Japanese glide bombs in WW2

A Fritz X type weapon ( and that’s the size the US and Germans reckoned was needed for attacks on Cruisers and larger) would not be carried by Betty or Nell. Weight is 1362kg ( hs 293 is about 1000kg) Betty and Nell carries around 800 kg.

Of the OTL inventory only the Ki 20 (at 125mph and only 6 built) could carry the weight. There are very few a/c of the late 30’s early 40’s that could lift that much and that’s when you propose the doctrine to be developed.

But doctrinally its pointless. The concept which was an absolute fixation for the IJN was for the Decisive Battle. Their planning showed that they hit 10 USN capital ships with torpedoes at 20,000m with torpedoes, then close in for the kill. Pearl Harbour is in many ways a bonus.

You are proposing a change in tactics based around either purchase from abroad of a large number of in any case rare aircraft (and what do you use for money) to achieve something you can achieve anyway. The result is a money pit to achieve nothing.

I think the attack on Enterprise is during the Marshall Islands raid, below is from Enterprise after action report.

http://www.cv6.org/ship/logs/action19420201.htm#first

Some points - First sighting is outside the launch parameters of a Fritz X type weapon, you are free to make up others but you will be making them up. Enterprise first reaction is to dodge, which is SOP for an early war carrier - and it caused a low level attack by 5 a/c in formation to miss. Given the cloud cover which would be needed to avoid the Heavy Cap noted in the aar . Its pure speculation as to whether the Cap would have intercepted approaching aircraft had they not been using cloud cover to approach. The second attack certainly was intercepted at range.

That AAR btw says E got a director solution in 3 seconds and the B17 scenario is misleading given that the constant complaint from USAAF generals is that the bomber pilots were evading flak, evade on an MCLOS you miss. You might also want to consider that the USN at Midway had 25% of the medium and heavy flak as Berlin in 1944 in a much much smaller area, a fleet is a much more heavily defended than just about any land based target.

Actually I was assuming a formation of aircraft attacking IJN doctrine was for large formation attacks. Not that it makes a difference. The principle defence for a ship early war was to dodge. You still have to overcome the very limited control parameters of a glide bomb. Even a speed change and its likely to miss.

A 42/43 strike package will be flying into a air defense system with a minimum70 mile warning and a standing CAP and given the USN carriers were operating East of Guadalcanal basically out of range of land based a/c, its at the limits of range and a 4 hour flight from base you are assuming a sustained contact with a carrier group or an extended search by the attackers (unescorted).
Yorktowns position at Coral Sea is out of range of land based air.
 
Earlier adoption of a Baka type guided weapon? I know in general they where not that successful but with a higher standard of training?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
A Fritz X type weapon ( and that’s the size the US and Germans reckoned was needed for attacks on Cruisers and larger) would not be carried by Betty or Nell. Weight is 1362kg ( hs 293 is about 1000kg) Betty and Nell carries around 800 kg.

First, the USN assessments of what weapons could do pre-combat experience is often incorrect.

I assume bringing in different weapons by the late 1930's will help change design specs of planes. I can easily see a plane creeping up in weight. Since about half the weight is the warhead, this gives us about a 400KG bomb (1000 pound). A 1000 pound bomb coming in at an odd angle penetrates into a battleship at "sufficient height), which appears to about 1000 feet free fall. The weather deck on a BB is often 1" to 2", so it easily penetrates into a BB. We don't get into guarantee mission kills with these types of weapons, but they will do damage. On unarmed USA carriers, they will get into the ship.

We can go into a lot of details on how the armor of ships will work, but these weapons will not be interacting with the BB main belt armor but largely bypassing it.


http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTJAP_WWII.htm

Of the OTL inventory only the Ki 20 (at 125mph and only 6 built) could carry the weight. There are very few a/c of the late 30’s early 40’s that could lift that much and that’s when you propose the doctrine to be developed.

