

 

Had the Germans been operating Japanese aircraft, it would have been a medium to low altitude war, and the entire thrust of the German war would have changed. I don't know if this would have forced the UK / USA side to change tactics, but I suspect so. The Bf 109 was a very good dogfighter at 270 mph, but not as good as a Zero at that speed. On the other hand, it could take more punishment than a Zero.

 

I don't believe most single Japanese types would have done as well at European-type fighting, but it would have excelled at dogfighting in the intermediate altitudes. The J2M-3 might have done well, especially given a supply of well-made engines, but it wasn't especially fast by European standards. It DID have a good climb rate, good maneuverability, and good armament. The Ki-46 was a good plane for what it did, and would have done well in Europe initially, but not when 1,000 fighters are roaming about looking for prey, as in late-war.

 

I think that had they changed planes altogether, both sides would have done well by adapting to a different war style in the air, but not by piecemeal exchange being integrated into the then- existing Luftwaffe/IJA/IJN. I'm sure opinions will vary on this.

 

Interesting conjecture, though.



#3 flying kiwi

flying kiwi

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 691 posts
  • Joined 8 Years
  • 5 topics

Posted 27 December 2017 - 11:11 PM

I have read that the Zero could have had a major effect on the Battle of Britain with its long range. Given that it entered Japanese service at about the beginning of the BoB, it would have been difficult to have them in Europe in the numbers required. Its long range over unpatrolled maritime expanses may also not have equated to long range over a country studded with fighter airfields. The speed necessary to be ready for combat would have cut the range down, perhaps drastically.



#4 Armand

Armand

    About the same age as another old Fokker: The F-27

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,678 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 11 Months and 30 Days
  • 114 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 28 December 2017 - 01:29 AM

I have read that the Zero could have had a major effect on the Battle of Britain with its long range. Given that it entered Japanese service at about the beginning of the BoB, it would have been difficult to have them in Europe in the numbers required. Its long range over unpatrolled maritime expanses may also not have equated to long range over a country studded with fighter airfields. The speed necessary to be ready for combat would have cut the range down, perhaps drastically.


I consider the range percieved as flying time, hence a barrier of Zero's relieved every third hour could have hung above the Continental side of the Channel awaiting bombers crossing over :-o

#5 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,996 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 11 Months
  • 138 topics

Posted 28 December 2017 - 04:45 AM

Would Japanese fighters have been helpful to the Germans on their Eastern Front? They did struggle with the low-level Soviet dogfighters...

#6 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,701 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 5 Months and 29 Days
  • 188 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 28 December 2017 - 09:55 PM

Would Japanese fighters have been helpful to the Germans on their Eastern Front?

 

OFF TOPIC! But would make a great thread in itself. ;)

 

They did struggle with the low-level Soviet dogfighters...

 

Open a new thread Ricky and then let the games begin. :)



#7 Romantic Technofreak

Romantic Technofreak

    GOT Custodian

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,071 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 2 Months and 11 Days
  • 299 topics

Posted 29 December 2017 - 09:23 AM

Hi Jeff,

 

I only can comment to the list you made.

 

 

1. J2M3 bomber interceptor.

3. Nakajima Ki.84 with German engineering in early 1944?

For a late war scenario, as I stated in my "Scientific Approach" thread, Germany (and Italy) would have needed something to cope with the Mustang, especially with its high-altitude capabilities. Of course, the Axis powers should have regularly compared and exchanged their aircraft. But especially the Japanese were unwilling to do so.

Had there been a discussion in 1942/43 about what air war situation is to be expected in 1944, the Japanese types should have been considered also. I can imagine that the Ki-84 would have entered the ensemble of the best ones to be chosen, but I wonder if it had become the winner.

 

 

 2. Fast reconnaissance Ki.46?

As much as I mean to know, Germany was interested in the Dinah, but Japan did not give it away. It would have been necessary to compare it with other suitable aircraft of that role, like Bf 110, Me 410, Ar 240 and Ro 58. Also, as I stated in my "Duel G3M vs. Curtiss Hawk" thread, the Ki-46 was not suitable as fast bomber nor could it be equipped with BMW 801 engines. A Japanese "Mosquito" had been necessary, possibly a G3XM, looking like something in scale between Ki-46 and Ki-67. This competition shows the Ki-46 for itself would have had a difficult time to push through to be chosen.

 

 

4. Graf Zeppelin loaded with 20 A6M2?

There is no use in operating ONE carrier, no matter with what it is equipped. The better idea I mean is, to operate the (nearly) complete Japanese carrier force in the ATLANTIC!!!!
Suppose Hawaii is conquered by the Japanese, the Panama Canal is destroyed (by what?), and Britain is endangered. This makes the USA being forced to concentrate all their sea power in the Atlantic. There, the American ships run in front of bombs and torpedoes of Axis aircraft. Had the Axis performed this fight successfully, submarines and surfaces ships could cut off Britain completely from supplies, thus creating a good chance to win at all.

The other idea is, what range would the Zero have had with properly protected fuel tanks? Could such a Zero have escorted German bombers to the British Midland? Or, from Denmark, to Newcastle and back?

 

Just my thoughts! One thing in addition: In a proper Axis coalition war, I am sure the Kawanishi H8K Emily would have seen service in Europe.

 

Regards, RT



#8 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,701 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 5 Months and 29 Days
  • 188 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 29 December 2017 - 02:53 PM

Hi Jeff,

 

I only can comment to the list you made.

 

Why, did your brain suddenly shut down? Totally unlike you sir.

RT, the list I provided was just meant to give everyone a push in the right direction.

Oh, and I agree about the H8K. Best winged boat of WW2.



#9 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,701 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 5 Months and 29 Days
  • 188 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 29 December 2017 - 03:29 PM

Maybe I should have named the thread "Japanese Equipment in Europe"...?

Then we could consider 6-8 Japanese aircraft carriers and 6 Japanese battleships

along with several other Japanese ships. But then that would carry over into other

areas like guns, ammunition and armory. No, I don't think so. Those ideas are all

made to go into another thread.

 

This thread is relating to Japanese aircraft only. However, if Germany and possibly

Italy were to use said aircraft, they would have helped insure their reliability I believe.

OK then, with that being said imagine a Ki.84 being supplied with the quality of the

TAIC Frank I using 100 octane....The J2M would not have been shelved because

of its mediocre maneuverability (by IJAAF standards) and would could have nailed

the TAIC levels of performance at least 6 months earlier.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen this is a semi-what-if that could have easily happened if

Germany and Japan had had the kind of relationship the US and UK had developed

during the war. If it helps any, think of the Germans as having an equal to Winston

Churchill and Japan having there own F. D. Roosevelt. Now imagine what they

could have accomplished had they worked together better.

 

They give you a very dependable Ha.40 model 21 producing over 2,000 hp. powering a

Ki.84. Of course the supercharger has been modified slightly to give a higher full throttle

height. Yes, and then there is the testing of this aircraft with GM-1 boosting. The need

for such a fighter has pushed this timetable from March 1944 to December 1943. Just

in time to meet the Merlin Mustang III and Spitfire XIV threats.

 

As I said the excellent maneuverability ( by European standards) of the J2M3 along with

its incredible climbing ability have not gone un-noticed. The new German/Japanese

cooperation have enabled the introduction of this fighter and its entirely reliable Kasei 23

to be able to produce close to 2,000 hp. Its 4,950 fpm. early climb rate and its 420 mph.

top speed at 6,000 m. are proving invaluable.

 

Yes...No...?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users