Post-War Yamato-class Turret Armor Tests

     THAT is a section of turret armor plating that was slated to be fitted aboard the IJN Shinano. As the Shinano was converted to an aircraft carrier, the turret armor was never fitted. The test was conducted in October 1946, with a 16/50 Mark 7 gun firing a super heavy AP shell. The tests were conducted at point-blank range. Had the armor been inclined back at the 45 degrees as planned, it would have been impenetrable to guns of any caliber at any range, bar point blank. Read more over at the NavWeaps Technical board.

Alaska-class CBs: America's Cruiser-Killers

     The United States Navy has never officially completed any ships under the designation "battlecruiser". There was a class of battlecruiser constructed during the early 1920, the Lexington-class, but none were completed as battlecruisers (two were completed as aircraft carriers). However, during WWII the U.S. commissioned two vessels known as the Alaska and Guam. They were designated "large cruisers", but had some characteristics of battlecruisers. This post will cover the mission for which the Alaskas were designed, their specifications, armament, armor scheme, propulsion, and their operational history.
     At the time the Alaska-class was designed, the Japanese heavy cruisers were becoming a threat to any then-future carrier operations independent from the Battle Force. At the same time, Germany was building the Duetschland-class "pocket battleships" for commerce raiding. France was also rumored to be developing a class of 17,500 ton commerce raiders carrying 12in guns. Thus, a class of ships was needed to be able to escort carriers, and defend the carriers without detracting from the firepower of the Battle Force. At, the same time this class would have to be able to hunt down and kill enemy commerce raiders. This is the niche that was to be filled by the Alaska-class.
      Final design specifications of the Alaska-class are drawn from William Garzke's Battleships: United States Battleships, 1935-1992:

Armor
light ship	25,971 tons
standard	27,000 tons
full load	34,253 tons
Dimensions
length overall	808’ 6” (246.431m)
waterline length	791” 6” (241.249m)
maximum beam	90’ 9.375” (27.670m)
maximum draft	31’ 9.25” (9.684m)
Armament
main battery	9 - 12”/50 (305mm)
secondary	12 - 5”/38 (127mm)
antiaircraft	56 - 40mm/56
	34 - 20mm/76
Armor
main side belt	9.0” tapered to 5.0”, inclined 10 degrees (229mm-127mm)
main deck	1.40” (34mm)
second deck centerline	2.80” + 1.0” (71mm + 25mm)
third deck	0.625” (16mm)
Machinery
shaft horsepower	150,000
maximum speed	33 knots
endurance @ 15 knots	12,000nm

     Armament. The Alaska-class was the last class of ship in the U.S. Navy to carry 12in guns, and probably the last in the world. However, the guns that the Alaskas were equipped with actually outclassed the 14"/45 Marks 1, 2, 3 and 5 guns carried by the New York-class and Pennsylvania-class battleships early in their careers. Specifically the guns carried by the Alaskas had better penetration capabilities than the earlier 14in guns at all ranges*. This was achieved by the use of the Mark 18 "super-heavy" AP shell which weighed in at 1,140lbs (517kg). The main battery turret armor was 325mm on the face, 152-133mm on the sides, and 127mm on the roof. The secondary armament consisted of 12 5"/38 guns in 6 twin mounts. Antiaircraft armament consisted of 56 40mm/56 cannons in 14 quad mounts, and 34 20mm/76 cannons in single mounts.  The massive secondary and anti-aircraft armament carried on the Alaska-class made them immensely valuable for kamikaze defense late in WWII. Had the Alaskas been kept in service after WWII, it is likely their 20mm cannons would have been removed entirely, and their 40mm mounts replaced by the then-new 3"/50 Mark 27 guns.

The Guam in Pearl Harbor in February 1945

     Armor. Armor was as listed above in the specifications. Additional armor numbers are, 280 to 330mm for the barbettes, and 270 mm on the control tower. As to underwater protection, it was almost nonexistent on the Alaska-class. Rather, the Alaskas relied on internal subdivision as protection against torpedo and underwater shell damage.  

