Japan Is Not An Air Power

Leonard Engel must have gotton a job in Detroit after the war to advise them that the Japanese can not make good cars and electronics.

 

Well I see journalism hasn't changed much in 65 years.

 

Col............"Bing"

I don't believe since ever.

Read Science Fiction, soon to be Science fact. At least you wont need a BS detector, you already know it is.

What could you tell your boys? Your equipment is pathetic, your numbers are sparse, if you win any battle it will be a miracle, you'll most probably die for nothing in many horrible ways.

sign here

everybody did this PR (flag waver stuff)

I remember reading about German replacements arriving after "Cobras" bombing attacks. The non-com was directing the troops forward saying that your comrades are up ahead and they're waiting for you.

This was the truth, and also a lie. They were there alright, amongst craters and churned earth in dozens of pieces.

 

After careful reading, there is one aspect of the "Japan Is Not An Air Power" article that is accurate.
Japan didn't have the infrastracture to replace its losses in pilots. At least this goes for the Imperial Japanase Navy pilots. This was pointed out by the Japanese ace Saburu Sakai in his book.

 

After japanese lost most of its aviators during the pacific war and the americains coming to attack Okinawa they turned into a suicidal technique "The Kamikaze"

 

Yes, the Japanese did. I've been to the place where the first aircraft of Special Attack Corps took off.

 

Also some of the "facts" mentioned at the time were the Japanese could not fly properly because of their "eyes could not see straight"...

 

I don't know too much about the Japanese Air Force, but their navy certainly had excellent pilots until they were all killed at Midway and Philippine Sea

 

Lots of numbers, little appreciation of the real world. Wonder what this guy thought after Clark Field, or Raffles Square...

 

They didn't loose that many pilots at Midway. By the Philipine Sea they had already lost many of their older better pilots. The air battles around the "Canal" were where the IJN lost a big chunk of her expierianced pilots.

 

Actually, the author made a surprising number of quite accurate points, although his numbers were off particularly regarding total air strength and the IJN's carrier capacities. But this is understandable considering the Japanese penchant for pre-war secrecy.

His points regarding the numbers of pilots trained each year, the backwardness of the Japanese aviation industry, especially with regard to aircraft engines, the problems with bauxite supplies, the Japanese industrial system, and the limited numbers of Japanese with mechanical skills were all bang on, and these issues would come back to haunt the Japanese air forces during the war.

For example, the author's comment about ingenuity being required, even if you have been presented with blueprints, reminds me of the Japanese experience with the "Tony" which utilized a license built copy of the German DB601A engine. The Japanese not only were given the blueprints but also samples of actual engines. Yet Japanese industry could not reproduce the DB601A, a proven engine, to the same reliable standards as the German version, and the "Tony", an otherwise good aircraft, suffered as a result.

 

IIRC the JAAF had trained only 1,700 pilots in 30 years; losses at Nomonhan crippled it. By December 1941, the army flight schools were only graduating 750 pilots a year.

 

<slight derail>
This is an interesting point. How good were the Italian DB 601/605 copies? I know they had quantity problems, but were there quality problems? I've heard a lot of good things about the MC 20x and its buddies the R.200x and the G.5x, but don't have a lot of details.

Of course, the other big bunch of license-built V-12s was made by Packard, and we know how successful those were. (Strictly speaking, the DB60x series were inverted V-12s, iirc)

<end derail>

 

I quite agree with you. The article does contain some factual info though the one that stands out is its racial slur on the Japanese, which comes across today as humorous in a way.

 

I regret that I know next to nothing about WW II Italian military aviation. My information on the Japanese DB601 copies came from Eric Bergerud's "Fire in The Sky", the story of the air conflict between the Allies and Japan in the South Pacific. Bergerud also confirms many of the other points made by the author of "Japan is Not an Airpower".

Perhaps I lack sensitivity, but I detected no racial slurs in the article. The closest the author came, in my opinion, was the anecdotal story of the German pilot who beat the best Japanese pilots in simulated air combat. Some might take this as an implied reference to European's supposed racial superiority, however, the author seems to attribute this not to any racial traits, but to a lack of appreciation of the role of tactics in aerial combat. Again, Eric Bergerud makes the same point in his book; that Allied pilots, despite inferior aircraft, were often able to defeat the Japanese because of superior tactics and teamwork. In fact, I think the author of "Japan is Not an Airpower" went out of his way to show respect for Japanese pilots. He mentioned that their experience in China had led to much improved flying ability, and said, "In loyalty, courage and readiness to follow orders, the Japanese pilot is second to no one"

 

I'd have to agree with this, I'm not picking up the racial slurs either, just that, contrary to his statement about them being "second to none", they were in fact second to all! He talks about the lack of industry, lack of education etc. etc.
I'm thinking, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't you think that this could be just a propaganda article, to boost morale back home?

 

I really don't know what the author's motivation was in writing the article, but I don't think that, in January, 1941, most Americans suffered from low morale because of demonstrated Japanese capabilities in military aviation. The author had traveled in the Far East, and had apparently done some homework with reference to the Japanese air forces, and Japan in general. He seemed to understand at least some of the fundamental issues affecting effective use of airpower. I think it's quite possible the article was an honest attempt to report what the author thought he knew about the situation. As I stated earlier, many of the points the author makes about Japanese defects later proved to be quite true.

Hindsight, however, tells us that the author was proven wrong in some key areas, particularly the numbers of aircraft the Japanese could employ in attacking Western interests. But we must also be aware that the Japanese air forces gained some of their fearsome early war reputation not because they were ten feet tall, but because of incompetent Allied leadership, and air staffs, not to mention poorly trained Allied pilots. This was particularly true in the Philippines and Malaya/Singapore. When the JAAF and JNAF units began to encounter the Allies "first string" air units, they proved formidable, but certainly not unbeatable. For example, for USN and Marine pilots in the Pacific, at no time during WW II did the kill ratio versus Japanese pilots fall below 1:1 on a monthly basis, and in most months it was extremely favorable for the American pilots.

 

Yes, I was referring to the dogfight with the German. You guys are right. I used too strong a term.