The Battle of Midway goes according to plan for the IJN

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
In other words, only if the USA really, really screws the pooch is it possible for Japan to win the carrier battle, but the failure of the amphibious attack that would go with it would make it arguably a WWII version of Perryville, one variety of success in ultimate failure, and still give the USA a propaganda boosting point in what would be a second major land victory over Japan. Japan *might* in the right/wrong chain of circumstances eke out a victory in the sea battle, but the whole plan never had a chance.

Pretty much. Thanks to the code breakers, Midway was an American version of Tarawa, tons of troops (at least 3,000 combat troops plus USMC ground crews), heavily armed even in proportion to the number of men, and protected by a serious coral reef. The U.S. used 35,000 men to take Tarawa and the landing force took 3,000 casualties (1009 KIA X2 wounded) even with amphibious tractors, functional CAS, heavy naval gunfire support, and well rehearsed forces.

The Japanese had none of these and only had a TOTAL force of 5,000 men, only 2,500 of whom were actually combat troops (the remainder being mechanics, construction workers, and others meant to rapidly convert the Islands into a defensible base). 1,500 of these were SNLF (2nd Combined SNLF) with 1,000 Army troops. The two forces never rehearsed the landing SEPARATELY much less together (they were meant to go to different islets so the idea was that there would be no need for co-operation) and there was literally no floating reserve. The Japanese landing plan called for a couple hours of bombardment by a CRUISER division (CruDiv 7) and "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle" as an assault plan.

The term bloodbath doesn't even begin to cover it.
 
When I talked about fragility it is in reference to the combat survivability of a design. It wasn't until late 1944-early 45 that the Japanese brought "modern" aircraft (in the sense of being built with crew survival in mind) into service with a few aircraft, notably the H8K, being exceptions.

The availability of higher octane fuel does have a substantial impact on speed and engine power. This is true even in a non electronic ignition design. The higher octane allows you to alter the basic ignition settings (when I was a kid we used to have to "retard the spark" of built-up engines in our cars, which had been modified to use 96 octane fuel when that fuel became unavailable, although most of used an octane booster or 100 octane (God Bless Texaco) when we could find it which allowed us to advance the spark and grab an extra 5-10% HP).

I typed up a fairly long post while at work but neglected to send it before I left. Here is a shorter summary.

The idea that only late war Japanese fighters had crew protection isn't really all that accurate. The Ki-61 Hien had armour plate but it first flew in December 1941. One was used in an attempt to intercept Doolittle's Tokyo raiders. The very late war N1K series did NOT have any armour plate at all. Nevertheless, it wasn't considered particularly fragile.

The Ki 61 apparently had a VERY robust airframe. It was eentually used in ramming attacks against the B-29 with a fair number of surviving pilots. That fact surprised me also.

Regarding added power from timing changes, I will give some examples for a Ford 302 as installed in the 1987-1993 Mustang:
Stock gives about 220-225 hp.
Base timing (without computer adjustments - Remove the SPOUT connector to set) is nominally 10 degrees BTC. (Actual is often more like 8 degrees.)
Advancing it to 12 degrees BTC gives somewhere UNDER 5 hp.
Advancing it to 14 degrees BTC makes the engine knock under hard acceleration.
Retarding back to 0 degrees loses about 10-15 hp.
These are pretty typical dyno results.

The folks messing with captured Japanese aircraft were trying to document their performance for intelligence purposes. It doesn't make sense in this context to "hotrod" the test subject because the resulting data would be meaningless. Nevertheless, occasionally they goofed up and did it anyway because they typically didn't have pilot manuals to work with. This could be seen in the testing of Arnim Faber's 190 and the EB-104 FW 190G-3 I mentioned earlier.

Just increasing the octane rating of fuel won't do all that much. You need to change a bunch of other things to really increase power.

- Ivan.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I typed up a fairly long post while at work but neglected to send it before I left. Here is a shorter summary.

The idea that only late war Japanese fighters had crew protection isn't really all that accurate. The Ki-61 Hien had armour plate but it first flew in December 1941. One was used in an attempt to intercept Doolittle's Tokyo raiders. The very late war N1K series did NOT have any armour plate at all. Nevertheless, it wasn't considered particularly fragile.

The Ki 61 apparently had a VERY robust airframe. It was eentually used in ramming attacks against the B-29 with a fair number of surviving pilots. That fact surprised me also.

