J.A.W.
Banned
But the Lavochkin I-15 had a retractable undercart, & more power, IIRC.
Best piston engined fighter of 1945?
- Thread starter herman1rg
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thank you Shortround. To go along with this here are comparable lists from Normandy:From Wiki.
Okinawa naval order of battle - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Down at the bottom
Allied logistics and support vessels
3 seaplane tenders
3 small seaplane tenders
and others.
Logistics and Support Vessels
49 oilers
16 ammunition ships
9 cargo ships
8 hospital ships
6 reefers (store ships)
2 survey ships:
2 stores-issue ships:
9 gasoline tankers
6 station tankers
10 repair ships
6 floating drydocks
12 fleet tugs
4 ocean tugs, 3 ocean tugs
The total number of ships may have been smaller than Normandy,
But the mix of ships was rather different.
List of Allied warships in the Normandy landings - Wikipedia
Normandy landings - Wikipedia
To add to my earlier point, by early 1945 operations in the PTO were of a scale that was equal to or larger than the ETO. The landings at Luzon for example involved as many troops on day one as the Normandy landings. The fleet at Okinawa had far more combat vessels than the Operation Neptune fleet. There seem to be two ways to talk about the fleet at Normandy and two numbers. The June 6th fleet seems to be around 1500 vessels and the whole Operation Neptune fleet includes 5000 vessels. Perhaps someone can shed light on this. The Okinawa fleet is listed around 1600 vessels.
That is almost certainly true. However, there will be new participants in the discussion, people who didn't see the earlier discussions, perhaps because they weren't yet members of this community. This discussion will be all new to them. Let them enjoy.
I'd say it's a quite different proposition to sail an invasion fleet across the ocean vs a relatively short jump across the channel, and that reflects in the kinds of ships involved. Neptune probably included things like trawlers pressed into service as minesweepers, tugboats and whatnot. Perhaps it would be more helpful to compare the number of personnel involved, or the total ship tonnage, rather than the number of ships?
Well said. Thank you.
Admiral Beez
Major
I think you mean the 1-153?
The CR.42 may have been one of the most active biplane fighters of WW2, but the best? One could argue that the I-153 is better than either the Falco or Gloster Gladiator and Grumman F3F.
Fiat CR.42 Falco - Wikipedia
- Maximum speed: 441 km/h (274 mph, 238 kn) at 6,100 m (20,000 ft)
- Rate of climb: 11.8 m/s (2,320 ft/min)
- Guns: 2 × 12.7 mm (0.500 in)
Polikarpov I-153 - Wikipedia
- Maximum speed: 444 km/h (276 mph, 240 kn) at 4,600 m (15,100 ft)
- Rate of climb: 15 m/s (3,000 ft/min)
- Guns: 4 × 7.62 mm (0.300 in)
TWO WINGS & TOO LATE — THE GREGOR FDB-1 — Vintage Wings of Canada
There is no doubt that Canada, pound for pound, fights above its weight when it comes to aerospace technology and contribution to modern aircraft design and propulsion systems. …
www.vintagewings.ca
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Yeah, the logistics in the Pacific were just as difficult in their own way as the cross-Channel supply of the 6 Jun invasion. The air fleets mustered for Forager, Iwo, Okinawa, and almost every other Pacific battle had to bring their own floating airfields thousands of miles to the battle, for instance. Every shell and bullet came from Pearl Harbor. Any damaged ships that couldn't be repaired on-scene had to sail a couple of thousand miles to Ulithi.
The Pacific, while second in priority to ETO, was no "backwater".
Finally had a moment at lunch to pull this comparison of combat vessels together:
| Okinawa | Normandy |
| 16 Fleet Carriers (UK+US) | none |
| 6 Light Carriers (US) | none |
| 22 Escort Carriers | none |
| 8 Fast Battleships | none |
| 12 Old Battleships (US+UK) | 7 (US+UK) |
| 2 Large Cruisers | none |
| 12 Heavy Cruisers (US+UK) | 5 (US+UK) |
| 20 Light Cruisers (US+UK) + 4 Anti Aircraft Cruisers (US) | 17 (US+UK) |
| 146 Destroyers (US+UK) + 45 Destroyer Escorts (US+UK) | 139 Destroyers/Destroyer Escorts (US+UK) |
There is a huge separation in number of aircraft involved with roughly 12,000 aircraft involved in the Normandy Landing and 3,000 involved in Okinawa. Naval aircraft in the invasion is roughly 1,900 - 2,000 with the additional 1,000 B-29's involved in the pre-landing bombing campaign. The air war at Okinawa was particularly savage as the Japanese implemented a massive kamikaze offensive. I don't have the exact number, but I believe aircraft losses at Okinawa are around 700.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Appreciate the post. Thanks.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
In addition to the 17 Light Cruisers listed at Normandy, there were three others. One Polish Navy and Two (free) French Navy.