Any navy that develops these weapons will have pressure to build some planes with larger payloads. It is important to remember that while the POD has some ASB like effects, a weapon shows up wherever the thread writer likes, it is not an ASB change. It is not 500 Fritz-X showing up on December 10, 1941 and the Japanese scrambling to figure out how to use. It is a weapon that has gone through a development cycle and the bugs have been worked out. And I don't see why building more Ki-20, using smaller weapons on existing Nell/Betty or changes to Nell/Betty specs is such a problem. Each is a possible butterfly of the POD. Each will give an effective weapon with different use profile.

But doctrinally its pointless. The concept which was an absolute fixation for the IJN was for the Decisive Battle. Their planning showed that they hit 10 USN capital ships with torpedoes at 20,000m with torpedoes, then close in for the kill. Pearl Harbour is in many ways a bonus.

It fits well into the Japanese prewar doctrine. Just like the Long Lance would be used to weaken the USA capital forces, these "Air Lance Bombs" would also sink USA forces before the main battle. The battle was seen to be fought near Japanese Island bases where land based Naval air could be a major factor. Are you arguing that the Nell/Betty were not in the Japanese version of War Plan Orange?

Long Lance = long range weapon kept secret from USA that could be decisive in a battle. This weapons does the same thing, and also does not cause issues with the Naval limitation treaty. And it is not some hugely expensive weapon but simply a weapon they can get from Germany as war reparations (free) and simply modify over the years.

You are proposing a change in tactics based around either purchase from abroad of a large number of in any case rare aircraft (and what do you use for money) to achieve something you can achieve anyway. The result is a money pit to achieve nothing.

No, initially it will be another weapon with the Betty/Nell type squadrons. So they now can chose from various size of dumb bombs, torpedoes, or guided bombs/torps. It is not a money pit, it is very cheap modifications of existing 20 year old technology.

I think the attack on Enterprise is during the Marshall Islands raid, below is from Enterprise after action report.

http://www.cv6.org/ship/logs/action19420201.htm#first

Some points - First sighting is outside the launch parameters of a Fritz X type weapon, you are free to make up others but you will be making them up. Enterprise first reaction is to dodge, which is SOP for an early war carrier - and it caused a low level attack by 5 a/c in formation to miss. Given the cloud cover which would be needed to avoid the Heavy Cap noted in the aar . Its pure speculation as to whether the Cap would have intercepted approaching aircraft had they not been using cloud cover to approach. The second attack certainly was intercepted at range.

That AAR btw says E got a director solution in 3 seconds and the B17 scenario is misleading given that the constant complaint from USAAF generals is that the bomber pilots were evading flak, evade on an MCLOS you miss. You might also want to consider that the USN at Midway had 25% of the medium and heavy flak as Berlin in 1944 in a much much smaller area, a fleet is a much more heavily defended than just about any land based target.

Actually I was assuming a formation of aircraft attacking IJN doctrine was for large formation attacks. Not that it makes a difference. The principle defence for a ship early war was to dodge. You still have to overcome the very limited control parameters of a glide bomb. Even a speed change and its likely to miss.

A 42/43 strike package will be flying into a air defense system with a minimum70 mile warning and a standing CAP and given the USN carriers were operating East of Guadalcanal basically out of range of land based a/c, its at the limits of range and a 4 hour flight from base you are assuming a sustained contact with a carrier group or an extended search by the attackers (unescorted).
Yorktowns position at Coral Sea is out of range of land based air.

Your link likely is the battle I am thinking of, but does not mention one of the planes trying to Kamikaze and missing the ship by feet. These type of actions were common in the war. You report shows 7 planes got shots at the enterprise. With a 20 to 50% hit rate, we get 1-4 hits on the enterprise. The ship is damage or sunk. The main change to guided weapons is they hit a lot more often, I don't see your objection here.

On the flak, training is an issue but Japanese naval aviators were highly trained. Again, all weapons systems have flaws. Nerves of pilots are issues with torpedo bombers and dive bombers.

At Coral Sea, it depends if the TL has the weapon carried by some of the torpedo bombers.

