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

[GrauGeist]

For example, the CVL Zuiho was part of the Midway operation and might have engaged the USN carriers if the battle had continued and she carried a complement that included 6 A5M-4s:

At the Battle of Midway, CVE Zuiho had a compliment of 12 A6M2 Type 21 fighters and 12 B5N2 torpedo bombers and the CVE Hosho had a compliment of 8 B4Y1 torpedo bombers.
AV Kamikawa Maru had a compliment of 8 A6M2-N fighters and 4 E13A scouts, CVS Chitose had a compliment of 16 A6M2-N fighters and 4 E13A scouts, CVS Chiyoda and CVS Nisshin were carrying midget subs instead of aircraft.

There were no A5M aircraft present in the Japanese fleet in or near the battle of Midway.

 

[SaparotRob]

At the Battle of Midway, CVE Zuiho had a compliment of 12 A6M2 Type 21 fighters and 12 B5N2 torpedo bombers and the CVE Hosho had a compliment of 8 B4Y1 torpedo bombers.
AV Kamikawa Maru had a compliment of 8 A6M2-N fighters and 4 E13A scouts, CVS Chitose had a compliment of 16 A6M2-N fighters and 4 E13A scouts, CVS Chiyoda and CVS Nisshin were carrying midget subs instead of aircraft.

There were no A5M aircraft present in the Japanese fleet in or near the battle of Midway.

I'm impressed.

 

[RCAFson]

At the Battle of Midway, CVE Zuiho had a compliment of 12 A6M2 Type 21 fighters and 12 B5N2 torpedo bombers and the CVE Hosho had a compliment of 8 B4Y1 torpedo bombers.
AV Kamikawa Maru had a compliment of 8 A6M2-N fighters and 4 E13A scouts, CVS Chitose had a compliment of 16 A6M2-N fighters and 4 E13A scouts, CVS Chiyoda and CVS Nisshin were carrying midget subs instead of aircraft.

There were no A5M aircraft present in the Japanese fleet in or near the battle of Midway.

"29 May 1942: Depart for Battle of Midway.
Assigned to Midway Invasion Force, Second Fleet under VADM Nobutake Kondo. Composition: Crudiv 4: ATAGO (flag), CHOKAI; Crudiv 5 MYOKO, HAGURO; Batdiv 3 KONGO, HIEI; Desron 4: YURA with Desdiv 2 MURASAME, SAMIDARE, HARUSAME, YUDACHI; Desdiv 9 ASAGUMO, NATSUGUMO, and MINEGUMO; ZUIHO and close escort plane guard MIKAZUKI. (ZUIHO had embarked six A5M, six A6M and twelve B5N attack planes.) "
Imperial Flattops

This source states 12 x A5M4s:
Orders of Battle - Battle of Midway and Aleutians - Battles of the Pacific - World War II - NavWeaps

Shattered Sword supports the Combined Fleet numbers.

The B4Y1 was a biplane TB.

 

[GrauGeist]

Interesting, because the Shoho was the last carrier to have operational A5M types and was due to trade them for A6Ms when she returned for refitting, however, the Battle of Coral Sea interfered with those plans.

 

[Schweik]

Whether it was 6 of them or none of them, it boils down to the same - a negligeable part of the Japanese force. As opposed to more than half of the Axis force during Pedestal.

 

[GrauGeist]

Whether it was 6 of them or none of them, it boils down to the same - a negligeable part of the Japanese force. As opposed to more than half of the Axis force during Pedestal.

Actually, if Kido Butai had held back and allowed the slower fleet to accompany them, then there would have not only been a considerable concentration of AA, but also an additional 20 torpedo bombers and 36 additional fighters.

 

[Schweik]

But not too many A5M or biplanes...

 

[RCAFson]

Whether it was 6 of them or none of them, it boils down to the same - a negligeable part of the Japanese force. As opposed to more than half of the Axis force during Pedestal.

