Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
barbarrossa
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:16 am
Location: Shangri-La

RE: Strategic bombing

Post by barbarrossa »

ORIGINAL: Big B


Further, as for the contribution of the Red Army in bringing down Germany - HUGE, I agree.

That's an understatement if I've ever read one.
But Germany was also completely exhausted after the mass bloodshed followed by occupation after WWI, and still never considered itself beaten.

I can see your point in terms of Germans as a whole dreading war on principal, but after the rather rapid fall of France, the population was elated that the "crime" of Versailles was reversed. They thought the war was over at that point, because Britain, it was hoped would accept or offer peace.

When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union it was recieved with dreaded shock by the German population --- the 2 front war.

As the Germans moved through Russia with relative ease in the summer and fall of '41, the populace grew more confident. It was not until the winter at the gates of Moscow and the emergency drive for winter clothing for the front that anyone had any inclination that something other than total victory was at hand. The debacle at Stalingrad was the underlining of public doubt of eventual victory.
I submit that THAT change of heart happened only because her cities were leveled, ...

Actually, much as the British citizenry came together in solidarity during the blitz, so did the German population for much of the western Allies bombing campaign. What the Germans really feared was the Russian juggernaught steadily chewing it's way westward towards the Reich leaving the Wermacht in its grave.
"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe

"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by el cid again »

Strategic bombing in it's pre-war pure concept failed completely. The modified strategic-operational bombing campaign that replaced it succeeded completely. (A grinding, punishing attrition war which chewed up Germany's remaining experienced fighter cadres giving the Allies total air dominance.

Only if "succeeded completely" somehow includes:

1) it cost more than it cost the enemy (maybe acceptable if we had more to lose, this sounds more Russian than American in concept);

2) it is acceptable to wage war in violation of the law of land warfare AS WE ENFORCED IT AFTER THE WAR ( see "bombardment of cities and towns" )

3) it is somehow undesireable to invest the same bombers and crews in more efficient military operations.

I do not regard this as "complete success". Soldiers are in the end political agents. Doing things legally and morally pays off in political terms always, and in operational terms often. And I see no reason to pay more in ALLIED lives than we need to - why "go downtown" when you can go fight Uboats, drop mines, or mess up enemy combat supply? I believe there is such a thing as winning efficiently. I was trained to minimize casualties - all casualties - enemy/neutral/civilian AND allied soldiers/airmen. Failing to do that is hardly "complete success" IMHO.
Speedysteve
Posts: 15975
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Reading, England

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by Speedysteve »

I think as several of us have said here The SB campaign CONTRIBUTED to the final downfall. A part of a jigsaw.......

I personally can't see that is completely succeeded since the overall objective of Harris/Spaatz etc was to win the war with their own service.......they didn't but they sure helped.
WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by Nikademus »

do not regard this as "complete success". Soldiers are in the end political agents. Doing things legally and morally pays off in political terms always, and in operational terms often. And I see no reason to pay more in ALLIED lives than we need to - why "go downtown" when you can go fight Uboats, drop mines, or mess up enemy combat supply? I believe there is such a thing as winning efficiently. I was trained to minimize casualties - all casualties - enemy/neutral/civilian AND allied soldiers/airmen. Failing to do that is hardly "complete success" IMHO.

Well its a tragedy then that you were not on hand when the 8th AF forumulated it's plans. As for judging the success factor.....the Allies bled the LW white. It wasn't pretty but it was completely successful.
User avatar
barbarrossa
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:16 am
Location: Shangri-La

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by barbarrossa »

The "bomber will always get through" mentality pre-war aimed to strike at the civilian population and thereby end the enemy's will to resist.

This did not succeed.

Destroying the LW capability to resist through strategic bombing did succeed, in the air (a/c attrition) and on the ground (fuel).

That's what he's saying.
"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe

"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model
Big B
Posts: 4634
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by Big B »

I never said that bombing was responsible for winning the war - I only pointed out that it most definately had an effect on the course of the war, and stand by what I said.

