Comparison of Pacific, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, and North Atlantic naval combat

[Schweik]

Premise: the real naval air war in WW II was in the Pacific. Everything else was a sideshow. The convoy battles in the Atlantic and Med were fought with antiquated relics while the real air war in the region was being fought further south over land in the Desert War.

Fighter and strike aircraft opposition in the North Atlantic and Med were not on par with the Japanese aircraft in the Pacific, and the Fleet Air Arm had some kind of serious procurement problem which prevented them from developing modern, capable aircraft. The long delays and ultimate failure of projects like the Firefly, the Seafire and the Barrcuda meant that the Royal Navy was compelled to use US aircraft such as the "Martlet" and the "Tarpon", and later on the Hellcat and Corsair, as well as antiquated relics like the Fairey Swordfish. This led to their to largely staying out of the fight in the Pacific until the last year of the war.

When they did briefly tangle with the Japanese off the coast of Ceylon in 1942, the RN was trounced and the Fairey Fulmar and Hurricane were all but annihilated. The Fulmar was a major disappointment as a fighter and struggled to cope with first tier fighter aircraft while also proving unable to intercept modern Axis bombers in any Theater. They were adequate for fending off more obsolescent aircraft such as the FW 200 condor, He 115 and He 111.

 

[Schweik]

A provisional chart with all the basic stats, for comparison, of the main WW2 carrier aircraft and single-engined dive bombers involved in naval operations. Not complete, but I'll add to it / correct it per feedback. I will also make another chart later for multi-engined strike aircraft. I'm manly missing data on Japanese aircraft, if someone who knows those numbers could help out that would be grand.
I also assume some of the Stuka stats are a bit off, but I'm ready to correct them.

I'm also not sure on the combat history of the RN ships so help there would be appreciated. How many warships did they sink.

Aircraft -- Strike rng (hvy) - Strike rng (lt) - Scout rng - Direct fly rng - bomb load - air combat - radar - Spd - Crus- DiveB -Torp
TBD ------------ 150 ------------ 175 -------------- ??? --------- 435 ------ 1000/1600 --- Poor ------ No --- 206 - 128 - No -- Yes
TBF ------------ 259 ------------ 300 -------------- ??? --------- 1215 ----- 1600/2000 --- Marginal - 1942? - 275 - 153 - No - Yes
SBD-3---------- 250 ------------ 325 -------------- 400 --------- 1300 ----- 500 /1000 --- Good ------No --- 250 - 185 - Yes - No
SB2C ----------- ??? ------------ 276 -------------- ??? --------- 1100 ----- 1000/1600 --- Fair -------1944? - 281 - 158 - Yes - No
D3A ------------ ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? ---------- 915 ------ 550 / 870 ---- Fair ------- No --- 240 - 184 - Yes -- No
D4Y ------------ ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? ---------- 910 ------ 550 /1100 ---- Fair ------- No --- 340 - ??? - Yes -- No
B5N ------------ ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? ---------- 978 ------ 1100/1760 --- Bad ------ No --- 235 - 161 - No -- Yes
B6N ------------ ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? --------- 1085 ----- 1100/1760 --- Poor ------1943 -- 300 - 207 - No -- Yes
Swordfish ------ 175 ------------ 225 -------------- ??? --------- 522 ------ 1500/1670 --- Bad ------1940 -- 143 - 131 - Yes-- Yes
Albacore ------- ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? ---------- 710 ------ 1670/2000 --- Bad ------1940 -- 161 - 140 - Yes-- Yes
Barracuda ------ ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? ---------- 810 ------ 1500/1650 --- Poor -----1943 -- 240 - 195 - No -- Yes
Skua ----------- ??? ------------ ??? -------------- ??? ----------- 760 ------ 500/???? ----- Fair ------ No? -- 225 - 187 - Yes-- No
Ju87B ---------- ??? ------------ ??? -------------- N/A ---------- 370 ------ 1100/1540 --- Poor ----- No --- 236 - 209 - Yes-- No
Ju87R ---------- ??? ------------ ??? -------------- N/A ---------- 492 ------ 1100/1540 --- Poor ---- No --- 236?- 209?- Yes-- No
Ju87D ---------- ??? ------------ ??? -------------- N/A ---------- 683?------ 1100/2204 --- Fair -----No --- 210?- 160?- Yes-- No

Direct fly range means test range with a normal bomb load but not an actual strike.