Regarding added power from timing changes, I will give some examples for a Ford 302 as installed in the 1987-1993 Mustang:
Stock gives about 220-225 hp.
Base timing (without computer adjustments - Remove the SPOUT connector to set) is nominally 10 degrees BTC. (Actual is often more like 8 degrees.)
Advancing it to 12 degrees BTC gives somewhere UNDER 5 hp.
Advancing it to 14 degrees BTC makes the engine knock under hard acceleration.
Retarding back to 0 degrees loses about 10-15 hp.
These are pretty typical dyno results.

The folks messing with captured Japanese aircraft were trying to document their performance for intelligence purposes. It doesn't make sense in this context to "hotrod" the test subject because the resulting data would be meaningless. Nevertheless, occasionally they goofed up and did it anyway because they typically didn't have pilot manuals to work with. This could be seen in the testing of Arnim Faber's 190 and the EB-104 FW 190G-3 I mentioned earlier.

Just increasing the octane rating of fuel won't do all that much. You need to change a bunch of other things to really increase power.

- Ivan.

Obviously we are never going to agree here, which is fine.

The reason your get heavy pre-detonation at 14 degrees is that you can't even GET decent octane fuel anymore, much less high octane. The 1988 engine suffers from both ridiculously low octane fuel (91 Supreme? DISGUSTING:mad:) and the lack of tetraethyl lead. Try a 455 Buick, Stage 1 with 10.5-1. It needed 95 octane (R+M)/2 just to idle without knocking. I used to run 101-102 octane because it detonated like a bastard on anything under 99 octane. When the only way I could get 100 octane was sneak out to the local general aviation airport and fill up some jerry cans (NOT a good idea BTW, AvGas is a different critter and the wrong type will cause lead build up like you wouldn't believe) or spend as much on octane booster as on gas I sold the car. For $2,000.

I recently saw one offered for $57,000.:(
 
I guess you are right. We probably won't agree. Nice to meet a fellow gear head though.

The electronic engines like the Ford 5.0 have a bunch of silly things to bring them into emissions compliance. Stuff like EGR brings combustion temperatures down under part throttle. Same goes for VERY rich mixtures needed to leave unburned fuel to fire up the catalytic converters. Compression ratio is also rather low at 8.8:1. BTW, 14 degrees was only the base timing. With the SPOUT connector in place, a 10 degree base timing really worked out to about 15 degrees just at idle (700 RPM). At full throttle, it would be a LOT more advance. At some point, more advance doesn't mean more power.

What is really cool in my opinion is the reverse flow cooling in the late model Chevy 350s. They manage some pretty high compression (I believe 9.5 or 10 to 1 and prevent detonation by running coolant past the cylinder heads before the bottom end of the engine. These folks get their power and STILL run fine on unleaded premium.

Modern Aviation Fuel like 100 Low Lead doesn't hardly compare to the wartime stuff. Check out section IV. N in the report at this link for some comparisions of US to German fuel. Where would you get stuff like that today?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html

- Ivan.
 
Aircraft have superchargers with do not exceed boost pressures which can be exceeded with higher octane fuel or less concern about the life of the engine. Mixture controls also effect performance and engine life.
 

ScrewySqrl

Kicked
Obviously we are never going to agree here, which is fine.

The reason your get heavy pre-detonation at 14 degrees is that you can't even GET decent octane fuel anymore, much less high octane. The 1988 engine suffers from both ridiculously low octane fuel (91 Supreme? DISGUSTING:mad:) and the lack of tetraethyl lead. Try a 455 Buick, Stage 1 with 10.5-1. It needed 95 octane (R+M)/2 just to idle without knocking. I used to run 101-102 octane because it detonated like a bastard on anything under 99 octane. When the only way I could get 100 octane was sneak out to the local general aviation airport and fill up some jerry cans (NOT a good idea BTW, AvGas is a different critter and the wrong type will cause lead build up like you wouldn't believe) or spend as much on octane booster as on gas I sold the car. For $2,000.

I recently saw one offered for $57,000.:(

reminds me of the old muscle car I bought in 1997 (a 442). I paid $900 for it, in 6 months, I put $900 in gas in it (when Gas was about $1.25/gal). I got rid of it fast
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
reminds me of the old muscle car I bought in 1997 (a 442). I paid $900 for it, in 6 months, I put $900 in gas in it (when Gas was about $1.25/gal). I got rid of it fast
Yep. My GS was great. It could pass anything on the road (in 1971 the car magazines tested it against the Hemi 'Cuda and the GS won every time:D) except a gas station.

