The Non-Sexy Part of Aerial Warfare

[OldGuy59]

While researching management cards for Japanese aircraft, I stumbled across an interesting article:

HistoryNet.com - Japan's Fatally Flawed Air Forces in World War II

Can anyone enlighten me as to what Japan produced during WWII for air transport? I can't recall any large cargo planes of Japanese origin used in WWII. What is now referred to as 'Air Mobility', either battlefield or strategic, that capability would have been invaluable for an island-hopping war. Especially, if the Army was not working well with the Navy.

I was an Air Force Maintainer for 30 years, and this article reads so true. In the Canadian Air Force, unfortunately, the doctrine bible from which we are taught only contains a single chapter on all things not about flying a plane. The above article highlights all the flaws in that approach, and validates a lot of the issue I used to run into because pilots were in charge of the Air Force. Many of them don't want to get bogged down in logistics, and every time a mission went bad, it was usually because the pilots went into an operation with no though of how to support it. The Japanese Air Forces suffered even worse, according to this article, because they didn't have the experience of a remote war, and the proper method of projecting air power. The Canadian doctrine manual does cover some of this, but not nearly in enough depth.

From what I have read about the German Luftwaffe, they too, did not plan on a long war of attrition. They did not have a robust training and 'aviation crew replacement' program in place when they started their aggressions, nor did they have a robust plan to replace aircraft losses. They suffered from both these things throughout the war. One article I remember reading put forth the idea that Germany lost WWII in the Battle of France, when they lost many more Ju.52 transport planes than expected, and never recovered the logistical Air Mobility loss that impossed on them for the rest of the war. Stalingrad was an example where that loss was most evident. From the start, Goering's assurance to Hitler that the Luftwaffe could maintain an aerial supply chain for the trapped units was completely in error. There wasn't enough air transport in the Luftwaffe, let alone the Eastern Front, to provide sufficient supplies to the trapped units before they started loosing planes in that attempt.

So, another piece of the puzzle in the battles of WWII, highlighting the fact that air forces are expensive, in more than just pilots and planes.

PS: I stand corrected. As of 2017, actually earlier as the publication superseded a 2011 publication on Force Sustainment, the Canadian Forces actually has an entire publication on how to maintain air forces in the field! Someone is learning...

[Stumptonian]

While researching management cards for Japanese aircraft, I stumbled across an interesting article:

HistoryNet.com - Japan's Fatally Flawed Air Forces in World War II

Indeed, a very interesting article, Mike.
It's a wonder they were able to accomplish anything after 1942.

[Diamondback]

Same thing at sea; in Japanese Navy culture, destroyers were seen as second- or third-rate garbage assignments for garbage people to be expended whittling down the enemy battlefleet in night torpedo attacks, without a thought as to the importance of convoy and merchant protection. Which is kinda counterintuitive given the effort they put into making the Fubukis and other "Special Type" destroyers, and the Long Lances they carried, among the best night torpedo-attack platforms in the world for their time...

[zenlizard]

The referenced article brings up a very good point: thanks for the link.

[Dan-Sam]

I watch Indy Neidell's World War Two channel and Germans are right in front of the Moscow gates now (OK, 79 years ago) and their troubles with logistic in late autumn / early winter weather are obvious. I am surprised they got that far. Well, a different world with rasputica instead of French roads... So do not underestimate the role of supply units US Army run Red Ball Express and the difference in results was obvious

[Jager]

All 3 major Axis nations were continually on a short logistics leash. This was partly the reasons for going to war in the first place.
But all three bet on short wars were their weaknesses wouldn't come into play. And they lost this bet.
Karl

[Jager]

Can anyone enlighten me as to what Japan produced during WWII for air transport? I can't recall any large cargo planes of Japanese origin used in WWII. What is now referred to as 'Air Mobility', either battlefield or strategic, that capability would have been invaluable for an island-hopping war. Especially, if the Army was not working well with the Navy.

Mike: the Japanese had 5 transport planes, the best of which was the licence-built DC-3/C-47, the Showa/Nakajima L2D Navy Type 0 Transport. The others were lighter.
They also used some of their medium bombers as transports.
Karl

[OldGuy59]

Mike: the Japanese had 5 transport planes, the best of which was the licence-built DC-3/C-47, the Showa/Nakajima L2D Navy Type 0 Transport. The others were lighter.
They also used some of their medium bombers as transports.
Karl

Karl,
I did a bit of Googling on this, and the Japanese didn't see air transport as a big requirement. The Wiki pages didn't actually mention the DC-3 version, though. I did remember reading about it somewhere.

Thinking of what we have now for Air Mobility, it is interesting to see what didn't show up in WWII. Especially, with countries like Japan and the island airfields they had. The article above had some clues, though. The airfields they did have on the islands would have been woefully inadequate for heavy cargo planes, as even the fighters were crashing at a horrendous rate using them.

[Marechallannes]

...From what I have read about the German Luftwaffe, they too, did not plan on a long war of attrition. They did not have a robust training and 'aviation crew replacement' program in place when they started their aggressions, nor did they have a robust plan to replace aircraft losses....

As far as I know there was a broadly based civil glider societies before and during the second World War in Germany and in addition the Hitlerjugend offered similar actions to attract youngsters for the different military branches.
Luftwaffe training differs from prewar to late war a lot and the low resources did their part in 1944 & 1945.