The IJN embarked 10 x E8s, 6 x A5M4s and 8 x D4Y1s at Midway.

Really, more than half of the Axis force during PEDESTAL? To quote myself:

"The Axis aircraft were operating from 'unsinkable aircraft carriers' and had much more staying power than IJN carrier aircraft as a consequence.

The 89 CR42, G.50, Re2000, and Mc200s were at least as good as the A5M4 Claude which was still a common aircraft in the 1942 IJN inventory. Biplane and flying boat recon aircraft were still common in the IJN.

The 78 x M202 and Re2001 were as good or better than the Zero.

I counted 176 trimotor RAI bombers - these all had similar performance to the G3M Nell and G4M Betty and typically the same or better bomb loads and many carried torpedoes. Again, the IJN was never able to assemble a Multiengine strike force this large against the USN from 1942 to mid 1944.

41 x JU87 = 164 x D3A1 Vals in terms of bomb load.
144 Ju88 = 1126 x D3A1 Vals in terms of bomb load.

total strike bomb load = 1290 x D3A1 Vals.

These aircraft alone probably had more striking power than the IJN ever assembled in the mid war period and to them we can add 10 x He111Hs

The 43 x Bf109Fs were far superior to the Zero and to any Allied naval fighter at that time. The 8 x Bf110C was also faster than any Allied naval fighter and had fearsome firepower and would be devastating to Allied strike aircraft. In the fighter bomber role they were extremely hard to intercept."

And we can add 4 x Do24T flying boats.

so excluding the 89 older RAI fighters, we get a total of 504 'modern' (comparable or better than IJNAF frontline aircraft), out of 659 Axis aircraft. of course all the older RAI fighters were still more than a match for any USN or FAA strike aircraft, with most being superior to the A5M4.

The USN encountered the A5M4 during the USN carrier raids on Toroa and Roi–Namur (losing 4 SBDs to A5M4s) while A5M4s hit the cruiser Chester with a light bomb and 8 x G3M Nells nearly hit the same cruiser. F4F-3/3A fighters tangled with the A5M4s, shooting down only one and inflicting heavy damage on another while receiving damage to several Wildcats. 5 Nells. (proving too fast for the Wildcats who managed only a single kill after bomb release) made a low level glide bomb attack and bracketed Enterprise with 250kg bombs, with the nearest falling 30 yards from the carrier, causing some damage.

 

[SaparotRob]

Damn! This is a great thread.

 

[Schweik]

I'm sure this is all very convincing to you, but you seem to have had your mind made up before any data emerged on any of this.

The IJN embarked 10 x E8s, 6 x A5M4s and 8 x D4Y1s at Midway.

Really, more than half of the Axis force during PEDESTAL? To quote myself:

"The Axis aircraft were operating from 'unsinkable aircraft carriers' and had much more staying power than IJN carrier aircraft as a consequence.

The Japanese also had numerous island air bases which were involved in the various conflicts in 1942-43. Or do you consider Truk, Lae, Rabaul etc. sinkable?

The 89 CR42, G.50, Re2000, and Mc200s were at least as good as the A5M4 Claude which was still a common aircraft in the 1942 IJN inventory. Biplane and flying boat recon aircraft were still common in the IJN.

And yet, this is also demonstrably not true. Here is the main problem: there were not 89 x A5M4 deployed anywhere in the Pacific by May, let alone by the time of Pedestal (August). There appear to have been 6 in the carrier fleet at the time of Midway. 89 > 6. Nor do the 34 obsolete fighters (CR 42 and G.500 based on Sardinia compare to A6M or Ki-43). The light recon aircraft flying from Cruisers and Battleships (E13, E8) are another category which is comparable to the 11 x Ro.37 which were at Sardinia and the 3 x CR 25 at Sicily, though the IJN also had the somewhat dangerous F1M (definitely superior to Ro 37 or CR 25) and the highly lethal A6M2-N floatplane fighters available.