At accuracy, sure they miss. But missing 50-80% of the time is lot lot better than missing well into the 90's percent of the time. To pick some numbers, going from a 95% miss rate to a 75% miss rate gives you five times more hits. Early in the war, these extra hits likely mean the USN is running out of flat tops by Summer 1942, and this changes the war outcome. And we are focusing a lot on the carriers, which are the biggest part of the war. But these weapons will end up sinking a lot more surface ships without air protection than capital ships. It will have a noticeable but hard to measure impact on logistics.

It is important to remember the USN of 1944 with better fighters, lot more AA, lot more experience crew, radar, and better fuses is a vastly different from Halsey or Fletcher early days. It is night and day on effectiveness.
 
well based on what the USN and German engineers thought that would be pointless. The Frtiz was upsized specifically because the HS 293 (at 1000kg) was to small to damage a cruiser or larger, and given the success rate they pitched it low. the torpedo works on a smaller warhead because of pressure effects from underwater explosion.

See above for the point on single engined aircraft - this is an MCLOS system of limited control. This is not a guided missile or even a true glider its a ballistic bomb with some lift and control surfaces, basically an unpowered bomb that stays in the air longer than normal and falls on the speed and course imparted by the carrier aircraft. Its aimed ahead with a little bit of course correction possible.Unless you have operator control of the launch, and visual sight the operator will miss. In order to get behind the glider the pilot will have to pull up lose airspeed then fly a steady course.

Try that in a single engine aircraft and you have one of:

the pilot trying to fly plane and glider at the same time,
the operator looking over the pilots shoulder to launch then having a fucking big radial engine appear as the pilot climbs,
or the pilot in the back seat.
You could to a totally new A/C built around wingwalking bombadiers or see through engines I suppose. Or the OTL solution which is a rocket motor on the missile giving both range and more control.

The USN solution was the Glomb - which is a glider but operationally pointless which is why they were cancelled.

The torpedo glider, well in the end its an unguided torpedo so you would need a means of aiming it from standoff distance (5km minimum) judging when the glider was 30-120m above surface and within the speed bracket and glide angle - you are still 5 km away with no telemetry or means of releasing the torp from the wings btw, then releasing the torp at the target. which runs like a normal torp and is evaded like a normal torp.

As an IJN destroyerman will tell you, 5,000m hmm, we can do it at 20,000m at night and reload in 15 minutes. A salvo has a 15% hit rate, and the torp is bigger.

Pointless weapon with the technology which is why noone pursued it. Stick a rocket motor or jet on a bomb and thats another story - but it means inventing one or both
 
While speaking of glide bombs, why after period of development should there be need of pure glide bomb? After all, in OTL the Japanese tested Ki-148 / I-GO-1B rocket assisted guided bomb and I see no particular reasons why this kind of weapon could not have been deployed earlier. Wire guidance would take many problems associated with cost and operational effectiveness away, and would not be technically difficult to deploy if enough operational studies had been made. With launch weight of some 700kg's it could have been carried by carrier based torpedo bombers, eliminating the need of dive bombers.

As for operational use of this bomb, it would not have to have been single shot battleship killer. Just defence suppression, hitting agile light craft (ie. destroyers) and use by patrol bombers for snatching merchants would have been more than enough useful tasks.

As for carriers, even a 250kg bomb going inside US carrier hangar could well ruin a day for carrier.

Addition: Here is a USN technical report on OTL Japanese guided weapons under development.
 
the turning point

there glide bombs would have changed everything in the Pacific. this would have changed a lot.
 
I feel that Gannt is underestimating both the attraction of these weapons for the IJN and their effectiveness.
A Fritz X type weapon ( and that’s the size the US and Germans reckoned was needed for attacks on Cruisers and larger) would not be carried by Betty or Nell. Weight is 1362kg ( hs 293 is about 1000kg) Betty and Nell carries around 800 kg.
....
According to Wikipedia, the loaded weight of the Ohka was 2,140 kg (4,718 lb). Here is a picture of a Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka under a G4M http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/attack/ohka/pics03.shtm and here is picture of them just after release http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/attack/ohka/pics02.shtml.