      Propulsion. The Alaska-class ships were driven by four sets of General Electric geared turbines. The turbines were driven by eight Babcock & Wilcox Express boilers. The max steam pressure for the boilers was 45kg per square cm. The turbines drove four propellers. Top speed as designed was 33 knots, but the trials showed a top speed of 32.72 knots. Electricity was provided by four generators. Each engine room (there were two) had a single General Electric turbo-generator rested at 1,000kW, 450V AC. At either end of the propulsion spaces were single GE generators each rated at 1,062kW, 450V AC.
      The Alaska-class did suffer from a number of problems. The Alaska-class lacked sufficient space for a CIC, making conditions extremely crowded. The Alaska-class also had relatively thin armor for her displacement, at a time when it was possible to give ships a high speed even with thick armor (see the Iowa-class). The top speed of 32.72 knots achieved during trials lower than what was predicted or designed. Finally, underwater protection aboard the Alaskas was nonexistent. Any conventional side protection scheme was sacrificed to reach higher speeds, and would have left the Alaskas vulnerable to torpedo attack had the Alaska entered the war earlier than they did. This with a displacement approaching that of battleships.
      History. Construction of the Alaska-class was authorized by the Two-Ocean Navy Act in 1940. Six vessels were authorized, of which two were completed, three were cancelled, and one was scrapped before being commissioned. The two vessels that were completed were the Alaska and Guam. The Alaska was laid down on 17 December 1941, and commissioned 17 June 1944. The Guam was laid down on 2 February 1942, and commissioned on 17 September 1944. The third vessel which was constructed, was the Hawaii. She was launched, but never completed (more on the Hawaii later).
        Operational History. The Alaskas both had very short careers. The Alaska first screened aircraft carriers attacking the Japanese Home Islands in March 1945, and destroyed two Japanese aircraft on 18 March. She then participated in shore bombardment of Minami Daito Jima on 27 March, and in late July took part in sweeps of the East China Sea. After the Japanese surrender the Alaska supported minesweeping operations along the Chinese coats, supported Army landings at Inchon on 8 September,  and sailed to Tsingtao to hold the port by force until Marines arrived to take over.  The Guam arrived at Pearl Harbor on 8 February 1945, and sailed for Ulithi on 13 March joining the Alaska. From there the Guam escorted TF 58 on a raid of the Japanese Home Islands, breaking off on 19 March to escort the USS Franklin back to Ulithi. On 27 March the Guam participated in a bombardment of Okinawa. From the Invasion of Okinawa to the end of the war, the Guam participated in a series of raids in the east China Sea and the Chinese coast. After the end of the war the Guam showed the flag along the Chinese coast, and participated in the occupation of Korea.

The Hawaii just prior to the suspension of her construction.

      The Hawaii. The Hawaii was never completed, and she was scrapped in 1959. However, before her scrapping there were two proposals to convert her. One proposal was a conversion to a command ship similar to the Northampton, but larger. This proposal was nixed when it was shown that an escort carrier, the Wright, could the same thing for cheaper. The second proposal was a conversion to a guided missile cruiser, carrying an ASROC launcher, twin Talos SAM launchers, and twin Tartar SAM launchers. Other variants of the missile proposal included fitting the Hawaii with 12 U.S.-built V-2 missiles, or later 20 Polaris ICBMs. In the end the missile proposal was scrapped as being too costly.
      The Alaska-class cruisers were neither battlecruisers or battleships, regardless of their appearance. They were designed from the beginning as a counter to perceived threats from hostile cruisers. Their main armament was meant not for slugging it out with enemy battlewagons (though it is possible the 12/50 Mark 7 may have been better than the 14" guns carried by the Kongo-class battlecruisers), it was meant to overwhelm an enemy heavy cruiser. The mission the Alaskas were designed was by 1944, non-existent, and in hindsight they were unnecessary. They were anachronisms born from the lifting of the Washington Treaty restrictions on cruisers. Regardless of that fact, they served well and were not inherently bad ships.
   