It is in the realm of fighter and strike aircraft however where the German-Italian forces were the most clearly deficient. This is because nearly all of their first rate fighters (especially) and dive bombers were down further south slugging it out in the Desert, trying to win the Battle of El Alamein. Along with all of the best Anglo-American fighters and light / medium bombers. Leaving only basically the dregs and the third tier to fight the maritime battles.

The 78 x M202 and Re2001 were as good or better than the Zero.

Debatable. Definitely not better. I would say that the proof of this is in their fighter opposition, which was the same types of aircraft both in the Pacific and MTO: - P-40s, Hurricanes, Spitfires, P-39s, and later on, P-38s. They did about as well in each Theater.

I counted 176 trimotor RAI bombers - these all had similar performance to the G3M Nell and G4M Betty and typically the same or better bomb loads and many carried torpedoes. Again, the IJN was never able to assemble a Multiengine strike force this large against the USN from 1942 to mid 1944.

But they didn't have the same kind of combat record. They did not kill ships at the same rate. The only effective ship killer among the Italian trimotors was the SM.79,

The 24 x Z506 flying boat / bombers had a poor combat record. Due to it's perceived excessive vulnerability to fighters it was relegated mainly to recon after the Greek campaign*.
The 23 x Z1007 also had a poor combat record, I couldn't find that they had sunk any RN ships though I'm ready to be proven wrong.
The 34 x S.84** had a truly dismal combat record. So far as I can determine, those type only ever hit one enemy ship, damaging the HMS Nelson in 1941. Losses were devastating on almost every mission where they made contact with the enemy.
The 5 x Br 20 were considered obsolete during the Manchurian war, considered unacceptably vulnerable to damage (and prone to burning) even by the Japanese, who had to retire them early.
The 2 x Cr 42 "Dive bombers" were not in the same league as any Japanese strike aircraft.

We can put the 10 x Z.501 and the 2 x S.66 in the same category as the older IJN flying boats such as the H6K.

The 60 x SM 79, though antiquated, were probably comparable to the G3M and Ki-21, as were the He 111. But 12 of those SM 79 were designated for recon.

The Ju 88 is a closer match to the G4M, Ki-48 and Ki-49.

41 x JU87 = 164 x D3A1 Vals in terms of bomb load.
144 Ju88 = 1126 x D3A1 Vals in terms of bomb load.

total strike bomb load = 1290 x D3A1 Vals.

A laughable comparison which has already been thoroughly debunked. If bomb load was the determinant of success in naval air war, the B-17 and the Lancaster would have been the best ship killers of the war. And yet, we know that was not the case. It doesn't matter how many tons of bombs you carry if you can't reach your target, if you can't hit your target, and if you can't survive encountering your target (or defending fighters protecting it).

These aircraft alone probably had more striking power than the IJN ever assembled in the mid war period and to them we can add 10 x He111Hs

Another completely absurd statement. The He 111s proved to be too vulnerable against Allied fighters (including Hurricanes) which is why they had been moved to Maritime operations.

The 43 x Bf109Fs were far superior to the Zero and to any Allied naval fighter at that time. The 8 x Bf110C was also faster than any Allied naval fighter and had fearsome firepower and would be devastating to Allied strike aircraft. In the fighter bomber role they were extremely hard to intercept."

Some here would agree with you that the Bf 109F was superior to the Zero, but their combat record in 1942 against Allied fighters - the same Allied fighters in both Theaters, was roughly the same. Heavy slaughter in the first few months of the year, followed by increasing parity and a slight inferiority by the end. Allied types like the Spitfire V struggled against both the A6M and the Bf 109F. Lets not forget that training is also a factor. I would suggest that say Kidō Butai or Tainan Kōkūtai air units were as well trained and motivated as JG 27 or 77, but I am not sure about all those CR 42 and CANT 1007 units.

