Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: DivePac88
It is a well known fact that the Japanese aircraft industry in WW2 sucked, so I think if you restricted the Japanese player to historical output, then nobody is going to want to play as Japan

I'd be happy to see Japanese Tony production no better than Allied P38 production, myself... when its ten times as much (and five times higher than reality) I think something is up!

It's countered by P47s blowing through them like they were smoke, but thats ahistorical as well.

it´s all that easy. If the Japanese player in a PBEM achieves only (or even achieves less) than what was conquered in real life and if the Allied achieves (or achieves more) with his subs what was achieved in real life than there´s no way at all to see a Japanese production being out of the whack. When you see those numbers you state than it´s because either the Japanese have conquered the whole map (which has to be questioned anyway) or they have stopped parts of their ship production or whatever other production. What you shouldn´t forget also is that while the Japanese player is building hundreds of Tonies, or Jacks, or Franks or Frances, he probably won´t build hundreds of Zeroes, Oscars, Nates, Betties or whatever at the same time too. I´m one of the more or less succesful players usually when taking over the Japanese and I can tell you (and my AARs) prove it, that the TOTAL number of Japanese aircraft I produce are LOWER than the TOTAL number of Japanese aircraft produced in real life.

Hard to imagine but that´s how it is. Of course the question remains if the Japanese aircraft industry would have been able to build those numbers of "top notch" aircraft. I would say no. But play this game and take on Corsairs with Nates in mid 43. Have fun with the game, you can only play it against the AI then. Not just because you wouldn´t find a Japanese PBEM player, guess there wouldn´t be a sense to play the Allied side either.

Wrecking havoc with the Allied in PBEM (even more so against the AI) is no problem at all. Those claims that always come up that the Japanese is totally overpowered industrial wise only comes from a couple of AARs that see a Japanese going totally out of the line. Like in my ongoing PBEM, it´s end 43 and I´m still on the offensive. Usually, the Allied kill off the Japanese in 44. More than in real life as the usual PBEM won´t see 45 due to a totally trashed Japanese industry, Navy, Airforce, etc.

When you take PBEMs as the prove if something is ok or not than 9 out of 10 PBEMs show you that the Allied "win" far earlier than they did in real life.

I think I saw several internet sources that claimed IJ plane production was some 76,000. I don't know if that included pre-war production or not. As well, though IJ didn't have to face the entire USA air force, the USA plane production was like 3.5X greater. 76,000 planes in less than 4 years of war (though a good chunk of that may had been pre-war) isn't shabby at all. If that 'were' total WWII production, you're looking at like 20,000 planes a year; over 1,500 planes a month. EVEN if IJ can manage 600 of one type of fighter aircraft ingame, that's still FAR less than the average monthly totals. Even if only 48,000 were produced during the war, that's still 1,000 a month, still easily fitting in 600 of one fighter type. Like you said, the IJ player can modify a lot of near useless production to bring totals up still in very specific areas. The only arguement against 600 of any one fighter clearly shouldn't be that they couldn't produce them, but that probably no nation hinged so much on any one particular aircraft, which in this case would hover around the 50% historical production figures a month.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I think I saw several internet sources that claimed IJ plane production was some 76,000. I don't know if that included pre-war production or not. As well, though IJ didn't have to face the entire USA air force, the USA plane production was like 3.5X greater. 76,000 planes in less than 4 years of war (though a good chunk of that may had been pre-war) isn't shabby at all. If that 'were' total WWII production, you're looking at like 20,000 planes a year; over 1,500 planes a month.

IIRC that figure does include 39-41 production.

[Subchaser]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I think I saw several internet sources that claimed IJ plane production was some 76,000.

Japan produced 53734 aircraft in 1942-1945, most of them in 1944 – 28180, for Japan in ’44 this was not bad at all, USSR for comparison produced 40300 planes the same year (with industry safe and well supplied). Japanese a/c production experienced 70% increase between 1942 and 1944. 28180 is impressive figure in such circumstances, but one should not forget that more than 20% of those were trainers, totally out of scope in witp, so monthly rate was about 1600-1800 of combat aircraft.

[jwilkerson]

Some production figures include "trainers" and some do not - so you must be careful to distinguish. Most nations built a LOT of trainers like around 1/3rd. Neither WITP nor AE include trainers.

[Subchaser]

I’ve just said the same thing.