*Unfortunately, I cannot link directly to penetration tables for the 12in/50 and 14in/45 guns. If you wish to compare the penetrations for the guns, the requisite tables are on the NavWeaps pages for each gun.  The NavWeaps pages are linked to in the post.

Flashback Friday: Fubuki-class Destroyers

     This week's Flashback Friday look at Japan's Fubuki-class destroyers. Said to be the first "modern" destroyer, the Fubuki-class featured power-driven and weatherproof twin 5" mounts and torpedo reloads. Built starting in 1928 they remained part of Japan's front line fleet through the end of World War Two. 

Fubuki-class specifications:

Displacement (standard):    1750 tons

Displacement (rebuilt):       2050 tons

Length:                               118.4m

Beam:                                 10.4m

Draft:                                  3.2m

Propulsion:                         2 geared turbines driven by 4 boilers

Speed:                                38 knots

Range:                                5,000nm at 14 knots 

Crew:                                 219                            

Armament:                         six 12.7cm/50 3rd Year Type guns (paired)

                                           two 13mm/76 Type 93 MG

                                           nine 533mm torpedo tubes (three triple mounts)

                                           eighteen torpedoes

     The Fubukis were unique for their time as they had enclosed turrets for their 12.7cm guns. Most destroyer classes of the Interwar Period had open turrets. The rear of the turret was open to facilitate reloading and maintenance. However, the Fubukis had fully enclosed turrets which allowed use in all weather conditions. At the same time the Fubukis were the first destroyer class to carry reloads for their torpedo tubes. However, the Fubukis were rebuilt in the 30s due to longitudinal strength issues which were discovered after a typhoon damaged most of the Japanese Fourth Fleet. During this reconstruction the Fubukis lost their torpedo reloads.

      Beyond their armament there were not many other major innovations in the Fubuki-class destroyers.

The Fubukis were larger than most contemporary destroyers, with a 500 ton advantage in displacement over the U.S. Clemson-class destroyers. They were also faster than the Clemsons, by a full 2.5 knots. They were longer, wider, and had a deeper draft than the Clemson-class or the British A-class. 

      The Fubukis served from 1928 through 1945 in the service of the Japanese Navy. After World War II one Fubuki, the Hibiki, was turned over to the USSR as a war prize, and served until 1953. Of 24 Fubukis built, all but two were lost. Eight were sunk by submarines, two by mines, at least one by scuttling, and the remainder by air attacks. For vessels built in the late 1920s the Fubukis remained surprisingly potent through WWII. Interestingly, it was a Fubuki-class destroyer, the Amagiri, that rammed and sank PT-109 commanded by John F. Kennedy. 

     The Fubukis carried an armament that for their time punched far above their weight. They allowed greater flexibility in their use because of their heavy armament and high speed. For this, the Fubukis have earned a place in naval history.

     

Japanese PM Abe Visits Controversial Shrine Honoring WWII Dead

     From the Wall Street Journal:

TOKYO—Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's surprise visit to a shrine linked to the country's militarist past threatens to damage ties with the U.S. and has raised concerns that he may be shifting the spotlight to a nationalist agenda from a focus on the economy.

Mr. Abe visited Tokyo's Yasukuni Shrine on Thursday, triggering strong criticism from Beijing and Seoul, but also a rare disapproval by Washington, which has pushed the Asian neighbors to mend ties that are strained by territorial disputes and differences over wartime history.

Many Asian nations that suffered from Japan's wartime actions view Yasukuni as a symbol of Tokyo's past militarism because it honors not just Japan's war dead but also some convicted World War II war criminals, including Hideki Tojo, who was prime minister for most of the war.

"The United States is disappointed that Japan's leadership has taken an action that will exacerbate tensions with Japan's neighbors," said the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo on its website, in an unusual direct criticism of Japan's leader by its main ally.

Mr. Abe has repeatedly said he regretted not visiting the shrine during his first tenure as prime minister from 2006 to 2007 and said his critics misunderstood his intentions. "I offered my respects to those who lost their precious lives for our country, and prayed that their souls may rest in peace," he told reporters after the visit. "I have no intention at all of hurting the feelings of the Chinese or the South Korean people."