However, there is a trade off with range and attacks at the distance of Rabaul to Guadalcanal or the attacks on Prince of Wales and Repulse could not have carried much more than the one torpedo of 1,841 lbs. (935 kg).

....
But doctrinally its pointless. The concept which was an absolute fixation for the IJN was for the Decisive Battle. Their planning showed that they hit 10 USN capital ships with torpedoes at 20,000m with torpedoes, then close in for the kill. Pearl Harbour is in many ways a bonus.

You are proposing a change in tactics based around either purchase from abroad of a large number of in any case rare aircraft (and what do you use for money) to achieve something you can achieve anyway. The result is a money pit to achieve nothing.

...
The fact is that the IJN sent more torpedo capable aircraft armed with bombs to be dropped at medium altitude than torpedoes against both Pearl Harbor and also against Prince of Wales and Repulse in 1941. It was only after analysis of those attacks that they focused on torpedoes and they still sent bomb equipped G4Ms initially to Guadalcanal.

The bombs used to sink the Arizona at Pearl Harbor were converted 41 cm shells. From Wikipedia these were called Type 99 No.80 Mk 5 and weighed 1,641 lb. A guided version might have a similar weight to a single torpedo. In general, a single hit with such a weapon might sink an older American battleship but newer battleships will likely survive with significant damage. A single hit might sink an American aircraft carrier as it would penetrate the deck armour and any hit would be likely to cause significant damage. However the explosive content was much less than the Fritz-X's 320 kg. with Wikipedia giving 66 lbs. In addition, several bombs did not explode at Pearl Harbor, possibly because of weaknesses created by the machining of the old shells combining with base slap (a British 1760 lb similarly penetrated Tirpitz's armour deck but did not explode, so it may be that this weight of bomb is hard to design). Two hits on American main turrets at Pearl Harbor knocked out the turrets but did not penetrate further.

It may not be obvious how much more accurate Fitz-X was compared to dumb bombs. The example of an attack in perfect conditions is the attack on the Italian Fleet on 9th September 1943. Either 11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Jope or 6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X aircraft attacked scoring 3 hits. At least one of the pilots was on his first combat mission http://falkeeins.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/klaus-deumling-and-sinking-of-roma-kg.html.

For comparison, an attack by 47 Ju.88 bombers from KG.30 and 41 He.111 bombers from KG.25 on 9th April 1940 scored a single hit on HMS Rodney and HMS Gurkha was sunk by a very close near miss. I don't know at what height the Germans attacked but I suspect fairly low as 4 aircraft were shot down by British 1940 AA fire.

Italian and German aircraft continued making attacks in level flight at medium to high level on warships at sea without scoring further hits over 1940-1 although HMS Eagle was damaged by near misses (I haven't checked carefully, so there may have been a few forgotten. I am assuming that cases such as HMS Mashona involved the Ju 88s dive bombing.)

At Pearl Harbor, 50 Nakajima B5N Kate bombers hit Arizona at least once while West Virginia, Tennessee and Maryland were all hit twice. However, the attack was at around 10,000 ft on ships at anchor. There were two hits on Repulse and Prince of Wales with Repulse being hit while at speed but PoW being hit when almost or completely stopped. I am not sure how many bombs were dropped. Wikipedia says 51 aircraft carried bombs but some attacked a destroyer etc. The first Repulse attack was by 8 aircraft and scored a single hit. Again the attackers flew lower than KG 100

....
I think the attack on Enterprise is during the Marshall Islands raid, below is from Enterprise after action report.

http://www.cv6.org/ship/logs/action19420201.htm#first

Some points - First sighting is outside the launch parameters of a Fritz X type weapon, you are free to make up others but you will be making them up. Enterprise first reaction is to dodge, which is SOP for an early war carrier - and it caused a low level attack by 5 a/c in formation to miss. Given the cloud cover which would be needed to avoid the Heavy Cap noted in the aar . Its pure speculation as to whether the Cap would have intercepted approaching aircraft had they not been using cloud cover to approach. The second attack certainly was intercepted at range.
...
The weaknesses of such a weapon are significant. A clear sky is needed as the bomb cannot be guided through clouds. The aircraft has to fly straight while guiding the bomb and thus is theoretically vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire and certainly vulnerable to fighters, which last limited the use of Fritz-X against Allied shipping.

