10Dec41 – Tokyo; Imperial Quarters, Tatsumi Eiichi
Tatsumi was meeting with HIE and the Chancellor after the morning briefing. A number of topics had been covered. Finally, Tatsumi was able to broach the topic he wanted to for today.
So, this is what I have been working on the last few months in Berlin. It struck me there that the air war, as opposed to ground or naval, is going to be crucial. Yes, the Germans blitzkrieg requires ground elements, but it all starts with the air attacks. They set the tone, and control of the air is crucial. I spent most of the early morning hours with Jiro and Kiro reviewing this. While, they have some reservations, they do endorse this analysis. Let me present this to you with some explanations. Let's start with Jiro's "Eagles" as he calls them.
- "Eagle" Comparisons by role
- Screenshot 2025-07-30 064816 411207 Fighter Comp.jpg (66.89 KiB) Viewed 1020 times
Tatsumi: With Jiro and Kiro, we spent a fair amount of time going over the metrics used to create these comparisons. I won't state that they completely agreed with what I used, BUT they did agree that largely these rankings must be correct as changing the weights a bit had little effect and they did agree with the general characterizations of the aircraft.
Juji: I thought our A6M was the best fighter, over-powering is how it was described to me.
Tatsumi: The A6M is one of the very best escorts, which is what it was designed for. Also, note, it is
far better in this role than it's closest
Naval competitor. BUT, the other key role for fighters are Interceptors, meaning defenders, and there the allies are very strong. The P-39 and P-40 specifically, and they are accounting for our difficulties in both China and the Philippines. Now, we can see why. Also note that even as an interceptor, the A6M is the best naval fighter. Finally, note that the Ki-43, even in it's latest variant is always behind the A6M. The A6M is simply our best fighter in any and every role. Obviously Night Fighters is a new concept. My last thought to share is that both the Beaufighter and the Blenheim are 2E Fighters. They are grading high at this point due to speed and DUR, however, more recent performance from Europe suggests that in a dogfight with heavily armed 1E fighters, they come off very poorly. I built this with help from our German allies who believe in their 2E fighter design (Me110). You might want to ignore those 2 entries for now until we get more data on this.
- Bomber Comparisons by role
- Screenshot 2025-07-30 064816 411207 Bomber Comp.jpg (72.09 KiB) Viewed 1020 times
Level and Night Bombing, well let's just say that Jiro's comment was "And I argued vehemently that the G4M project needs to be a 4E design, but was overruled." The chart agrees with him. We are in trouble here. Payload is our biggest problem. We spend all that resource to put the bomber over target, and we get little payback in comparison to the allied 4E bombers. Even their primary 2E bomber, the B-25 is better.
Dive Bomber: Known disaster here. Kiro already had this as one of his highest priorities and this just validates it. Again, biggest issue is bomb load is too small to have effect.
Torpedo Bomber: Ahh, where we have excellence. Note though that the allies are clearly moving away from this. The Germans thought the reason wasn't the effectiveness of the torpedo, but rather that the losses are too high on approach. The allies feel that a Dive Bomber with big enough bomb got more successful attacks with similar damage. This is something that must be watched carefully, and we need more recent inputs from our Naval Commanders. Radio silence right now with the KB is a major hindrance on recent attack tactics and results.
- Other Comparisons by role
- Screenshot 2025-07-30 064816 411207 Other Comp.jpg (70.17 KiB) Viewed 1020 times
Now to our last group, but not the least.
Recon: Even as dated as it is, our C5M/Ki-15 is the premier design. Why do the allies not put more into this? We're not sure, but we believe because they rely on SigInt.
Transports: As you know the L2D is a licensed version of the DC-3, so they are actually a tie. There is a BIG step between the 2nd and 3rd position here, and 3 - 10 are all about the same. Jiro pointed out that the L3Y design has unique range capability. I may have to factor that higher, because as you know, our Philippine assault was completely predicated upon it's ability to reach the Naga base from Formosa. That would move it up to 3rd with all of the Army transports lagging. The Naval TP's are clearly the best.
Patrol: Yes, the H6K is the dominant patrol plane, BUT the allied PBY is almost as good and literally half the cost as it is 2E versus the H6K 4E. However the cost, we are competitive.
Bomber Killer: I added this in at the insistence of my German partners. Quote: "If you ignore the allied 4E bombers it will be to your detriment. They are EXTREMELY rugged." This is where firepower, climb, and speed matter most. We don't have a solution for this. The A6M is our best answer, but as you can see, it doesn't even make the list. They also emphasized that cannons with explosive shells is the only effective weapon. Machine guns, even heavy 13mm calibers, are just not effective. The minimum is a 20mm cannon.
A couple of big take-aways from this:
1. Notice that the Army did not have a single leading design, with the exception of the tie for Recon. In all other areas, their designs are lagging, in some cases lagging badly.
2. In spite of the efforts of the Navy, we still have a number of challenges.
The mood in the room is decidedly somber ...
; Julia Child