Although a well-known conservative who has stated that changing the pacifist constitution drafted by the occupying U.S. forces was his "life's work," Mr. Abe had adopted an economy-first policy after taking office in December 2012, putting his nationalist agenda on the back burner.

Read the rest here.

     This is not good. The fact that this shrine honors bastards like Tojo, is only the surface of this issue. What we are seeing here is one of the precursor events to the return of Japan as a military power in the Western Pacific. Abe's government has already proposed a spending increase for defense, and Abe himself has advocated amending the Japanese constitution to allow for war. A well armed Japan is not a bad thing, rather it is a very good thing. However, a Japan that returns to a militaristic version of the Shinto religion, is a very bad thing. It was the Shinto religion that gave Japan the basis for it's perceived racial superiority in WWII and Bushido, and was instrumental in fueling popular support in Japan for WWII. To have a state endorsement, even a tacit endorsement, of this religion would allow it eventually to seep back into mainstream Japanese culture. This spread could be fueled by tensions over China's aggression with the establishment of their new ADIZ, tensions over the Senkakus, and tensions with South Korea over various small islands.
     Abe stepped over a major line with these actions, not only symbolically spitting in the face of South Korea, but also angering China (though that's not necessarily a bad thing). It is interesting to note that Abe's grandfather on his mother's side (Nobusuke Kishi)was a member of Tojo's WWII cabinet, and made some remarks implying his condoning the actions of Tojo in WWII. In other words, Abe's grandfather supported Tojo and Tojo's actions in WWII.
     Watch Abe and the Liberal Democratic Party over the next few years. Expect rearmament, a possible amendment to the Japanese constitution revising Chapter 2, Article II, and more power given the national government.

Flashback Friday: Plan Z

     This week's Flashback Friday is an overview of Nazi Germany's Plan Z. In January of 1939 Adolf Hitler ordered a build up of the Kriegsmarine, which by 1945 would have looked something like this:

• 2 Aircraft Carriers
• 10 Battleships (Six H-class,  2 Bismarck-class, and 2 Scharnhorst-class)
• 3 O-class battlecruisers
• 12 P-class Panzerschiffe (pocket battleships)
• 3 Deutschland-class Panzerschiffe
• 5 Heavy cruisers
• 36 M-class light cruisers
• 24 Spahkreuzer (large destroyers or reconnaissance cruisers)
• 68 Destroyers
• 90 Torpedo boats
• 249 U-boats

     A few things stand out from this plan. First, the emphasis is on surface ships which fits with Hitler's intent on challenging the Royal Navy. Second, too few destroyers are planned compared to the number of cruisers and battleships. Only two destroyers for every BB and cruiser, in comparison the U.S. had about four destroyers for every BB or cruiser. Third, few U-boats. Plan Z did not plan for the massive U-boat campaign in the Atlantic, and the planned U-boat numbers show this. Finally, there is a distant emphasis on surface commerce raiding in the form of the 12 P-class pocket battleships in addition to the 3 Duetschland-class vessels.  

     Plan Z had the sole mission of giving Nazi Germany the ability to challenge the Royal Navy for control of the North Sea, the North Atlantic and nearby waters. Had the plan the plan been completed it would have easily broken local Royal Navy control*. However, had the two fleets met in battle a la Jutland the outcome is debatable. The Royal Navy would have had all the KGVs, Lion-class, and the Vanguard. 12 new BBs in addition to the Hood, Nelson, Rodney, and 12 other WWI-era BBs. 27 battleships, of which 14 of which were modern, against 10 modern German BBs of varying capabilities (the Scharnhorst-class was more of a battlecruiser design). This also leaves out the question of escorts and the influence of naval air power which was instrumental in the Pacific and in sinking the Bismarck.

     In the end Plan Z was another Nazi pipe dream because of the titanic economic costs and British naval and shipbuilding superiority. It provides fodder for what-if scenarios today, but was of little practical value in WWII.

*Clarification, the German Navy would have been able to break out of the North Sea and Bay of Biscay (assuming France would have fallen if the war had started in 1945) with relative impunity.