El Cid, I PM'd you with what I had to say.

B
Speedysteve
Posts: 15975
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Reading, England

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by Speedysteve »

Roger no qualms there.

The 8th bled the LW dry. From Feb 44 onwards the LW rarely attempted to intercept in force (exceptions apply of course on a few occassions over important oil plants, Magdeburg etc).

I'm just saying the principal of BOMBING someone to smithereens didn't and will not work.
WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
User avatar
barbarrossa
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:16 am
Location: Shangri-La

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by barbarrossa »

ORIGINAL: el cid again



Only if "succeeded completely" somehow includes:



2) it is acceptable to wage war in violation of the law of land warfare AS WE ENFORCED IT AFTER THE WAR ( see "bombardment of cities and towns" )

This line of thinking falls into the trap of projecting modern values into a past sequence of events without considering the mentality and thought process that guided those events at thier time of occurance.

It was precisely those past events which led to the modern thinking that you express in your post. [:)]
"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe

"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

This line of thinking falls into the trap of projecting modern values into a past sequence of events without considering the mentality and thought process that guided those events at thier time of occurance.

It was precisely those past events which led to the modern thinking that you express in your post. [:)]

Very true....that was in Neilland's book as well....a very interesting read. Many a witness said similar when questioned on the messiness and brutality of the whole affair. one simple answer was nevertheless poinient: "it was war"

If war were always neat and orderly....then we wouldn't work so hard to avoid it.
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by DuckofTindalos »

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

If war were always neat and orderly....then we wouldn't work so hard to avoid it.

And it wasn't until the 20th Century that we actually found out that war isn't neat and orderly...
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by Nikademus »

oh yes.....technology now brings you war to your living room. interesting that. good point. (though it pains me to admit it)

[:'(]
User avatar
demonterico
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 5:57 am
Location: Seattle WA

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by demonterico »

Tell the Vietnamese they've got to draw in their horns or we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.
--Gen. Curtis LeMay, May 1964

That above quotation highlights one of the fundamental errors we Americans make when evaluating an enemy. We often only see a subject from our own point of view. Le May is assuming that the effect of bombing the Vietnamese people would be nearly identical to the effect such bombing would have on the American people. He is not stopping to think that many of the people in a third world country are still living just one step away from the stone age.

I may be incorrect but I believe that at some point Le May also claimed that the day of the infantry was over. All future wars would be won from the sky.
The world has never seen a more impressive demonstration of the influence of sea power upon history. Those far distant, storm-beaten ships, upon which the Grand Army never looked, stood between it and the dominion of the world. -- Alfred Thayer Mahan
User avatar
barbarrossa
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:16 am
Location: Shangri-La

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by barbarrossa »

ORIGINAL: demonterico

Tell the Vietnamese they've got to draw in their horns or we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.
--Gen. Curtis LeMay, May 1964

That above quotation highlights one of the fundamental errors we Americans make when evaluating an enemy. We often only see a subject from our own point of view. Le May is assuming that the effect of bombing the Vietnamese people would be nearly identical to the effect such bombing would have on the American people. He is not stopping to think that many of the people in a third world country are still living just one step away from the stone age.

I may be incorrect but I believe that at some point Le May also claimed that the day of the infantry was over. All future wars would be won from the sky.

I don't think this exclusively an American trait.
But a good point nonetheless.
"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe

"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by DuckofTindalos »

ORIGINAL: demonterico

I may be incorrect but I believe that at some point Le May also claimed that the day of the infantry was over. All future wars would be won from the sky.

Sounds like something he'd say...[8|]
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: el cid again
The Axis powers never got close to the kind of production figures per man hour that the US did..., because they couldn't afford the kind of massive and effecient production plants the US could and did build.

Not exactly.