As for the 110 which you seem to think (do you really) is so effective, in historical reality, the Bf 110 was deployed several times against Allied strike aircraft, some of the very same types used in the Pacific. Of those, only the Blenehim proved to be vulnerable. The Bf 110 performed so poorly and took such devastating losses in North Africa that they were withdrawn to Crete to contend with Skuas and Sea Gladiators, against which they could still hold their own.

On top of this, the Japanese had over 1,500 x Ki-45 which were at least as good as Bf 110s

And we can add 4 x Do24T flying boats.

Neat aircraft, though not quite up to the standard of the H8K flying boat.

so excluding the 89 older RAI fighters, we get a total of 504 'modern' (comparable or better than IJNAF frontline aircraft), out of 659 Axis aircraft. of course all the older RAI fighters were still more than a match for any USN or FAA strike aircraft, with most being superior to the A5M4.

By my count - 66 modern fighters (Bf 109 and MC 202), and 232 modern (or nearly modern) strike aircraft (144 x Ju 88 + 40 X Ju 87 + 48 SM.79*** ). That ads up to 298 or less than half of the Axis force. Which was exactly my original point. It's also the case, and this is significant, that the very short range of the small number of modern fighters meant that they could not be used to escort the (admittedly, impressive number of) 144 x Ju 88s except when they were very close to base, which severely limits their effectiveness.

The Japanese by contrast, as we know, could escort their bombers very long distances with excellent fighters, and their naval fighters were as good as any land based types.

Seeing as the SBD was able to survive several encounters with A6M, it's very unlikely that they would prove highly vulnerable to CR 42s or G.50s. I don't think they would be dominating TBFs either. Both were used in the MTO.

The USN encountered the A5M4 during the USN carrier raids on Toroa and Roi–Namur (losing 4 SBDs to A5M4s) while A5M4s hit the cruiser Chester with a light bomb and 8 x G3M Nells nearly hit the same cruiser. F4F-3/3A fighters tangled with the A5M4s, shooting down only one and inflicting heavy damage on another while receiving damage to several Wildcats. 5 Nells. (proving too fast for the Wildcats who managed only a single kill after bomb release) made a low level glide bomb attack and bracketed Enterprise with 250kg bombs, with the nearest falling 30 yards from the carrier, causing some damage.

You are really reaching very hard for this. As I already pointed out,

1) This was a very minor action in February 1942
2) The Japanese units stationed in this area upgraded to A6M and A6M2-N that same month, Nishizawa got his Zero just two days after this engagement.
3) Even in February, there were barely any A5M in the fleet, certainly not 300 of them. There weren't even 30 in the Marshals.

So if you want to restrict the comparison to just between the Marshall Islands prior to Feb 3, 1942 and Pedestal in August of 1942, then you would have a point, but we never did restrict the discussion in that way. The fact is that more than 95% of the fighters which were in the combat areas and within range of Allied aircraft, bases or ships in 1942 were the superb Ki 43, A6M2, and A6M2-N types, which were still at the peak of their effectiveness and (particularly in the case of the IJN) flying with excellent highly trained pilots as good or better than any in Germany, the UK, the US or anywhere else.

By comparison as we have already seen in some detail, more than half of the Axis aircraft involved at the time of Pedestal were second or third tier types.

We also tend to forget that the RN also had friendly land based (DAF or 12th AF) aircraft operating within range during some of the Pedestal convoy, which also played a role.

The A6M2-N by the way, of which several were deployed to the Marshals and others to the Aleutians and Solomons, was a far superior combat weapon than all of the German or Italian float planes like the Ro 37, Ro 41, the Ar 196, He 115 etc.