     

Flashback Fridays: H-Series Battleships

     This week's Flashback Friday focuses on Nazi Germany's H-series battleships. The H-series was a series of battleship proposals put forth by the Third Reich for Plan Z. Of 5 H-series proposals, only one class made it to construction, the H-39. The other classes were the H-41, H-42, H-43 and the titanic H-44. Plan Z called for six H-39 battleships, of which construction began on two, the other four never made it to construction. Both H-39s were scrapped in November 1941. It would take several paragraphs to explain the specifications on all five H-series proposals, so below is a table of specs from German Warships: 1815-1945:

Design	H-39	H-41	H-42	H-43	H-44
Displacement	56,444 t (55,553 long tons)	68,800 t (67,700 long tons)	90,000 t (89,000 long tons)	111,000 t (109,000 long tons)	131,000 t (129,000 long tons)
Length	277.8 m (911 ft 5 in)	282 m (925 ft 2 in)	305 m (1,000 ft 8 in)	330 m (1,082 ft 8 in)	345 m (1,131 ft 11 in)
Beam	37 m (121 ft 5 in)	39 m (127 ft 11 in)	42.8 m (140 ft 5 in)	48 m (157 ft 6 in)	51.5 m (169 ft 0 in)
Draft	10 m (32 ft 10 in)	11.1 m (36 ft 5 in)	11.8 m (38 ft 9 in)	12 m (39 ft 4 in)	12.7 m (41 ft 8 in)
Main	8 × 40.6 cm (16.0 in)	8 × 42 cm (17 in)	8 × 48 cm (19 in)	8 × 48 cm (19 in)	8 × 50.8 cm (20.0 in)
Secondary	12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) and 16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in)	12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) and 16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in)	12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) and 16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in)	12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) and 16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in)	12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) and 16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in)
AA	16 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in) and 12 × 2 cm (0.79 in)	32 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in) and 12 × 2 cm (0.79 in)	28 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in) and 40 × 2 cm (0.79 in)	28 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in) and 40 × 2 cm (0.79 in)	28 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in) and 40 × 2 cm (0.79 in)
Torpedoes	6 × 53.3 cm (21.0 in)	6 × 53.3 cm (21.0 in)	6 × 53.3 cm (21.0 in)	6 × 53.3 cm (21.0 in)	6 × 53.3 cm (21.0 in)

      Several things stand out from the specs of the H-series, as the war went on (the H-41 through H-44 were designed from 1940-1942) AA armament increased in the designs, as evidenced by the increasing numbers of 37mm and 20mm cannons. The draft of the H-series also increased, to the point where the H-42, H-43, and H-44 would have been unable to use any German port without being dredged. Also, the main armament of the H-44 would have been 8 508mm guns which would have been the largest naval guns ever put to sea, larger than even Japan's Type 94 gun. It's also probable that the torpedo tubes would have been removed by the time any H-series battleship made it to construction.

       The H-39 was expected to fight at relatively close ranges, and as such was designed with vertical side belt armor, the upper side belt being 145mm, the lower side belt 220mm thick. It was calculated* that an H-39 would have been immune to a 16"/45 shell from 11km to 21km on the lower side belt, though a 16'/45 shell would have been able to penetrate the upper side belt at any distance. Deck armor ranged from 50mm-150mm depending on the area, magazines having the thickest deck armor, and machinery spaces having the thinnest armor. Turret armor ranged from 130mm-385mm thick, barbette armor ranged from 365mm to 240mm thick, with armor on the secondary battery being significantly thinner. The H-41 had increased armor on the deck, otherwise the armor scheme was the same as the H-39. Armor specs on the H-42 through H-44 are unavailable, but it would stand to reason that all three would have drastically increased armor in every area. 

      To get an idea of the size of the H-39 here is a photo where an depiction of an H-39 is superimposed next to the Tirpitz.