However, if the first attack were made on a US carrier in early 1942 by torpedo and Fritz-X carrying G4Ms, I suspect that the CAP would focus initially on the more dangerous torpedo attackers and be unable to get up to intercept the high level attackers.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, I suspect some posters underestimate the problems faced by the IJN in deploying an effective Fritz-X type weapon. There are two obvious problems: the guidance system and transonic aerodynamics.

One difficulty of the guidance system is that telling the bomb to go left only takes you so far. The bomb may have spun 180 degrees and might interpret your instruction by going right. Thus gyroscopes are critical. This involves you in other problems. The Germans had to pipe warm air from the engines to the Fritz-X to keep the gyroscopes from freezing etc. Now the Japanese had fairly good gyroscopes or their torpedoes would not have worked but gyroscopes depend on ball bearings and Japan was behind Germany in that area. The Japanese would have also had to produce an effective radio system for guidance and also to anticipate the problem of following the position of the flare marking the bomb against a background including exploding AA shells.

Transonic aerodynamics were poorly understood even in 1939-43 when the Fritz-X was being developed. However, Germany was the World leader in wind tunnels and in what little was known. The design of the Fritz-X is reported to have aimed at increasing the drag so that the bomb remained subsonic. Also the use of spoilers between boundary layer fences may have been evolved to escape the effects of shock waves.

ps. Has anyone else noted that Fritz-X has almost the same weight as a shell from Yamato and that its velocity roughly matches the vertical component of a shell descending at 30,000 metres range.
 
On the other hand, I suspect some posters underestimate the problems faced by the IJN in deploying an effective Fritz-X type weapon. There are two obvious problems: the guidance system and transonic aerodynamics.

One difficulty of the guidance system is that telling the bomb to go left only takes you so far. The bomb may have spun 180 degrees and might interpret your instruction by going right. Thus gyroscopes are critical. This involves you in other problems. The Germans had to pipe warm air from the engines to the Fritz-X to keep the gyroscopes from freezing etc. Now the Japanese had fairly good gyroscopes or their torpedoes would not have worked but gyroscopes depend on ball bearings and Japan was behind Germany in that area. The Japanese would have also had to produce an effective radio system for guidance and also to anticipate the problem of following the position of the flare marking the bomb against a background including exploding AA shells.

Transonic aerodynamics were poorly understood even in 1939-43 when the Fritz-X was being developed. However, Germany was the World leader in wind tunnels and in what little was known. The design of the Fritz-X is reported to have aimed at increasing the drag so that the bomb remained subsonic. Also the use of spoilers between boundary layer fences may have been evolved to escape the effects of shock waves.

ps. Has anyone else noted that Fritz-X has almost the same weight as a shell from Yamato and that its velocity roughly matches the vertical component of a shell descending at 30,000 metres range.

but in this POD it is possible (and highly likely) the Japanese start development in the early 1930s (alongside the Type 93 torpedo) and thus it gives them enough time to iron out the problems with this weapon (as well as training aircrew on it). This isn't going to be something the Japanese pull out of their hats on the eve of Pearl Harbor.
 

sharlin

Banned
Good to see that Japan is operating in a complete bubble again and that no one in the outside world would react to the changes. The 'mens eyes are good enough' was a true quote, although i'll have to find Hasting's book to see who said it. The Japanese mindset of the time would have to change, they piled tons of cash into the development of the Type 93 torpedo because of their whole doctrine of the Decisive Battle and it formed a corner stone of that idea, but the Battleships were the heart and soul of it.

