Re: Nomonhan- Also called the Forgotten War

[Love Shack <Home@DanSources.com>]

Hi Joe:
Thanks for responding..
Based on what I was researching at the Japanese had 1.5 to 1 over the Russians.
Some books state 2:1 kill ratio.  This was similar to that the Germans in WW2
had over the Russians. An air kill ratio of 2:1.  Except the Russians had many
more aircraft and the German attrition wore them down.  Saber to Mig looked like
2:1 ratio or better.

However the Russians lost a bunch of Aircraft to AA fire as they used their
airforce to support their troops both at Nomonhan and against the Germans.

The most interesting fact was the the Japanese pilots at that time had 1000 of
training to the Russians 200 hours before entering combat. This would explain a
lot about the losses they experienced at Nomonhan.  However they did the same
thing throughout WW2 and even Korea.

At the same time it also explains why Chennault was successful over the Japanese
as he employed the Boom Zoom attack and leave tactics.  The very same one the
Russians used on US Aircraft.  Over all kill ratio for the Russians over all US
Aircraft is 4:1 according to some Russian sources.  Again using this same Boom
and Zoom
tactic. It would be interesting to see what Diego has regarding this.

It was amazing the the Saber pilots were successful over the Migs considering
the Migs did most of the attacking, usually with altitude advantage, and the US
AC had to chase.

Dan Fahey

Joe Brennan wrote:

> Nomonhan/Khalkin Gol incident could also reflect on claims/losses debate in
> Korean air war. As Dan mentions a reasonable estimate of actual kill ratio
> in Nomonhan combats is something like 3:2 or 2:1 in favor of the Japanese,
> but the Soviet claims vs. Japanese losses side of the equation is what's
> most relevant to the Korean air war.
>
> The most common total for Soviet claims seems to be 660, (for example
> Stepanov "Air Warfare in the Khalkin Gol", or Pages of Russian Military
> History), though other estimates have appeared, (589 in Bergstrom/Mikhailov
> "Black Cross Red Star").
>
> Actual Japanese losses are given variously as: 164 of which 90 combat losses
> (Stepanov, though mentions lack of detail and possibility of combat write
> offs among the other 74 in his source, which he doesn't name, and he doesn't
> mention AAA), "around 100" (Japanese Monographs No. 144, Military History
> Section HQ AAF Far East), and by counting up individual incidents and
> monthly statistics in "Nomonhan" by Coox, 115, with some mentioned instances
> of AAA and combat/operational losses, though there's not a systematic break
> out. It seems a large majority of the 115 were air combat losses. Coox's
> sources are Japanese archives and interviews with Japanese participants and
> his book is generally viewed as the definitive account, albeit focusing
> heavily on the ground war.
>
> If 660 claimed to 100 actual, 15 real kills per 100 claims, it's food for
> thought in the Korean air war debate. While acknowledging that careful
> scrutiny of US vs. Russian accounts reveals some incompleteness or
> mis-allocated losses on the US side and interesting unanswered questions, I
> don't see a strong reason to believe that mis-allocated or un-reported
> losses represent a large percentage or reported US air combat losses (modern
> detailed reporting, Korwald for example). Statements are often made that
> imply true US air combat losses were 2-3 times reported losses. It seems to
> be based mainly on the following argument: "we now know Russian claims in
> detail and they couldn't possibly be as exaggerated as US loss records at
> face value make them look." In other words the restatement of US air combat
> losses to much higher levels than reflected in US documentation seems to be
> based mainly on the idea that Russian claims must have some minimum
> percentage of validity, but the assumed percentage seems to be quite a bit
> higher than the actual  percentage in the Nomonhan example.  In Nomonhan
> both sides exaggerated ridiculously; JAAF claimed 1100-1300 against revised
> modern estimate of 208 losses for the Soviets. The Japanese certainly
> continued to do so in the Pacific War, and I believe so did the Russians in
> Korea, maybe even worse, and that's probably the main reason for the
> seemingly shocking discrepancy between Russian claims and admitted US air
> combat losses in Korea which became known with the fall of the Soviet Union,
> rather than a large percentage mis-statement of losses by the Americans.
>
> Joe Brennan
>
> http://www.airforce.ru/history/khalkin-gol/index.htm (Russian, I babelfished
> it and referred to some English e-mail posts by same author)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Love Shack" <Home@DanSources.com>
> To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 2:50 PM
> Subject: Nomonhan- Also called the Forgotten War
>
> > Trying to get an idea of the history of the area I went back to 1900 and
> > saw that Japan had been in Korea and parts of Manchuria and Mongolia.
> > The Mongols were the Japanese old nemisis' from the days of Gengis Khan.
> >
> > Nomonhan started in 1938 because they Japanese would not let the Mongols
> > cross the river Halha (Khalkhin Gol). They Mongols attacked and a series
> > of attacks and counter attacks proceded. The Japanese were incensed that
> > anyone dare attack them.  Tell that to the Mongols.
> >
> > The Japanese started moving in large reinforcements.  Timing of this is
> > interesting, Russia came to the assistance of Mongolia. The Stalin purge
> > ended.  General Zhokov(sp?) was the Army commander and that used the T34
> > against the Japanese Reneult tanks and their own designs.
> >
> > The Rusian airforce used the I-152 and I-153 and I-16.  This is where
> > General Chenault  learned a bunch about air tactics.  The historians are
> > still sorting out the air war. It seems the Japanese got the better of
> > the Russians at 2:1 to 1.5:1 ratio.
> > The I-152 and later model I-153 were useless according to some accounts.
> >
> > Mostly due to the unreliable engines.
> >
> > But what developed was the air commanders changed tactics. No
> > dogfighting, the newer modle I-16 carried two 20mm cannon and two
> > machine guns.  The used boom and zoom tactics and speed.  This really
> > frustrated the Japanese pilots because toward the end of the conflict
> > were taking a a relative beating in the air.
> >
> > The Ki27 took over the roles of the A5M and Ki10.  All these planes,
> > including the Riussians, had good and poor features.  The Japanese Navy
> > saw this develoment and the A6M2 Zero was developed.  So were Russian
> > tactics.  Chennault developed his techniques which were used with the
> > AVG.  The identical tactics the Russian used against the Japanes at
> > Nomonhan and later in Korea against the US/UN.
> >
> > On the ground the Japanes got beat faily badly.  I thing in one week of
> > battle the Japanese lost 25000 men.  Russian Tanks against Sword
> > wielding Japanese.   The Russians took some heavy losses but nothing
> > like the Japanese.  Reminds me of the Vietnmese attacks against the
> > French and US.  Despite losses both forces were locked in a series of
> > battles and not going anywhere fast.
> >
> > Here are some dates to help you with the timing.
> > 1933. Hitler takes power as Fuerher.
> > 1934. Japan versus China on the China Mainland.
> > 1936. The Spanish Civil War.
> > 1939. The Invasion of Poland.
> > 8/ 23/1939: Molotov/Ribbentrop sign the German-Soviet Non Aggression
> > Treaty.
> > 9/1/1939: The German Army crosses the Polish Border.
> > 9/3/1939: Britain/France declare War on Germany.
> > 9/4/1939: News of the Struggle at Nomonhan reaches German ears for the
> > first time.
> > 9/17/1939: Russia invades Poland.
> > 9/18/1939: France launches limited counterattacks against the Siegfreid
> > Line.
> >
> > Well what this mean?   Japan and Russian had enough as they were using
> > up too many resources.  Japan had other plans and wanted easier to get
> > land and signed a peace treaty with Russia.  Both signed a treaty.
> >
> > Resources were badly needed back in Moscow.  The Russians were in a big
> > Battle with the Finns who were just as tenatious as the Japanese.
> > Russia got pounded by the Germans but without moving most of its troops
> > to the West, Stalin would have had to surrender.
> >
> > Like with Japan, Russia traded land for time.  The same land battle
> > tactic with Germany.  With the Finns..well they were just plane
> > smarter.  Had Japan kept up its war with Russia and Had Japan and
> > Germany coordinated better WW2 would have been a differerent outcome.
> > This was where critical communucations shoulda coulda woulda happened
> > and did not.
> >
> > How does this lead to Korea. All of Korea was well indoctrinated into
> > Japanese way of doing things.  After 1945 a major political void was
> > created and no one thought how to get it reorganized.  Russia got back
> > Port Arthur and use Mongolia, China got back Manchuria.  Korea looked
> > like a certain Marine with Loraina Bobbet ready for disection.
> >
> > The air war over Korea proceeded much the same way Nomonhan did.  Except
> > pilots could not easily land to pick up shotdown comrads.  Though the
> > USA did have the new heliocopter.
> >
> > Duirng the Nomonhan Incident, as they call it, Japanese pilots averaged
> > 1000 hours flight and to 200 hours by the Russians.The Russians used
> > boom and zoom, Cannon equipped fighters against a better trained
> > airforce with a more manurverable aircraft with machine guns. Our pilots
> > had good planes with better training.  Each side had its Honcho's.  The
> > air to air ratio was about the same.
> >
> > This 15 year period leading up to Korea in 1950 is interesting
> > Including being called the Forgotten War of WW2.
> >
> > Dan Fahey
> >
> >