     The H-series battleships were for the most part hypothetical designs with the H-39 and H-41 being the most practical designs of the series. The designs after that, the H-42, -43, and -44, were all no more than mental exercises because by the time the designs were finished Germany was not in position to build anything larger than a destroyer for the duration of the war. In fact designs made after the H-41 were ordered by Hitler, and that can be seen in their massive size and armament. The H-39 and H-41 can be compared to the Montana-class in that they were practical designs, but the role they were meant to fulfill (slugging matches against other battleships) was taken over by aircraft and the materials slated for use in construction were diverted to more urgent needs. As to the H-42, -42, -44, they were no more than mental exercises along with the fact that they were huge, cumbersome, and impossible to build, similar to the Tillman Battleships.    

Photo Credit: Richard Allison

*Garzke, William H.; Dulin, Robert O. (1985). Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press.

Video: Kamikaze Hit On The USS Tennessee

     22 dead, 107 wounded. 2 days later the Tennessee was back providing fire support.

Whiskey. Tango. Hotel.

     This just out of Michigan where the Legislature just passed a right to work law (yes, Michigan). Regardless of your view of right to work laws, this should make your blood boil.

    So...union members are now on par with WWII vets who went through hell and back again for this country? Real fracking classy. Hat tip to Weasel Zippers for spotting this bit.

    

71 Years Ago Today

Today, at 0755 Pearl Harbor was attacked by the naval air force of Japan, killing 2402 American personnel and wounding 1247. The next day America entered WWII. Think about our mobilization efforts after Pearl Harbor, and ponder, could we do it agin?

September 2, 1945 

Flashback Friday 6/29: Landing Craft Support, Large

     This week's Flashback Friday looks at the first LCS, the Landing Craft Support, Large. The LCS(L) was developed soon after the Battle of Tarawa, when shortcomings were found in the Navy's ability for close fire support for amphibious landings.  

     The LCS(L) carried an armament of  a 1 3"/50 gun and twin 40mm cannon on the bow and a twin 40mm cannon on the stern. Along with 4 20mm cannons and 4 12.7mm machine guns scattered thoughout the ship.  The LCS(L)s were a small ship with a displacement of 250 tons, a length of a 48.5m, a beam of 7m, and a draft of 2m. While they were small, the LCS(L)s were large enough to cross the open ocean on their own, albiet slowly with a top speed of 16.5 knots with a range of 8000km. 

    The LCS(L)s fought in the liberation of the Philippines, at Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and Borneo among others. The photo above shows LCS(L)(3)-8 off the coast of Corregidor in 1945, Later as the war progressed, after amphibious landing, the LCS(L)s were pressed into service as radar picket ships used to spot incoming air raids. LCS(L)s were also used on "skunk patrols" to watch for Japanese suicide boats attempting to attack landing areas. After WWII the surviving LCS(L)s were transferred to navies of France, Japan, Thailand, and Greece among others.  

     As of 2012, out of 130 LCS(L)s only one has survived, LCS(L)-102, which at the end of WWII was transferred to Japan who later transferred it to Thailand. In Thai service she was renamed HTMS Nakha, and served a patrol boat from 1966 to 2007 when she was given back to the U.S. to be used a museum ship.

    The LCS(L) was an example of a type of ship that was meant to fill a gap, and was cheap, expendable, and could be mass produced. The LCS(L) had her origins in several makeshift solutions for close in fire support in the South Pacific, including the modification of Higgins boats to carry several machine guns, among others. Later on Navy brass took notice and built on that concept, and produced the LCS(L). The LCS(L) packed a large punch into a small hull, and was easy to maintain and operate. Today the LCS designation has been assigned to the Littoral Combat Ship which has a number of shortcomings, and is a poor successor to the LCS(L).  Either way one looks at the LCS(L) it was a excellent ship, and performed it's mission well, and was an excellent patrol craft after the war. They were truly, to quote the men who served on them, the "Mighty Midgets".

For a more in-depth profile I highly recommend a post done on the same subject by XBRADTC over at Bring the heat, Bring the stupid.

Photo Credit: U.S. Navy and NavSource Photo Archives

    

The Tin Can Sailors Vs. The Center Force

Video Credit: The History Channel

USS Texas Will Close For A Week

     From the Navy Times:

LA PORTE, Texas — The battleship Texas will close next week for repairs after the 100-year-old vessel began flooding.