The loss of experienced crews during 1940 BoB and especially the losses of transport pilots & crews in the Mediterranean theater and some pocket battels 41/42 in Russia did major damage to the training programs during the war.

Something that all Luftwaffe branches regretted was the problem not to be able to use experienced pilots for training in the flight schools.

So I have my doubts about a general lack of training in the Luftwaffe.


Something that could force this impression was maybe the mass of different planes the Luftwaffe brought to action and some doctrin problems with the leading heads of the 3rd Reich.

[OldGuy59]

As far as I know there was a broadly based civil glider societies before and during the second World War in Germany and in addition the Hitlerjugend offered similar actions to attract youngsters for the different military branches.
Luftwaffe training differs from prewar to late war a lot and the low resources did their part in 1944 & 1945.

The loss of experienced crews during 1940 BoB and especially the losses of transport pilots & crews in the Mediterranean theater and some pocket battels 41/42 in Russia did major damage to the training programs during the war.

Something that all Luftwaffe branches regretted was the problem not to be able to use experienced pilots for training in the flight schools.

So I have my doubts about a general lack of training in the Luftwaffe.


Something that could force this impression was maybe the mass of different planes the Luftwaffe brought to action and some doctrin problems with the leading heads of the 3rd Reich.

The preparations made by the Luftwaffe leading into WWII were actually outstanding. The "Sport Flying" clubs and organizations that produced the initial cadre of pilots was an excellent dodge around the treaties against having an air force. Also, the proving ground of the Spanish Civil War provided combat experienced pilots, adding to the training the Germans did with the Russians before the war. I am not well read enough to recall whether the "Sport Flying" clubs continued into the war, but I do remember reading that there wasn't a lot of pilot 'combat' training once the fighting started with Poland. I remember reading that the Battle of Britain started to cause serious problems, as the Luftwaffe wasn't expecting anything like the battle of attrition that resulted with England not capitulating immediately after Dieppe.

IIRC, there was an effort to build up the training schools and infrastructure after the Battle of Britian, but that was something that should have been in place, and working, before the fighting started, according to the sources I read (Isn't 20/20 hindsight wonderful). Further into the war, things got worse, with shortages and trying to train new pilots in an active theatre (something the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan circumvented for the RAF).

If the Luftwaffe didn't use combat-experienced pilots in their schools, I would be surprised. However, anything I have read has re-inforced the impression that good fighter pilots almost all hated training positions, and did anything they could to get back to operational squadrons. That was for any air force. It is a continuing problem, even today.

[Naharaht]

Thank you for sharing the article, Mike.

I have a book about the Desert Air Force and it tells how the British and Commonwealth ground crews and supply were much better organized than the Germans and Italians. They kept a higher percentage of their planes fit to fly. They were better at salvaging wrecks. Whether advancing or retreating they had plans about which airstrips to use. They were better at supplying spare parts and fuel. This all contributed to the eventual Allied victory in North Africa.

[milcoll73]

Mike: the Japanese had 5 transport planes, the best of which was the licence-built DC-3/C-47, the Showa/Nakajima L2D Navy Type 0 Transport. The others were lighter.
They also used some of their medium bombers as transports.
Karl

beat me to the punch lol.

[milcoll73]

i dont think any of the combatants were really prepared for the war they got. the allies adapted relatively. the axis did not.

[Jager]

i don't think any of the combatants were really prepared for the war they got. the allies adapted relatively. the axis did not.

To be fair, the USA and the USSR had the resources to adapt faster (of course, the USSR had Lend-lease help).
More so was the short-war expectation. The Germans didn't ramp up production seriously until '43 and maxed out in '44 (despite heavy bombing of their industry). If they had went to full war footing in '40
(which Hitler didn't want, so he could keep the civilian sector happy), the Allies would have been in far more trouble.
The Japanese didn't have the resources for a long war, even with their '41-42 conquests, and lacked the shipping to get it home either.

And there was a lot in the national mindsets that hampered both the German and Japanese war efforts.
Karl

[Jager]

Karl,
I did a bit of Googling on this, and the Japanese didn't see air transport as a big requirement. The Wiki pages didn't actually mention the DC-3 version, though. I did remember reading about it somewhere.

Thinking of what we have now for Air Mobility, it is interesting to see what didn't show up in WWII. Especially, with countries like Japan and the island airfields they had. The article above had some clues, though. The airfields they did have on the islands would have been woefully inadequate for heavy cargo planes, as even the fighters were crashing at a horrendous rate using them.

Here's a list of Wiki links from the Japanese WW2 aircraft page for transports:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_Ki-56
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Ki-57
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-34
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showa/Nakajima_L2D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_Envoy#Variants
According to that page, a total of 1276 transports were built.
And your seekings are correct; the Japanese didn't utilize air transport broadly or efficiently, even with the amount that they had.

Karl

[Naharaht]

An All Nippon Airways DC-3 used to be available as a kit from Hasegawa in 1:200 scale. https://www.scalemates.com/kits/hase...irways--145765



The are available on eBay, if you are willing to pay the price.

[Diamondback]

The Lisunov Li-2 from Zvezda is another DC-3 license-build. Probably more readily available too.