DauntlessDriver546
January 5th, 2009, 20:35
I talked with the guys on the OTHER forum I'm a member of... www.j-aircraft.com (http://www.j-aircraft.com), a website that is totally focused on Japanese aviation in World War II. I asked them the question on why the Japanese built multiple airfields in the same area, rather than build one big field, with the example complex being Wewak. Three gentlemen answered me, and here are their responses. These may be no-duh reasons to some of you already, but for those of you that didn't know, like me, this is very interesting. :wiggle:
ANSWER 1:
In general tactical airfields require dispersal areas away from the runway as well as camouflaged areas for aircraft protection and maintenance. Note that the main Allied airfields in New Guinea (Port Moresby, Milne Bay, Dobodura) were airfield complexes rather than single airfields. Multiple smaller airfields are better from a tactical point of view than a single large airfield.
Regarding Wewak geography plays a role. Wewak (Japanese 'Wewak Central') existed before the war and was expanded by the Japanese and made into a military airfield by improving and expanding the runway, adding revetments and dispersal areas. Nearby Boram ('Wewak East') was constructed on former flat plantation ground. While there was a fair amount of flat terrain in the immediate Wewak area the coast was generally characterized by a narrow coastal plain hemmed in by a jungle covered ridge line rising not far inshore.
Farther west But East and West (Dagua and But) were developed partially based on pre-war facilities. Both were hemmed in by the topography. Many WW2 photos of attacks on these aerodromes show the narrow strip between coast and ridges where these fields were built.
For the early development of these 'dromes see my article published in Arawasi magazine (first part in Jan '06, issue 3).
In summary the existence of multiple airfields at Wewak was dictated by general military requirements for airfields as well as the particular topography of the area.
ANSWER 2:
It may also have had to do with the suitability of the ground itself for construction - I recall reading of allied construction units (when formerly held Japanese islands were captured) having difficulty constructing airfields in some locations due to the softness/wetness of the ground. The Japanese may not have been able to construct one big field, even if the area was flat, due to ground firmness.
ANSWER 3:
The air traffic for a large field would be pretty terrible too. Here, we have three runways and a grass area for about two hundred gilder sorties, fifty light aircraft sorties, and twelve twin otter sorties a day and it gets pretty congested. You can imagine how horrendous it would be with hundreds of high-performance warbirds.
There you have it guys... and although Ohio State lost the Bowl Game, DON'T tell me we didn't put up a good fight! I'm proud of my Buckeyes! :focus:
Thought I might FINALLY contribute something BACK to this community! :friday:
DD
ANSWER 1:
In general tactical airfields require dispersal areas away from the runway as well as camouflaged areas for aircraft protection and maintenance. Note that the main Allied airfields in New Guinea (Port Moresby, Milne Bay, Dobodura) were airfield complexes rather than single airfields. Multiple smaller airfields are better from a tactical point of view than a single large airfield.
Regarding Wewak geography plays a role. Wewak (Japanese 'Wewak Central') existed before the war and was expanded by the Japanese and made into a military airfield by improving and expanding the runway, adding revetments and dispersal areas. Nearby Boram ('Wewak East') was constructed on former flat plantation ground. While there was a fair amount of flat terrain in the immediate Wewak area the coast was generally characterized by a narrow coastal plain hemmed in by a jungle covered ridge line rising not far inshore.
Farther west But East and West (Dagua and But) were developed partially based on pre-war facilities. Both were hemmed in by the topography. Many WW2 photos of attacks on these aerodromes show the narrow strip between coast and ridges where these fields were built.
For the early development of these 'dromes see my article published in Arawasi magazine (first part in Jan '06, issue 3).
In summary the existence of multiple airfields at Wewak was dictated by general military requirements for airfields as well as the particular topography of the area.
ANSWER 2:
It may also have had to do with the suitability of the ground itself for construction - I recall reading of allied construction units (when formerly held Japanese islands were captured) having difficulty constructing airfields in some locations due to the softness/wetness of the ground. The Japanese may not have been able to construct one big field, even if the area was flat, due to ground firmness.
ANSWER 3:
The air traffic for a large field would be pretty terrible too. Here, we have three runways and a grass area for about two hundred gilder sorties, fifty light aircraft sorties, and twelve twin otter sorties a day and it gets pretty congested. You can imagine how horrendous it would be with hundreds of high-performance warbirds.
There you have it guys... and although Ohio State lost the Bowl Game, DON'T tell me we didn't put up a good fight! I'm proud of my Buckeyes! :focus:
Thought I might FINALLY contribute something BACK to this community! :friday:
DD