The Axis powers never did approach levels of taxation in the USA or in the UK. They also had much smaller economic systems. So they lacked sheer captial to build something like a Boeing Renton (the largest building on the planet) or Willow Run (the second largest). Then too, they suffered from a lack of political will to organize for a long war early on. They believed their enemies were softer than they were, and didn't make the right sorts of technical decisions. The Allies made similar errors: RN cancelled battleships, still believing in them, on the basis "they could not complete in time for this war" - but in the event there was enough time!
The Axis powers lacked economic focus. Germany did not fully mobilize for war production until 1945! [Steinweg finally stopped making pianos in February!] There are far too many planes (or whatever else you wish to name) built in small batches - and far too many research projects - meaning few are completed and almost nothing is produced in decisive numbers. There was not sufficient effort made in early analysis of production methods - here Japan did better than Germany - and for its size it shows up with relatively better aircraft production - but it pales by US standards and lags the UK. [See The Air War - the one about production - there is another about operations] These are more about choices than about necessity. Planning for the possibility of a long war - or of not fighting because a long war cannot be won - would have been wiser. Fewer research projects, fewer production types, more efficeincy research, higher taxes, mobilization of the whole economy - all were possible paths not taken - not impossible paths either.

Pretty much everything you say is accurate..., and none of it really says anything to refute the statement of mine you quoted. The Japanese and German military really didn't trust "mass production", nor did much of the Nazi hierarchy. And they didn't want to give up the ability to "tinker" with designs already in production. Even their best and most productive plants failed to produce the kind of per manhour totals the US achieved. The other thing holding back German mobilization was Hitler's fear that asking to much of the German Populace would lead to the kind of "collapse" he felt had led to the loss of WW I.
User avatar
barbarrossa
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:16 am
Location: Shangri-La

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by barbarrossa »

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: demonterico

I may be incorrect but I believe that at some point Le May also claimed that the day of the infantry was over. All future wars would be won from the sky.

Sounds like something he'd say...[8|]

As goofy as that sounds to we students of military history, the general public (at least those pesky Americans) has come to expect that there are no casualties nor messiness in war due to relatively casualty-free high tech actions in the '90's.

Present real world circumstances are an example.

It was believed in air circles pre-WW2 that air power would decide future wars as well. "The bomber will always get through".
"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe

"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by DuckofTindalos »

Well, yeah... The public has been spoon-fed the concept of a so-called "clean" war for so long that it can't take it when the fight turns nasty. Just look at Somalia, right after GW I, and, of course, what's happening in Iraq now.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
WhoCares
Posts: 653
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 9:20 am

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by WhoCares »

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, yeah... The public has been spoon-fed the concept of a so-called "clean" war for so long that it can't take it when the fight turns nasty. Just look at Somalia, right after GW I, and, of course, what's happening in Iraq now.
But who is to blame, the public for not just 'sucking up' the losses afterwards or those that feed them with the concept of a 'clean war' to get the public support for a new war?! [&:]

But we are drifting away from the initial topic into dangerous waters... [;)]
ImageImage
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by DuckofTindalos »

ORIGINAL: WhoCares

But who is to blame, the public for not just 'sucking up' the losses afterwards or those that feed them with the concept of a 'clean war' to get the public support for their agenda before the war?! [&:]

If we're going to get political (and let's not) the blame is on both sides. It's a self-reinforcing effect of one side telling the other that there aren't going to be many casualties, and the other side ending up accepting no casualties at all.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
barbarrossa
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:16 am
Location: Shangri-La

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by barbarrossa »

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, yeah... The public has been spoon-fed the concept of a so-called "clean" war for so long that it can't take it when the fight turns nasty. Just look at Somalia, right after GW I, and, of course, what's happening in Iraq now.

Exactly my point.

But it would be more accurate to say that the Somalia action and withdrawal and all the antiseptic and pointless actions '92-'00 leading to present circumstances happened on Mr. Clinton's watch rather than "after GW I"[:)]

I'll stop there before I get into trouble.[:D]


"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe

"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”