Japanese War Gadgets

The Japanese were good in making gadgets. They still are. Military historians claim that they (Japanese) had better aircraft, much more powerful ships, lots of experimental and innovative weapons in their arsenal, etc. But these seemed to be mere gadgets. For example, the I-400 submarine. It was useless and ineffective from the start. What was so secretive about the ship that we had to sink those remaining in order to keep them off Soviet hands. They would have made excellent tourist attraction at Disneyland. The two most valuable equipment, radar and nuclear power, Japan never had. The attempt to introduce many of thei new war gadgets were a sign of desperation. They had excellent ships and aircraft. They should have manufactured more of them instead of spending valuable time and effort inventing funny looking war gadgets. The fact was that during much of the war the Japanese infantrymen were still using bolt action rifles. Japan had several strange looking aircraft, very creative in design, some were patterned after the Germans, but were impractical for their war needs at the time.

 

Those three subs were extremely expensive to construct for the Japanese, and far from "useless" as they interpreted the useful value. They ended up being a waste of treasure. That wasn't obvious at the time they were constructed. As to why they were "sunk" instead of shared was that at even that time the "cold war" was looming and America was reluctant to give the Soviets any "tech" we captured.

The huge double hull of the I-400 series was formed of parallel cylindrical hulls so that it had a peculiar lazy-eight cross section, and may have actually inspired the Soviet Typhoon-class built some 40 years later. Why share that concept with the USSR right off the bat?

The USN didn't see the value of, and never used the tech for HUGE subs of that type. The Kursk was an example of that design. Was it "flawed"? Who knows. Are any nations building replications of them? Not to my knowledge.

 

On subs, the I-200 class is far more interesting than the I-400's are. This is Japan's "Type XXI" that they came up with independently of Germany. It was of far more interest to the US post war too.

I-201 class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

In my opinion, they had nothing superior to the allies, maybe their battleship perhaps...but thats a psych weapon rather than operationally useful. Their aircraft weren't superior at all. They ALWAYS sacrificed something for performance, they had some good long range bombers/re-con aircraft, one half decent and one good flying boat, and the zero was only a better performer because it sacrificed firepower and armour plate for speed....(controversial, but i'm willing to argue it was designed off the Harvard/Texan!!!) Ha!
Here in the Territory, we'd call them "try-hards"....They had nothing. A backward, years behind culture that could never catch up in time and without alot of initial help. The Germans gave them some, but really, not much in the scheme of things.

 

I can think of more than a few planes that they had that were at least as advanced and capable as those of the allies. The Ki84, Ki100, H8K, to name a few, were all first-class weapons and only the exigences of war kept them from being more effective against what the allies arrayed against them.

Tanks, on the other hand, were another story............

tom

 

I'll give the Japanese some credit. There are things they did right and things they did better than the Germans and in some cases the US too. For example:

They beat the British to microwave radar and had it years before the Germans. Their only problem was lack of production facilities to exploit it.

As shown above, they had a high speed underwater submarine before the Germans and came to the conclusion that a "Type XXI"-like sub was the solution to future submarine needs ahead of everyone. Again, only lack of production facilities kept them from putting a bunch in action.

They had some very good aircraft designs. The Ki 84 Hayate was as good or better than anything anyone else had flying in 1944 as one example. Again, it was lack of production facilities that prevented large scale use.

On the whole, the Japanese did fairly well with what they had available. Unfortunately for them it was always too little and often too late to change the winds of war.

 

Hmmm...The above aircraft were late war examples...Don't underestimate the TIME they had after hostilties began. Study was done on captured and downed american aircraft. The intel group was collecting information on allied AND German designs and obviously trying to compete with their own takes on this. One doesn't go from an airforce largely of underpowered bi-planes to H8ks or ki100s...(an inline aircraft trying to match the me109) their OWN deficiencies meant a trial with a powerful radial that became an awesome aircraft (pretty much by accident), and again came very late in the war after plenty of "exposure" to real modern types. The Ki84 was a good aircraft but had almost no protection and i think about two 50 cals! Not exactly a fighter in my opinion...one spent all day tagging ones target only to see it fly away again and again...Not what i call a first class weapon.

 

So the Japanese were concocting sophisticated weapons which they knew they could not produce much like the half-ass attack on Pearl Harbor. They could have followed the attack on Pearl with another devastating one and could have executed a mass invasion of the island while the US could not done anything about it. Sounds like Japan chewed more than they can swallow.

 

The Ki 100 came about because Kawasaki made lots of Ki 61 airframes while the engine manufacturers couldn't turn out the license copy of the DB 601 engine for it at the same rate. So, the Japanese in desperation fitted a radial and got a pretty good airplane from the result.
The Ki 84 had to .50 machineguns and 2 high velocity 20mm cannon, was armored, had self sealing fuel tanks and, in post war trials in the US out dogfought the P 47D and N along with the P 51D. By every analysis it was a very good fighter.
As for going from "...an airforce of largely underpowered bi-planes..." that happened pretty much at the same time everyone else's airforce switched: The late 30's. The A6M Zero was designed in 1939 and flew early in 1940. It showed a number of exceptional and original ideas in its design and for the time was the equal of anything else flying elsewhere.
Don't fault the Japanese for poor equipment on the basis of engineering. It was generally their inability to produce the best equipment in quantity that was their problem.