You'd have to change their whole doctrine from 1906 onwards. In the Japanese mind (and the worlds) Battleships Worked. Tishuma showed that. Battleships could decide the fate of a war on land (so the Japanese though) and would continue to do so. The inter service rivalry between the different branches of the Japanese military and within the military itself was sometimes leathal and the Battleship admirals would not want to give up their battleships that they KNOW will work rather than the vague promise of some very new and very expensive system that has proven capable in tests.
 

sharlin

Banned
Torpedoes are a known factor. Torpedoes sink ships and torpedoes work. The Type 93 was a very reliable weapon system (unless it took a hit..) and was tested extensively. People put their faith in systems and things that are known to work rather than an unknown 'possible'.

Also RE the American CAP the American CAP was actually a well run system and well organised, if their was high altitude aircraft coming in with torpedo planes they would have had fighters directed at them. This is a huge difference to the Japanese Cap which was basically 'follow the leader' with next to no control from their launching ship or any form of central control.
 
The doctrine issue I was referring to was the Decisive Battle doctrine and the torpedo hit rates are from IJN anticipated (i.e. exercise result) performance on a night torpedo launch by DD and CL.

The Battleship admirals were outnumbered and outranked by the Torpedo admirals - IJN doctrine was for massed torpedo attacks with a follow up by primarily gun armed ships - better to call them surface action admirals

On the timescale proposed any development would be in direct competition with the type 93 torpedo as well as the shipbuilding programme and you need to advance aircraft engine production by 10-15 years. You have to use either the Ki 20 OR develop another launch aircraft equivalent to the G4M2 which had its first production model in in july 43 specifically the G4M2e Model 24J which was the specialised launch vehicle.

If you are talking about a weapon being developed during the 30's it has to be based on the launch vehicles of the 30's that means you are launching it from a 125mph bomber transport made obsolete by the Bristol Bulldog.

Having a neat idea does not mean either the money or engineering resources - which in Japan were limited especially as from 1936/7 on they are in a war with China - will be available.

It means utterly changing a doctrine they know works for something entirely unknown that won't be available for at least a decade.
 
SAVORYapple said:
Say the Japanese, with their confidence bolstered by their new guided weapons, doesn't launch a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, instead waiting for the USN to rush across the pacific into the arms of their glide bombs and torpedos?
No chance. The reasons for the attack have as much to do with internal politics as anything, & the main objective was to prevent the Pacific Fleet from interfering. If anything, glide bombs make an attack on the harbor, & its facilities, more effective.:eek:
SAVORYapple said:
What would a negotiated peace look like? Japanese pay reparations for the Phillipines and all U.S. islands in the Pacific?

Is this realistic given the prior POD?
Dubious, given it starts at Pearl. If it doesn't...
BlondieBC said:
The USN does not launch for months, so it will be a "phony war for capital ships". Likely they are used on PoW and Repulse along with regular torpedoes. If USA does send capital ships towards Marshal Island, they will be used.
If the U.S. sends BBs to the Marshalls alone, Kimmel is an idiot.:rolleyes: He wouldn't: he'd lead with CVs. Nor is he likely to attack the Marshalls directly, having lost any ships to IJN glide bombs.
BlondieBC said:
The USN will likely lose a carrier or two while probing around the Marshals. So say by April 1942, we will get a crash counter measure program.
Yes: it's called combat air patrol. Very shortly, any inbound raid will be intercepted as far out as possible. Faster, & faster-climbing, fighters will be pushed for: solving the F4U's problems will be given much higher priority, & shortly, the F4U will enter service aboard USN CVs. Now the "superior" Zekes are in big trouble...:eek:
BlondieBC said:
By April or so, the USA will have scrapped up enough fuel and a couple divisions to be able to do something. The will know the airbase near the Marshal Islands are tough to crack. The political pressure to attack will be immense.
Why do you presume Kimmel attacks the main Japanese base in the Pacific?:confused:
BlondieBC said:
My guess is this battle will be a disaster for the USA. First because of the guided weapons, second because of the use of Battleship first doctrine, third we likely lose a carrier or two probing.
Why do you presume the U.S. won't adjust tactics to the changed circumstances?:confused: Even if the F4Us haven't appeared yet.
BlondieBC said:
BB heavy attack on Marshals followed by planned amphib assault.
Improbable, since the Battle Line is too slow to operate in company with carriers...:rolleyes:
BlondieBC said:
Unlike Pearl where most of the sailors live, if we lose 5+ capital ships at sea, it can easily be 10K dead of navy personnel.
Or 20,000.:eek:
BlondieBC said:
Enterprise raiding Marshals Islands. Enterprise will just be sunk.
Just like that, the magic glide bomb makes Japanese bases immune?:rolleyes: The Japanese still have to scramble aircraft & find Enterprise...
BlondieBC said:
Coral Sea. Add some high altitude attack planes with say 50% hit rate if not engaging fighters
That's a fairly amazing hit rate.:rolleyes:
BlondieBC said:
Midway after this Coral Sea. Japan could still easily lose 3 CV, but USN probably loses 2 CV. More accurate weapons, with a lot more hits than OTL, I doubt the Hornet puts out the fire.
This presumes Nagumo's strike birds find all 3 of Fletcher's CVs, which they didn't OTL.:rolleyes: It also assumes they didn't attack a single carrier twice, which they also did OTL.