Ship manager Andy Smith tells the Houston Chronicle the ship will remain open to visitors this weekend, but is set to close Monday. The battleship, which fought in World Wars I and II and now serves as a memorial and museum to those who sacrificed their lives, will likely remain closed through June 22.

The battleship developed a leak last weekend that quickly flooded the bilge areas beneath the engine room. Officials said Friday that the battleship was still taking on water, but the amount decreased from about 850 gallons per minute to about 100.

Smith says salvage and dive teams will inspect the hull Saturday to come up with a repair plan.

     The leak was supposed to be fixed last Wednesday, but obviously that failed. The good news here is that the leak has slowed. The voters here in Texas approved a measure that allocated 25 million dollars to place the Texas in a permanent dry dock. Construction is going to begin in 2014 and end in 2017. I only hope the Texas will remain afloat to see that day. It would be a shame for the Old T to fall victim to a leak after surviving 2 world wars.

Photo Credit: Louis Vest 

Flashback Friday 6/15: Kawanishi N1K-J

     This week's Flashback Friday looks at the Kawanishi N1K-J fighter called "Strong Wind" by the Japanese, known to Allied forces as "George". The Kawanishi N1K was unique among Japanese fighters in that it had self-sealing fuel tanks, a great deal of armor (by Japanese standards), and could fight an F6F Hellcat to a draw.

     The George began life as the Kawanishi N1K (known to the allies as the "Rex"), a floatplane fighter meant for defending the extremities of Japan's then-large empire. However, by the time the N1K was introduced, Japan was on the defensive and no longer needed a new floatplane fighter.  However, the suggestion was made by Kawanishi to remove the floats and make the N1K a land based fighter, and thus the N1K-J was born.

     The N1K-J, known as the George, entered service in 1943, and was arguably the best fighter of the Pacific War. The N1K-J was armed with 2 7.7mm machine guns in the nose, and 4 20mm cannons in the wing, later versions of the  N1K-J also had bomb racks capable of holding 250kg of ordnance each. The N1K-J had a top speed of almost 600km/h and a range of 1400km. 

      The N1K-J had a production run of only 1435 airframes, production was hampered by B-29s bombing the factories where they were produced. However, the aircraft that made it to the front lines were issued to the elite of the Japanese Navy. An example of this is the 343 Air Group which was formed Christmas Day 1944, fought in at least 15 major battles to the end of the war. the 343 Air group shot down somewhere in the range of 3-5 dozen Allied aircraft, but due to discrepancies between American and Japanese sources the number is not certain. 

     As of 2011 at least 3 N1K-Js survive in American museums, at the National Air & Space Museum, National Museum of Naval Aviation, and the National Museum of the USAF. The N1K-J was the best Japanese fighter produced during WWII hands down, beating the Zero, Tony, and others by a wide margin. However, like many other promising Axis designs it thankfully entered the war to late to have a major effect, and production was hampered by American bombing raids. Like so many other designs it makes you think how the Pacific War might have been fought differently had it been introduced earlier.

Flashback Friday: Heinkel He 219 Uhu

     This week we take a look at one the world's first and best night-fighters, the Heinkel He 219 Uhu (Eagle-Owl). Among other innovations, the Eagle-Owl was equipped with an ejection seat, and a VHF intercept radar.
      Less than 300 Eagle-Owls were built during World War II, but for such a small production run it had a great effect on the RAF's night bombing campaign. During the Eagle-Owl's combat debut, a single Eagle-Owl shot down 5 RAF fighters. The Eagle-Owl was also one of the only German aircraft that could fight a British Mosquito on even terms, due it's peed, maneuverability, and firepower.
    However, due to the fact that all of Germany's resources were being poured into the "Emergency Fighter Program", only ~300 He 219s were built. As of 2012 2 He 219s survive, one in National Air & Space Museum, and one in Denmark. The He 219 was such a promising design, one has to wonder how it would have affect the RAF's night-bombing campaign if more resources had been invested in it.



Photo Credit: LuftwaffePhotos