I swear when you floored it, you could literally see the gas gauge move. Still it was nice to have a car that could break the tires loose at freeway speeds just by dropping a gear and hammering the gas pedal.:p
 
At one point, we had a Mercury Marquis station wagon with a 460 cid and a two barrel carb.... Only 205 hp or so but well over 400 foot pounds torque. 5880 pounds EMPTY. I used it as a commuter for a while. I actually worked out the numbers and finally realised I was getting around 3.5 mpg. (13 on the highway.)

- Ivan.
 
SergeantHeretic said:
Essentially a hopeless fantasy given the nature of the war they initiated.
No. Given the nature of the opposition. Japan was completely unprepared for the kind of war she'd taken on, & completely unaware of the difference between fighting a blue-water war compared to a brown-water (local) one. Japan had no prayer of defeating even Britain alone, let alone both the U.S. & Britain.
Catspoke said:
Best case Midway:
1) Japanese are repulsed on the actual invasion of the island, so there is no long term attrition in trying to hold such a place so close to American bases and the Americans feel complacent about the victory.
2) Midway though is a Japanese carrier tactical victory with less Japanese carrier losses than OTL
3) Americans end up trust their code breaking less.
4) Americans don't really do anything then until the Essex class carriers are operational in November 1943 (no Solomons attrition hole)
5) Then the Japanese don't commit fleet units to the big battle until American close to something important (like OTL Leyete Gulf), where land based air can be committed and American are tied to protecting a major land campaign.
6) Hope something incredibly lucky happens and you actually do OK in this battle.
7) Hope the Allies are bogged down in Europe and their energy and A-bombs are diverted there
8) Hope the cold war gets really frosty early (not the Germans, but the Soviets put down the Warsaw rising brutally or something) and the Allies are willing to make a slighty less unconditional surrender with you.
You've forgotten a crucial point. None of it makes the slightest damn difference, because IJN was incompetent to protect her sea trade, & USN subs, lousy Mark XIV torpedoes, deficient dispositions, & all, would crash Japan's economy no later than about January 1945 even if Japan won at Midway. :rolleyes:

Japan had to take & hold Midway to change anything, & that needs ASBs.:rolleyes:
 
If the Japanese somehow win at Midway I think they will move their ships closer to Espiritus Santo and Fiji with an eye on blocking the shipping routes from the US to Australia. Their goal here will be to cow Canberra into leaving the war, perhaps Wellington as well. Japanese war planners will eye Hawaii, but taking it will be a totally different concern.

As for American will to fight, there was some question in the darker hours of 1942 about how the war would ultimately turn out. Midway was a desperately needed shot in the arm for confidence as was Stalingrad, and without a Midway victory in 1942 you might see the emergence of a peace faction in the US willing to give some concessions to Japan (Philippines, Wake, Guam, and SE Asia). Anyone who joins such a faction will be blacklisted by war's end but in the heat of the moment who knows.

Overall I think there will be another major carrier battle after Midway probably in late 1942/early 1943 with Japan trying desperately to overreach herself again. They might try to seal off Papua New Guinea again and resolve that quagmire or head for Sri Lanka to try to cut off the British shipping there and foment rebellion. Her victory at Midway will buy her 4-8 months and might mean Iwo Jima is still in Japanese hands when atomic clouds rise over Hiroshima and perhaps Naha as well. It might also delay things slightly in Europe as we would likely put more resources into the Pacific, maybe causing Berlin to disappear in an atomic fireball as well.
 
hmmm.... a thread back from the dead.....ok here goes.
the asb's somehow allow 3 US carriers to be sunk with no Japanese losses.
Next day FDR calls Churchill,you remember those 2 carriers we repaired for you for free,are they overly busy?........Australian Prime minister calls Churchill,we really need some help down here preferably a couple of carriers...if not we need our troops back asp.
Net result the RN gets practical experience with US style deck parks and RAS.USN gets practical experience with night ops (lets throw a bunch of torpedo planes into the slot at Guadalcanal)and radar control of CAP.
RN goes hmmm we really like your big carrier groups and sort of like the open hangar(needs some doors to keep the snow ou
t).....USN goes we really like your armoured deck.So just maybe Midway and Malta come a year earlier.Just maybe Malta gets layed down in october '42 instead of Audacious.
Japs get a heavy over dose of victory disease withdrawal symptoms.
End result as OTL but RN has a couple of really useful carriers post war.
 