Also, in addition to the 139 DDs and DEs listed at Normandy, there was an additional seventeen that were French, Polish, Greek and Norwegian.
Also, in addition to the 139 DDs and DEs listed at Normandy, there was an additional seventeen that were French, Polish, Greek and Norwegian.
That's easy! The Belgians!Next topic, who had the best beer in WWII...
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Czechs!
Thank you, sir.
You forgot pitch. Number of blades, diameter, blade width, AND PITCH.
They're one trick ponies!
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Dunno - Budvar, Pilsner Urquell, Kozel - not to mention the Bulgarian Zagorka and Kamonitsa, based in Czech recipes from the 1800's.
J.A.W.
Banned
Well, in terms of effort/manpower/priority #1, defeating Hitler was always priority #1 (USAAF lost more airmen in 'strategic' air-raids,
than USMC did in all those 'island hopping' assaults) - so in those terms, the PTO was a 'backwater'.
NOT to take anything away from the tremendous effort/energy/sacrifice required for victory in the Pacific, & indeed, I'll add one more
factor, the ferocity of not only - the fanatical 'Bushido' inspired opposition from the forces of Nippon - but the (so-called) Pacific Ocean
itself, with its propensity towards vicious Typhoons - per: the classic movie 'The Cain Mutiny' - to contend with...
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
There is a huge difference between the Pacific Theater and the European/Mediterranean theaters.
The casualty ratio (percentage) was far higher in the Pacific than in Europe due to the ratio of manpower committed and the nature of combat over geography. And U.S. casualties for the Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard were high for the manpower committed.
Calling it a backwater is weird, as the combat was as savage, if not more, than in Europe.
The Aluetians area may have been a "backwater", since it was not a strategic front.
The casualty ratio (percentage) was far higher in the Pacific than in Europe due to the ratio of manpower committed and the nature of combat over geography. And U.S. casualties for the Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard were high for the manpower committed.
Calling it a backwater is weird, as the combat was as savage, if not more, than in Europe.
The Aluetians area may have been a "backwater", since it was not a strategic front.
J.A.W.
Banned
"Backwater" in % terms of application of force/logistics, excepting a couple of real expensive (in $ terms) items - the B-29/Manhattan deals.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Huh, the B-29 development and the Manhattan Project, being unrelated however both prived to be a solid investment in the long run.
But again, the ratio of manpower committed versus casualties shows a higher percentage in the Pacific Theater than in continental Europe.
In other words, more men were sent to fight in the ETO/MTO than were sent to the PTO.
Of those numbers committed to the ETO/MTO, a lesser percentage were KIA/WIA than the number of men committed to the PTO.
There is also the issue of topography - the ETO/MTO was by and large, fought over a landmass. So casualties were inflicted over the course of aerial and land battles.
In the PTO, battles were fought over land, sea and air.
When a bomber is shot down, you lose a bomber and (roughly) 10 airmen.
When an aircraft carrier is sunk, you lose a carrier, several dozen (or more) aircraft and potentially up to 2,000 men.
But again, the ratio of manpower committed versus casualties shows a higher percentage in the Pacific Theater than in continental Europe.
In other words, more men were sent to fight in the ETO/MTO than were sent to the PTO.
Of those numbers committed to the ETO/MTO, a lesser percentage were KIA/WIA than the number of men committed to the PTO.
There is also the issue of topography - the ETO/MTO was by and large, fought over a landmass. So casualties were inflicted over the course of aerial and land battles.
In the PTO, battles were fought over land, sea and air.
When a bomber is shot down, you lose a bomber and (roughly) 10 airmen.
When an aircraft carrier is sunk, you lose a carrier, several dozen (or more) aircraft and potentially up to 2,000 men.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