* The Z.506 was mainly known to Allies for being 'hijacked' by POW's and stolen. One Z.506 did once manage to shoot down one of two Blenheims that attacked it. 20 x Z.506 were on Sardinia and 4 in Sicily, according to the book.
.** 18 x in Sardinia and the rest in Sicily, according to the book scan Slaterat posted
*** 12 Sm.79s were listed as "reconnaissance"

 

[RCAFson]

These are all the strikes flown against USN carrier TFs in the Pacific:

Bougainville = 18 Bettys (plus ~5 more Nell sorties against Enterprise)

Coral Sea = 51 = 33 Val and 18 Kate

Midway = 28 = 18 Val and 10 Kate (two strikes)

Eastern Solomons = 27 Vals

Santa Cruz = 109 = 58 Vals and 51 Kates.
------------------------------------------------------

= ~229 IJN strike aircraft sorties against USN carrier TFs in all of 1942.

The Axis flew about 80 strike sorties against the Illustrious TF on 10 Jan 1941 (before Illustrious entered Malta harbour).

The IJN flew about 180 attack sorties against units of the BEF on 5 and 9 April 1942.

The Axis AFs flew about 230 attack sorties against Pedestal alone during the time it was escorted by carriers or about the same as the number of strikes flown against all USN carriers during 1942.

 

[Schweik]

And yet, here once again you are not applying a consistent standard. You accuse me of moving goalposts with great outrage, but this is rather bold. We know perfectly well there were more than 28 sorties flown at the Battle of Midway, just that most of the original sorties were against Midway island because they hadn't yet found the American fleet, and they were devastated before they could strike at the US carriers. That is quite an artificial distinction.

Since when did we agree that only strikes against carriers count? Transports don't count? Other surface ships? Other merchant ships? I already listed just a few of the Japanese Naval air strikes around Australia around the time of the first Darwin raid in early 1942, did you count those? I believe your original claim was that the Axis air forces arrayed against Pedestal were (and this is a direct quote): "far more powerful airforces than the IJN ever gathered, after Pearl Harbour and prior to Philippine Sea. "

A statement impressive in it's passion, it's patriotic fervor, and one might say, intense dedication to a particular group in WW2, but not in any way consistent with reality.

Just like the comparison of the handful of A5M and E8 to 300 obsolete Axis aircraft - pretending that there were only 28 sorties at Midway is just not on the level.

 

[RCAFson]

I'm sure this is all very convincing to you, but you seem to have had your mind made up before any data emerged on any of this.



The Japanese also had numerous island air bases which were involved in the various conflicts in 1942-43. Or do you consider Truk, Lae, Rabaul etc. sinkable?

Yes, and those unsinkable islands were guarded by numerous A5M4s, However, USN carriers did not have to transit past IJNAF island bases to escort convoys, so aside from the early raids they generally avoided contact with IJNAF land bases. However, due to the nature of FAA carrier ops in the ETO/MTO contact with Luftwaffe/RAI land based aircraft was inevitable and unavoidable.

And yet, this is also demonstrably not true. Here is the main problem: there were not 89 x A5M4 deployed anywhere in the Pacific by May, let alone by the time of Pedestal (August). There appear to have been 6 in the carrier fleet at the time of Midway. 89 > 6. Nor do the 34 obsolete fighters (CR 42 and G.500 based on Sardinia compare to A6M or Ki-43). The light recon aircraft flying from Cruisers and Battleships (E13, E8) are another category which is comparable to the 11 x Ro.37 which were at Sardinia and the 3 x CR 25 at Sicily, though the IJN also had the somewhat dangerous F1M (definitely superior to Ro 37 or CR 25) and the highly lethal A6M2-N floatplane fighters available.

The fact that the IJN was numerically weaker than the combined Luftwaffe/RAI is not disputed! The plain fact is that the A5M4 made up about 35% of IJNAF fighter strength on 7 Dec 1941 and gradually declined. The IJN was able to concentrate A6M2s in carriers and in strategic land bases because they could allocate A5M4s to other areas:

"When the war in the Pacific broke out, the Japanese Navy had a total of
521 carrier fighters on strength of which 328 were A6M2s equipping most
of its first-line units." (Francillion, p365).