Barracudas range was reportedly reduced 30% in the Pacific.

Combat history: Warships Sunk (not counting Pearl Harbor) (this is what I could find with quick googling)
D3A ----------- 1 x Aircraft Carrier, 2 x Heavy Cruiser, 11 x Destroyers, 1 x Merchant cruiser, 1 x Oiler
D4Y ----------- At least one Carrier (Princeton) and Franklin crippled.
B5N ----------- At least two Carriers
B6N ----------- None I could find?
SBD ----------- 6 x Carriers, 14 x Cruisers, 6 x Destroyers, 15 x military transports
TBD ----------- None?
TBF ------------ 2 x Super-battleships (shared), 3 carriers (shared, Philippine sea), 1 heavy Cruiser (Taffy 3 / Samar) - also destroyed 2 enemy torpedos at Samar
SB2C ---------- 2 x Super-battleships (shared), 3 carriers (shared, Philippine sea)
Swordfish ----- ? 2-3 Battleships at Taranto and a lot of merchant ships, Bismark damaged. At least 22 U-boats.
Albacore ------ ?
Skua----------- ?
Barracuda----- ?
Ju 87----------- ?

A few points:
We must keep in mind there is a big difference between range from a land base vs. range in carrier ops. Stukas only operated from land, most of the others did both land based and carrier based strikes and scout missions. Range is considerably longer for land based operations because it's much easier to find your way 'home' and takes less time to land, and less time between landings. On the other hand planes on a land base are out of the fight once their target moves out of range, unless there is another closer base they can fly to, while carriers can go anywhere (so long as they survive)

In addition to the above, the D3A and B5N of course also contributed to the 4 Battleships lost at Pearl Harbor. It's hard to say which one got which ships though, most I think got hit with both bombs and torpedoes.

Ceylon battle had far more losses for the British in three days (8 warships + 23 merchant) than they suffered in 12 days during Pedastal (4 warships + 9 merchant). Half of the Axis air attacks in Pedastal also resulted in either no sunk or (3 of the 7) 'no damage'.

Combat aircraft used by the Allies in the Pacific were equivalent to the combat aircraft used in the Desert War at the same time, but the aircraft fighting in the Med were at least a generation older and more obsolescent, objectively.

 

[nuuumannn]

Premise: the real naval air war in WW II was in the Pacific. Everything else was a sideshow.

What is the point of this? Are you saying that nothing else mattered, or that the naval battles in the Pacific were more important or what? This to me looks like yet another dick comparing exercise...

 

[Schweik]

I just think the main event was in the Pacific. Of course other Theaters mattered. The land war in China mattered too, but the most important land war in WW2 was between the Germans and the Soviets, and after that between the Germans (and Italians) and the Western Allies. The most important naval combat zone was the Pacific.

 

[nuuumannn]

The most important naval combat zone was the Pacific.

So, what's your point? If you already are convinced of this, why do this?

Over heard in NO other naval conflict zone in WW2; "Gee, this bombing's pretty heavy", "Well, at least the Japanese are getting SOOO MUCH WORSE from the US Navy in the Pacific, because its sooo much more IMPORTANT than what we're going through..."

 

[nuuumannn]

Sorry mate, you have to excuse the cynicism, but this discussion seems pointless and it is loaded with the expectation that somehow other campaigns are diminished in significance because of the sheer numbers of ships sunk, aircraft that were shot down and so on in the Pacific. This is almost an invite to controversy.

So what if the Pacific was more important than the Med? What does that prove?