It also doesn't account for the size of the weapon: does the guidance package mean it has to be smaller, so less destructive? Nor have you explained why the U.S. has made no technical changes to its defensive measures, from air cover to AA to jamming to "barrage balloon" or false targets. Nor have you explained why the U.S. hasn't accelerated programs to develop her own guided bomb programs, like Felix, GB-4, & GB-8.
BlondieBC said:
BB are obsolete
They were obsolete in 1918, it's just nobody realized it until 1941.:rolleyes: Guided bombs don't change that.
BlondieBC said:
CV are very vulnerable
Much less than you make out.
BlondieBC said:
many more B-17 in Australia and Hawaii. Enough to do bomb box that carrier can't escape
Fat chance. B-17s bombing from high altitude are no solution. More B-25s & B-26s, maybe, with better skip-bombing & more nose-mounted guns, yes.
BlondieBC said:
More divisions.
For what, exactly?:confused::confused:
BlondieBC said:
More fighters.
Allowing they're the OTL P-39s, P-40s, & F4Fs, what is this accomplishing?:confused: If they're F4Us & P-38s (or P-47s), where are they coming from?:confused: Increased production needs longer lead time; a new production line for F4Us or P-38s (preferably both) will take at least a year to show results. Nor are P-47s going to arrive any sooner. Nor F6Fs, if they even happen at all.
BlondieBC said:
It takes longer to drive Germans out of North Africa
Somewhat, perhaps. It may mean DAK isn't crushed, but left to wither on the vine, which would be a good thing for future operations in ETO.
BlondieBC said:
Italy stays in war until near end.
Why?:confused::confused: The WAllies likely still invade Sicily & bring down Musolini's government. They may not actually invade the mainland,:cool::cool: which is good for the WAllies & the early invasion of Normandy.:cool:
BlondieBC said:
Nuclear weapons used on Berlin.
Not necessarily by any means.
BlondieBC said:
it does mean surface ships can't operate without air cover
And they could do that when after December 1941?:confused::confused:
BlondieBC said:
It means we need to concentrate forces, working from cover of landbased fighters helps a lot.
Why?:confused::confused:
BlondieBC said:
With SW Pacific having a lot more P-47s
And the "Germany First" promise goes out the window when? And why?:confused::confused:
BlondieBC said:
Central Pacific can work, but with heavier losses. It will be more like the kamikaze days, but starting in the Marshals.
I'm finding that a bit improbable. Intercepting the carrier aircraft before they launch means no attack, which wasn't true with kamikaze.

I'm also not clear how this helps Japan deal with the biggest threat to her continuing success, the sub attacks on her SLOCs.