IJ a/c production in 1944

Fighters - 13811
Attack aircraft – 5100
Recons – 2147
Trainers – 6147
Auxiliary – 975
All together - 28180 a/c

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I think I saw several internet sources that claimed IJ plane production was some 76,000. I don't know if that included pre-war production or not. As well, though IJ didn't have to face the entire USA air force, the USA plane production was like 3.5X greater. 76,000 planes in less than 4 years of war (though a good chunk of that may had been pre-war) isn't shabby at all. If that 'were' total WWII production, you're looking at like 20,000 planes a year; over 1,500 planes a month.

IIRC that figure does include 39-41 production.

Yes, they may just decide since WWII started officially in '39, even if you weren't part of that war, but ended up being a part of it later, they would include figures from '39 onwards.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I think I saw several internet sources that claimed IJ plane production was some 76,000.

Japan produced 53734 aircraft in 1942-1945, most of them in 1944 – 28180, for Japan in ’44 this was not bad at all, USSR for comparison produced 40300 planes the same year (with industry safe and well supplied). Japanese a/c production experienced 70% increase between 1942 and 1944. 28180 is impressive figure in such circumstances, but one should not forget that more than 20% of those were trainers, totally out of scope in witp, so monthly rate was about 1600-1800 of combat aircraft.

So the war total would be roughly 1,174 per month including trainers. I think you're counting only 3 years. I'm counting about 45 months instead of 36, which must be how you're getting the higher figure. Still, even with 1,174, even at a 30% trainer rate, which you say is incorrect for IJ, 600 fighters of one type monthly is quite easy. IJ didn't do that needless to say, but the IJ player emporer can and at least has historical gross production figures to back it up.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

I’ve just said the same thing.

Right - just consider my words to be "emphasis" !!!
[:)]

[Subchaser]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I think I saw several internet sources that claimed IJ plane production was some 76,000.

Japan produced 53734 aircraft in 1942-1945, most of them in 1944 – 28180, for Japan in ’44 this was not bad at all, USSR for comparison produced 40300 planes the same year (with industry safe and well supplied). Japanese a/c production experienced 70% increase between 1942 and 1944. 28180 is impressive figure in such circumstances, but one should not forget that more than 20% of those were trainers, totally out of scope in witp, so monthly rate was about 1600-1800 of combat aircraft.

So the war total would be roughly 1,174 per month including trainers. I think you're counting only 3 years. I'm counting about 45 months instead of 36, which must be how you're getting the higher figure. Still, even with 1,174, even at a 30% trainer rate, which you say is incorrect for IJ, 600 fighters of one type monthly is quite easy. IJ didn't do that needless to say, but the IJ player emporer can and at least has historical gross production figures to back it up.

1600-1800 (combat a/c) is an average rate for 1944 only, the year when Japanese a/c output raised to its peak. But it’s a bit pointless task trying to figure out an average monthly production rate, there are so many different factors here that make any statistical result misleading and out of the context. While the use of number of aircraft rather than airframe weight tends to underemphasize increase of output somewhat in the USA and overemphasize it in Germany, in Japan the relationship between airframe weight and number of planes produced remained almost constant during the war years. In US, the shift to 4-engined bombers towards the end of the war tended to result in a decline in the monthly output of planes by number, whereas total weight produced increased. In Germany, the shift away from bombers to fighters resulted in an increase in number in 1944 while weight remained steady. In Japan, though there was a shift from bombers to fighters, the early bombers were very light while the trend in fighters was toward heavier, better protected types, so one balanced the other.

Japanese a/c output was actually adequate to meet their war needs. The real problem was their a/c industry management and IJA/IJN strategic planning. The irony for Japanese was that when in 1943 the good pilots were still available they had to use inferior planes and were killed, while, by the end of 1944 when the better planes were becoming available, pilot training had to be severely cut because of insufficient number of trainers and the fuel shortage, and then poor pilots were slaughtered in a lot better planes. When in 1942-early 43 they still had a luxury to produce more trainers and less fighters of obsolete types they opted for more such fighters, in 1944 they’ve finally got some good fighter designs and were ready to produce them in numbers, they found out that they had no adequate pilots to operate these new aircraft, so the losses became even higher and thus hard-earned increase in a/c production was simply nullified. Number of ground personnel and supporting units also did not increase properly by 1944, given the troublesome nature of most Japanese engines, it was a real handicap.