 

[RCAFson]

Barracuda II at Boscombe Down:

P9816 from June 1943 investigated range and the effect
of torpedo (810 miles maximum 650 miles practical) and
alternatively six 250 Ib bombs (780 and 625 miles). ASV
radar aerials cost 5% in range, and flying with hot air to
the engine reduced range by 11%. Range on P9867 with
single bombs up to 2,000 lb on centreline was similar to
the torpedo figure. (Mason, The Secret Years). (It's unclear if these are NM)

Radius with 6 x 250lb bombs, with 65IG allowances for combat and loiter was 178nm at 140knots cruise (4.25hrs in the air - Friedman) My estimate for radius with a 116IG DT (filled to 80IG) and 2 x 500lb bombs would be about 320nm with allowances for combat and loiter and ~900nm range with allowance only for TO and climb.

Recon range with a 116IG DT was ~1000nm at 131 knots.

Albacore range with a torpedo was 809nm at 101 knots with 293IG internal fuel. Recon range was 1038nm internal fuel and 108IG DT and 1148nm with full internal fuel and DT (400IG total) (Friedman)

 

[SaparotRob]

FWIW the TBD should get a "shared" at least for the sinking of the HIJMS Shoho. It might have even launched a working torpedo or two during the Lae/Salamaua raids.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I just think the main event was in the Pacific.

This is a discussion forum. What are you asking us to discuss?

 

[SaparotRob]

I don't think our friend Schweik was trivializing other theaters of action. As far as naval aviation v. naval aviation goes, the Pacific had the truly impressive OPPOSING fleets. Not much floating opposition for the RN in Europe and the Med (well, after Taranto that is). I'm mostly interested in the PTO myself. I think the original post might have just been worded a bit off.

 

[SaparotRob]

Then again, this is a position that could be discussed.

 

[Schweik]

This is a discussion forum. What are you asking us to discuss?

Just whether or not the premise is true. These are issues which kept coming up on another (TBD vs. Swordfish) thread. None of it seemed controversial to me, but others insisted otherwise. So we are going to dig deep into some of the records and see what it looks like.

 

[Schweik]

I don't think our friend Schweik was trivializing other theaters of action. As far as naval aviation v. naval aviation goes, the Pacific had the truly impressive OPPOSING fleets. Not much floating opposition for the RN in Europe and the Med (well, after Taranto that is). I'm mostly interested in the PTO myself. I think the original post might have just been worded a bit off.

That's part of it, the other part is the surface warships and the aircraft involved. I love the Savoia Marchetti SM 79, I have a pretty good model of one behind me as I type this. But it was not a state of the art warplane in 1940, let alone 1941 or 1942.

The fighting was just as heroic and interesting, and I am frankly just as interested in it, but I don't think it was quite on the level as the Pacific War in terms of scale or the kit involved.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Just whether or not the premise is true.

I'm sorry I'm thick, but what's the premise? What is your proposition in support of a conclusion? That's a premise.

 

[SaparotRob]

Decades ago, the then time mayor of New York City, John V. Lindsey, said on an interview he served in the Navy. He was asked about Kamikaze attacks. He said they just pointed all the guns up and fired. He said they called it a "British Barrage".
Did the USN borrow anti-air tactics from RN?

 

[Schweik]

I'm sorry I'm thick, but what's the premise? What is your proposition in support of a conclusion? That's a premise.

Oh you mean like an opening salvo?

Honestly part of why I started the thread is because everything I posted in the OP has been self-evident to me for 30+ years, and the more I've learned about the war since I was a kid, many of my older ideas have changed, but all of those positions are just more supported by the data, at least in my interpretation. At least two people on the other thread this one is forked from insisted that several if not all of those conclusions are wrong. For example, the Swordfish was a world class bomber, the Sea Hurricane and Fulmar had "excellent" records etc. The convoy fights in the Med were bigger battles than took place in the Pacific, and etc. Frankly, I find the very idea baffling, so this thread is meant to explore that, in detail. If I'm wrong about all that, I'm ready to learn.

But here is an opening salvo. The two largest air-naval engagements in the mid-war between the Royal Navy and the Axis took place in 1942 - the battle off the coast of Ceylon in April of 1942 and Operation Pedestal in August of that same year. That Ceylon duel was really the only substantial engagement between the Royal Navy and the IJN before 1945, unless you count the sinking of the Rodney and the Repulse. IMO the results of that engagement prove that the Japanese were a more formidable opponent for the Royal Navy than the combined Italian and German forces facing the Allied convoy in Operation Pedestal.