So here's another one for you: the U.S. adapts semi-active homing to a simple winged drone, like the Ryan target drone, & sends them out on PT boats & submarines...:cool:
BlondieBC said:
SW Pacific has somewhat worse supply.
Why?:confused::confused: How many of these bombs do you suppose Japan can build? More to the point, Japan wasn't really good at attacking merchant ships in the first place.
BlondieBC said:
Airbase network for Japan finished in Solomon Islands.
This appears likely. Does Kimmel arrange the Makin Raid? Or does he leave Tarawa essentially undefended when he counterattacks there, instead of at Guadalcanal, in around November 1942?:cool:
BlondieBC said:
We may even fail on amphib assault on some location. Driven back into sea fail.
Not going to happen. The U.S. won't go without being able to insure success. The Marines will insist on it. Kimmel probably will, too.
BlondieBC said:
We are likely a full year behind OTL.
Why?:confused::confused: It there's more force going to SWPA, & Japan's perimeter is even more over-extended than OTL, & consequently less into Central Pacific, why does Kimmel do worse?:confused:

More important, if Japan is trying to supply island bases even further out, she's burning even more oil & tying up even more shipping, neither good for her economy. More than that, this offers even more opportunities for Sub Force...:cool::cool:

If, indeed, USN CVs are at greater risk, it's more than possible all PTO boats are pulled back to Pearl, which is bad for Japan::eek::eek: fewer dry patrols, better exchange of information, faster upgrades to equipment like radar, & prospects for earlier cure to the Mk14/Mk6 problems.:cool: More than that, it frees up the most lucrative patrol area, the Luzon/Formosa Strait, which is also bad for Japan.:eek::eek: (It was off-limits OTL due to risk of fratricide.)
BlondieBC said:
Is nuclear weapons + Manchuria alone enough to drive Japan from war if conventional bombing campaign is just getting started.
From a Tarawa op in Nov '42, Saipan falls around August '43, maybe a bit later. (By now, the U.S. will have countermeasures to guided bombs, & lots of F4Us in CV service.) Likely Peleiliu is bypassed.:cool: Likely MacArthur isn't near the P.I. anywhere like the OTL schedule, so they're bypassed, too.:cool: So capture of Iwo Jima & Okinawa are much, much easier than OTL.:cool:
BlondieBC said:
Would Truman really order invasion of Japan
He wouldn't have to. Japan would have surrendered before he became President.:rolleyes:
BlondieBC said:
Things like Churchill's or Monty's fighting spirit being weaken can't be ruled out.
You really, really don't know Winston at all, do you?:rolleyes:
BlondieBC said:
IJN makes March 1942 attack into Indian Ocean and achieves decisive victory over significant number of RN capital ships, it just might derail the entire Italian campaign
What?:eek::confused::confused::confused: Show me the connection.:confused::rolleyes:
BlondieBC said:
Yes, attacking a BB with one plane has a good chance of failure. Attacking with multiple planes has a good chance of success. You seem to be thinking of one bomber attacking a ship, not 12+.
You've now ignored the fact attacking whatever comes in sight is a) more usual & b) more likely. You've also reduced Allied losses, since, while the number of hits on any given ship may go up, the total number of ships hit is likely to go down.
BlondieBC said:
What this weapon gives you is a higher hit rate and lower vulnerability.
Don't be so sure. A dive bomber can avoid interceptors before releasing. A bomb-steering aircraft cannot avoid interceptors & still attack.
BlondieBC said:
After the USA gets enough carriers, and enough high performance fighters and enough AA, this weapon will work poorly.
Which will be a great deal sooner than you presume...:rolleyes:
BlondieBC said:
Fighters cover now has to be split 3 ways not 2.
Why?:confused: If they intercept further out, as would be desirable, they're not "split" at all.
BlondieBC said:
The weapon is more accurate.
If you can actually guide it, which an aircraft being shot at can't.:rolleyes:
BlondieBC said:
radio control which has both benefits and disadvantages.
Yeah, it makes the situation even worse for the bombers & better for the defender.
Gannt the chartist said:
Before the new Wunderwaffee conquers the world a few problems.
:D:D Well said.
Gannt the chartist said:
Third time its a B17 launching a TV guided one.
Pretty much...:D Or infrared. Or SAR...
Gannt the chartist said:
LOL. Seriously?
 
Last edited:
Top