If you have enough capacities to produce 600 Tony airframes and 600 kawasaki engines per month (IIRC Kawasaki produced more than 400 Ki-61 airframes somewhere in 1944) this doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll get 600 new Ki-61s boost next month. The key here and that should really be used as historic reference for such matters is a number of fully operational a/c in first-line combat units. The following chart indicates the total first-line combat strength of all US airpower pitted against first-line combat strength of the Japanese units in PTO, on four successive dates.

------------USA------Japan

Jan. 1943 - 3537 / 3200 = 1,1 : 1
Jan. 1944 - 11442 / 4050 = 2,8 : 1
Jan. 1945 - 17976 / 4600 = 3,9 : 1
July 1945 - 21908 / 4100 = 5,3 : 1

As you can see the dramatic 70% increase in a/c production in 1944 did not change much for the first line japanese units. If your air force and air industry do not act as a single mechanism, all efforts will be futile.

[tigercub]

I have all the production numbers pre war and during for aircraft,Source :Japanese Aircraft of the pacific by R.j.Francillon 1970

Total aircraft production 1941-45 including gliders 69,888,just combat aircraft 52,242

The book source: United states strategic bombing survey

This Book has easily been the best source of Japanese aircraft information i have ever seen.
It has every type of Japanese built, numbers built,armament layouts and so on and on
but did not tell me all i wanted about Kates and Vals but it seems Shattered Sword claim that only 56 carrier attack aircraft were built in all 1942 is just Rubbish and the fact i can find this out in 24 hours chatting to people here says a lot to this forum and a lack of effort in this reguard by the Shattered Sword Writers.

Tiger!

[treespider]

Just to my own horn....back oh 3 years or so ago...


See Post #32

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

There is an error in Shattered Sword I think. According to Munitions Ministry Documents (Seikocha v4. Koku Seiki Sokyoku Gatami) 126 B5N2 were produced in 1942. USSBS gives almost the same figure - 125

USSBS Corporation Report No.V Apendix C
Aichi Ettoru Factory B5N Actual Production in 1942
June – 2; July – 2; August – 3; September – 8;
October – 9; November – 13; December – 18
Total – 55 B5Ns
USSBS Corporation Report No.XIX Apendix B
11th Naval Arsenal B5N Actual Production in 1942
April – 5; May – 5; June – 5; July – 5; August – 10
September – 10; October – 10; November – 10; December – 10
Total – 70 B5Ns

Some sources indicate that Nakajima produced one more B5N2 in september 1942, special variant with fully protected fuel tanks of reduced capacity, aircraft ended up in service with Zuikaku air group. It seems unlikely but what if Parshall and Alsleben somehow missed the data for 11th arsenal? They’ve accepted 55 Kates produced by Aichi as a complete figure for 1942 and added that mysterious Kate produced by Nakajima, and here you go – 56 Kates in 1942.

The last paragraph on the page 89 leaves wrong impression. They actually say there that Japan produced just 56 carrier attack aircraft, both dive and torpedo bombers. This figure is wrong. Japan produced 348 carrier attack aircraft in 1942, 126 Kates and 222 Vals.

Subchaser, thank you for your informative posts in this thread. You may well be right in what you say above about B5N production in 1942. Just to stir the pot a bit, I expect you will also have noticed the graph on p.19 of USSBS Corporation Report XIX (Army Air Arsenal/Naval Air Depot production), which compares G2 intelligence with actual production figures and suggests an actual production figure for 1942 of 150 B5N against G2's estimate of about 165. If that should happen to be correct, it could imply production of an extra 25 or so machines beyond those accounted for by Aichi and 11th NAD production.

However, it's difficult to know what to make of that graph, not least because it seems to relate to production at 11th NAD alone. In that case I can't see a way of reconciling the graph plot with the figures you cite as to actual monthly B5N production at 11th NAD (or, for that matter, the figures for 1943). I rather discounted the graph because of the greater detail in the monthly production figures.

Internal inconsistencies like these in the USSBS prompt doubts about the reliability of its data. Such doubts are not diminished by other (admittedly minor) inconsistencies such as spelling of names; thus the Aichi factory near Nagoya is variously rendered as Eitoko, Eitoku, Ettori/Ettoru (last one is down to indistinct printing). The absence of proof-reading sufficient to catch such errors doesn't inspire confidence in the accuracy of other information supplied.