 

Again, i'm not convinced...firstly it was considered compatable to allied pacific aircraft....(not superior). (My apologies also i was thinking of the hayabusa!) This aircraft wasn't used operationally until late 44, early 45! And had heaps of probs associated with it.
I maintain, the Japanese were quick learners (through desperation) and copied many designs and "extra" capabilities....The original statement was that the japanese had nothing superior to the allies (in all theatres)...i still say yay to that.
Yes, i am being a little harsh, but i still think that their "pre-war" expertise and knowledge is what one must go by in determining how much of their tech was theirs and how much was copied or stolen. They simply didn't have the techs or production capabilities to mix it with the likes of the US...(Still don't).

 

I understood that US made battleships would have to pass through the Suez Canal. This restricted the girth compared to Japanese BS's. Japan had 18 inch guns, but not sure they were as accurate or had as long life as the US big guns. Not to mention that they had no comparable radar to the US mounted on ships? I think Japanese arrogance allowed them to build unarmored war planes. Maybe Japanese racism might have played a part in how their war machines were conceived and built. Did they not think we were weak and effeminate? ( hence their loss at Guadalcanal?) Did we not think they could not see well at night because of their squinty eyes? ( hence our losses during night battles off Guadalcanal). I dunno. I'm speculating.

 

Nothing superior? I'd put the Long Lance torpedo in that class. Far superior. I'd put the I 200 class in that category, far superior. That's two that were clearly superior to anything the Allies had in service.

 

Yes, the US did have plenty of early trouble with their torps...
I'll give you those two, there are always going to be exceptions...i'm sure their "blades" were better too.

PS: Nice argueing with you

 

The problems associated with the Hayate were mainly in metallurgy (because of the devastation of Japanese industry) and the nature of the direct fuel injection incorporated in the engine. That system was advanced and effective, easily world-class, and suffered mainly because of the lack of skilled technicians at the forward air bases.

The Japanese fought an inevitable war with a foe that would inevitably win. That doesn't mean they were technically deficient. In 1941-42, they had the most powerful navy in the world.

tom

 

Another weapon I'll credit them with in the "best" category is the Type 92 70mm battalion gun. It was light, maneuverable, could fire virtually vertically making it possible to use it effectively even in the most dense jungle. While officially 10 men were to haul it, 5 could. It had an effective HE round along with a smoke and shrapnel round. While there was an AP round available it was pretty much worthless.
However, the Type 92 could be hauled by its crew virtually anywhere. It was frequently put on the front lines were it caused all sorts of problems for Allied troops. Available in large numbers, the Type 92 was one of the best, if not the best battalion guns of the war.

 

Speaking of Japanese gadgets, I have a WW2 Jap fragmentation grenade -- inert, of course. I don't know how powerful these things were, but I bet I could throw it 50-60 yards. I imagine if I let my 14 year-old son take it to school for history class he'd probably get the rest of the school year off........................

tom

 

A gentleman I used to game with was on Okinawa and he mentioned that the Japanese grenades were not particularly powerful. Indead as I recall he stated just the oposite.

 

Some items, like the I-400 or Yamato, were simply a matter of making existing technology larger, which any of the major powers could have done if they considered it worthwhile. They did produce a number of aircraft like the Ki-84 which were comparable to the Allies' best, but they were never able to build or field or keep them operational in useful numbers.

Oxygen torpedos like the Long Lance had been tried out by various navies during the interwar period - nothing secret about the difference between pure O2 and air - but were rejected as being too dangerous. The Japanese were more willing than other navies to accept the risk in order to gain an edge, but explosions of their own torpedos cost them heavily; examples include the heavy cruisers Mikuma, Furutaka, Suzuya, and Chokai. Given that some of their greatest successes like Savo Island did not depend on long range, it's possible that oxygen caused as much extra damage to them as the enemy.

Side note, bolt action rifles were standard in every army except the US throughout the war, many of them the same or slightly improved Lee Enfields, Mausers, Moisin Nagants, etc. used in WWI. Even in nations like Germany and Russia that had some semi-automatic rifles, bolt action were still the majority.

 

Never heard of Sony, have you? Toyota? Mitutoyo? Pentel? Nintendo? Panasonic?

As far as their pre-war capabilities, they were good enough to just about push the US & UK out of most of the Pacific & it took 3 1/2 years to push them back. They may have "copied or stolen" their technology from the West but how much copying did the Allies do. The US didn't develop their radar w/o British technology & the atomic bombs relied on the theories of a Jewish refugee from the Germans.

 

Dodgy post mate.
Either those companies didn't exist at the time or were making different products from what they make now, or were dealing with inferior products - Have you seen a pre-war toyota?
And it wasn't a case of being good enough to push anybody out. The Japanese struck quickly and with little notice - The allies at the time were concentrating on the European theatre and devoted little assets to the pacific area early on, indeed, it was ONLY the US who showed enough interest to eventually take the Japanese on seriously, and the rest is history.
PS the Atomic (Nuclear) bomb was a conglomeration of many people's work...no one person could have done it.