To support that conclusion, I propose that between April 5 and 8 the IJN wroght more havoc than the losses of the entirety of operation Pedestal which went on for 12 days, and suffered fewer losses themselves in the process. Specifically the Japanese sunk twice as many ships for half the losses in aircraft, and in one quarter of the time.

At least according to Wikipedia, in and near Ceylon, the IJN almost all on April 5, destroyed 5 front line warships, 3 second line warships, 23 merchant ships, and 40 aircraft:

1 x Carrier (Hermes)
2 x Heavy cruisers
2 x Destroyers
1 x "Armed merchant cruiser"
1 x Corvette
1 x Sloop
23 x Merchant ships
40+ aircraft

The Japanese also lost "20+ aircraft"

During Pedestal 3-15 August, according to Wikipedia the Germans and Italians destroyed 4 warships and 9 merchant ships, and 34 aircraft:

1 x Aircraft Carrier + 1 damaged
2 x Light Cruisers + 2 damaged
1 x Destroyer
9 x Merchant ships +3 damaged
34 aircraft destroyed

and the Axis lost 2 x submarines and "40-60 aircraft "

During the fight in Ceylon, both the Hurricane and the Fulmar proved to be badly outmatched by the Japanese A6M fighter. In the Med, such as above Malta, both the Hurricane and the Fulmar proved almost as unable as the Gladiator to stop front-line bomber raids (such as by Ju 88s) though they were able to take down older Italian and German aircraft such as the SM 79, 82, or 84.

 

[GrauGeist]

I don't have numbers on hand, but the Ju87 did account for a considerable number of ships during it's service life.
Dunkirk, Crete, the Black Sea, the Med and so on, all were the Stuka's hunting spots.

 

[Schweik]

Yes Stukas did, they were very accurate dive bombers, and dive bombers in general tend to survive pretty well in combat so long as they aren't forced to fly in big formations like they did with Stukas in the BoB. Their main limitation was range, which was not quite up to naval standard, limiting them to those choke points you mentioned.

In places like the Med and North Atlantic though, the Stuka was only part of the arsenal faced by the RN. One other was the Ju 88 which proved to be pretty good in the maritime role. But most of the Axis strike aircraft available were decidedly on the obsolescent or obsolete side, certainly by the time of Pedestal. He 111, SM 79 (one of the better strike aircraft, but very vulnerable), SM 82, CANT 506 and 1007, SM 84, etc.

I'm going to pull up some of the combat records so we can take a look at them.

 

[GrauGeist]

Don't overlook the shipping the Do217 accounted for.

As it stands, the top three should be the SBD, Ju87 and the D3A. While the Stuka didn't match the Dauntless or Val for tonnage, it does stand at the top of the list for overall vessels sunk.

 

[Schweik]

I am familiar with some of the Do 217's strikes using the two guided bombs / missiles, the Fritx-X and Hs 293. Those weapons proved very potent, sinking one hapless Italian BB and half-wrecking another and sinking one RN Cruiser and smashing up multiple Allied ships. The strikes hit hard but the Do 217s seemed to get wiped out really fast. It's also striking how quickly the Allies seemed to adjust to the new weapons (which were a technological leap that seemed to be about 20 years ahead of their time) with jamming etc.

I would agree for single-engined strike aircraft that were operational in time to matter in any way, your list of SBD, D3A and Stuka sounds right. That is what I would have said too. On paper the B7N looks pretty badass but it came too late. Also, some of the guys from the other thread will tell us that the Skua, the Swordfish, and the Albacore, and maybe even the Barracuda as well were all in the running or better than the others.

If we bring in multi-engined strike aircraft it gets more interesting. Also fighter bombers including Fw 190s and Hellcats and Corsairs started scoring some hits on naval targets later in the war. That G-55 Torpedo fighter version might have been quite a success if events hadn't doomed it.