I think you do P and T a slight disservice. The last paragraph on page 89 of Shattered Sword refers quite specifically to production of 56 carrier attack aircraft in 1942. They may well have understated the true figure for B5N production, but I didn't understand them to have conflated production of both carrier attack and carrier bomber a/c into this figure, given their clear understanding of the distinction between these aircraft types.

OTOH I think you are spot on with your observations about the irony of excellent aircrew being lost whilst flying in obsolescent machines in 1943, leaving only mediocre crews for the 1944 generation a/c. That said, it may be harsh to blame this on either the armed forces or the procurement bureaucracy, when a significant cause may have been prolongation of new models' development. For example, the fact that B5N production had been shut down by 1942 in anticipation of the Tenzan's introduction suggests that sound Japanese intentions of bringing improved machines into service may have been frustrated by problems in the aircraft's development - that certainly seems to have been the case with the Suisei.

[Nikademus]

I woudn't be so dismissive of the authors because of a probable error. Even professional authors are human and can make mistakes. They also forward opinions...not all that one has to agree with. In general i found the book good though i do think that the authors went a little overboard at times trying to find new relevent info on the battle.

Overall a fine analysis though. I think it's in softcover now.....so cheaper! [:D]

[spence]

Say what you want about the figures in the book (SS). The fact remains that the IJN was scrounging airframes to fill out it carrier airgroups at the time of Midway and even thereafter. Zuikaku sat out the game for lack of airframes as well as aircrew. Ryujo and Junyo borrowed airframes from the 6th Kokutai for their bit part in Aleutians. It speaks no good things at all about the IJN leadership that they went into the big fight with only a half a load of ammo by choice rather than by necessity.

[JeffroK]

Agreed Nikademus,
 
Though in a publication where they are tilting at long held beliefs I think they should have been a bit more careful in (in this case) thier addition or the clarity in the message.
 
In reading the passage (not just the relevant sentance) I got the feel they were pointing out the overall low complement of attack aircraft because of the dismal production in the homeland.
 
Its a great book, and given the relative lack of available data excellent. (Far better than many of the re-hashes of DDay, Bulge, Kursk etc)

[tigercub]

Aircrew of the things that SHATTERED SWORD did bring to light for me was the light losses of Aircrew in the battle of midway as an apposite to what i had been Told before this book,of the 480 aircrew only 110 were lost in the battle! Less than 25%

Tiger!

[Charles2222]

subchaser: Oh, okay, that was the '44 average. In terms of WITP, 600 Tonies a month could not be produced, unless you had 600 of the corresponding engines (or, you might say, what's a frame without an engine?), so obviously any player who literally does that, has boosted the kawasaki engine output to make it possible. Historic IJ didn't produce 600 Tonies a month, and it's almost as unlikely it was producing that many kawasaki engines, but then the supreme player emporer can change a lot of things to hopefully make a better match for the allies than the historic IJ did.

Actually, I think that july '45 figure for IJ is dramatically wrong. According to one source I have, and I have seen much higher, IJ had 10,700 planes ready for Operation Olympic, half of which were kamikaze. All of them may not had qualified as 'front-line' aircraft, especially since half of them were one shot kamikazes, but even the conventional air available exceeded the july figure alone. For Olympic, the USA was considered to have 9,000 planes. OTOH, Operation Olympic wasn't scheduled until 11/1/45, so maybe the figures I have seen was an estimate of IJ production of aircraft keeping apace until then. Notice also how the july USA figure fell from over 21,000 to 9,000. IJ could bring a great deal of front line aircraft to the battle, whereas the USA could not. The source does not go into any IJ planes elsewhere, as it focuses only on that proposed invasion.

[tigercub]

What this book did under line for me now was that pilots were not as big a problem as has been made out but Airframes were in very short supply for the Navy.Because after midway they had Aircrew but only 1 large working carrier 1 more damaged from coral sea and not many air frames to speak about.

Tiger!

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Shattered Sword is an extremely good read and I found it very illuminating, but its a bit... pop history?  I wouldn't take it as absolute gospel.

By the way EU I thought you woud get a kick out of the following. I was reading this thread when my youngest daughter walked by, glanced over my shoulder, and happened to see your picture of that puppy. She has asked me about getting a puppy now at least 5 times [:)]

[Dili]

Oops! too late.