I don't see the Japs winning any way.

And my question is: what if they win at Midway, destroying 3/3 US ships and actually listen to Yamamoto and return home?
 
SergeantHeretic said:
The United States DID have abundant resources and logistics and Yamamoto knew that too.

He tried to warn the Diet and the militarists and the Industrialists, but that just was not what they wanted to hear.
You know that "I can run wild for 6mo"? I think he was trying to say, "If you can't achieve victory in that time, you damn well better not start, because otherwise, Japan is doomed". IJA wouldn't listen, & didn't have the education nor grasp of strategy nor the grasp of the difference of the war nor of their proposed enemy to understand what a shitstorm they'd be unleashing...:eek::eek:
Hyperion said:
The overall US strategy will likely still be the same, the key is when it can be implemeneted if Yorktown, Enterprise, and Hornet are on the bottom of the Pacific off Midway.
CalBear said:
Since the U.S. did the Central Pacific strategy with Yorktown, Hornet, and Wasp all sitting on the ocean floor, and since the USN would still have outnumbered the IJN 2-1 in decks and 3-1 in aircraft even if none of the IJN decks were lost at Midway (also more than slightly unlikely) by the time of Philippine Sea, it seems likely that the strategy would be identical. Since the Japanese would still be operating the same A6M, B5N and D3A as IOTL against the same, far more capable U.S. designs by Philippine Sea, it would seem logical to to expect the outcome to be similar
Gentlemen, with all respect to you both, you've forgotten the subs, which will bring Japan's economy to a virtual standstill by Jan '45 no matter what else happens. If Japan does better (hold longer at Guadalcanal or Rabaul, even take Midway:rolleyes:), it's worse for her in the long run, since it extends & amplifies the strain on her SLOCs.
Ivan1GFP said:
What if in the design of the 12-shi fighter (A6M), Shibata had won the argument against Genda (Better performance versus Better maneuverability)?
Small difference. Japan's crew training was deficient, & lack of armor meant higher losses, which couldn't be replaced...
Ivan1GFP said:
What if there had been a third strike against Pearl Harbor that took out the Navy Yard and fuel storage. Pacific fleet would not be able to operate out of Pearl Harbor at all....
You need to persuade NGS the barrier strategy is going to take longer than anybody in IJN imagines...:eek::rolleyes:

You then need to get better IJN ASW doctrine, because Nimitz is just going to build up at Midway & use his subs to cut Japan's SLOCs even faster.:eek::rolleyes: (Since he's now got much less capacity for a stand-up fight.)
Hyperion said:
If Enterprise and Hornet are sunk at Midway, how would loosing his two carriers effect Spruances later career, if he survives.
Seems to me it wouldn't matter: Fletcher was SOPA.
Flying Sorcerer said:
Could Nagumo's carriers have been more survivable if Yamamoto provided close support?
Better if Yamamoto had stayed ashore.:rolleyes: Nagumo could have used the VSs from the cruisers escorting Yamato for to find Fletcher before he launched (maybe).
Flying Sorcerer said:
he should have ditched the plan to attack Midway and focused on finding and destroying the enemy carriers which he should have realized were nearby.
That needs both better recce than Nagumo had, or better dispositions, or a better plan.:rolleyes: Nagumo had two mutually exclusive objectives: take Midway & destroy Fletcher. Midway should have been made clearly subordinate, since it wasn't going anywhere...:rolleyes:
Blue Max said:
If the USA loses more carriers it makes more carriers
The better option was build more submarines. The better still option was shoot the senior officers at BuOrd & NTS & make better, & many more, torpedoes...:rolleyes:

Making more Mark Xs would have been a decent option...but IDK if the net would have been better, since it had a smaller warhead. Could there have been a *Mark X Mod 2 with a larger warhead?
ScrewySqrl said:
July 20th, Wasp and Saratoga are present as teh 1st Marine Raider battalion goes ashore to retake midway.
... the Central Pacific campaign starts as OTL, at Tarawa, only a few months behind OTL schedule
That makes the attack at Tarawa, & ops in the Gilberts, TTL much, much easier: without the Makin Raid, Japan would less likely have realized the weakness of her defenses there...:cool:

Aside:
CalBear said:
455 Buick, Stage 1 with 10.5-1. It needed 95 octane
I don't suppose propane or CNG was an option?
 
Top