But we have seen that even the A5M4, armed with two .303 Vickers MGs could give a good account of itself against SBDs, and the 'obsolete' RAI fighters all had at least 2 x .5in MGs and all had as good or better performance than the A5M4.

It is in the realm of fighter and strike aircraft however where the German-Italian forces were the most clearly deficient. This is because nearly all of their first rate fighters (especially) and dive bombers were down further south slugging it out in the Desert, trying to win the Battle of El Alamein. Along with all of the best Anglo-American fighters and light / medium bombers. Leaving only basically the dregs and the third tier to fight the maritime battles.

???? At Pedestal alone the Axis deployed:

The 78 x M202 and Re2001 and 43 BF109Fs and 8 Bf110s = 129 'modern' fighters.

I counted 176 trimotor RAI bombers - these all had similar performance to the G3M Nell and G4M Betty and typically the same or better bomb loads and many carried torpedoes plus
41 x JU87, 144 Ju88 and 10 x He111 = 371 strike aircraft for Pedestal alone. These aircraft were separate from those deployed in Africa.

Debatable. Definitely not better. I would say that the proof of this is in their fighter opposition, which was the same types of aircraft both in the Pacific and MTO: - P-40s, Hurricanes, Spitfires, P-39s, and later on, P-38s. They did about as well in each Theater.

The USN was pretty clear when it stated that Luftwaffe aircraft (and aircrew) were superior to IJNAF aircraft. The unarmoured, non SS tank equipped Zero would not have been accepted by any ETO/MTO AF.

But they didn't have the same kind of combat record. They did not kill ships at the same rate. The only effective ship killer among the Italian trimotors was the SM.79,

The 24 x Z506 flying boat / bombers had a poor combat record. Due to it's perceived excessive vulnerability to fighters it was relegated mainly to recon after the Greek campaign*.
The 23 x Z1007 also had a poor combat record, I couldn't find that they had sunk any RN ships though I'm ready to be proven wrong.
The 34 x S.84** had a truly dismal combat record. So far as I can determine, those type only ever hit one enemy ship, damaging the HMS Nelson in 1941. Losses were devastating on almost every mission where they made contact with the enemy.
The 5 x Br 20 were considered obsolete during the Manchurian war, considered unacceptably vulnerable to damage (and prone to burning) even by the Japanese, who had to retire them early.
The 2 x Cr 42 "Dive bombers" were not in the same league as any Japanese strike aircraft.

We can put the 10 x Z.501 and the 2 x S.66 in the same category as the older IJN flying boats such as the H6K.

The 60 x SM 79, though antiquated, were probably comparable to the G3M and Ki-21, as were the He 111. But 12 of those SM 79 were designated for recon.

The Ju 88 is a closer match to the G4M, Ki-48 and Ki-49.

All flying boats were vulnerable to fighters.

IJAAF strike aircraft never engaged USN ships, AFAIK. The Nell and Betty were terribly vulnerable to fighters when used for low altitude strikes. If Axis strike aircraft did poorly, part of that at least was due to FAA fighter cover. The fact is that in general the Axis aircraft had as good or better performance as their IJN counterparts. Why not just admit this and move on?

A laughable comparison which has already been thoroughly debunked. If bomb load was the determinant of success in naval air war, the B-17 and the Lancaster would have been the best ship killers of the war. And yet, we know that was not the case. It doesn't matter how many tons of bombs you carry if you can't reach your target, if you can't hit your target, and if you can't survive encountering your target (or defending fighters protecting it).

We are talking about dive bombers that have up to 8 times the bomb loads of the Val, and they sank dozens of Allied warships.

Another completely absurd statement. The He 111s proved to be too vulnerable against Allied fighters (including Hurricanes) which is why they had been moved to Maritime operations.

Yeah, no fighters at sea! The He111 was far tougher than any 1942 IJAF strike aircraft.

Some here would agree with you that the Bf 109F was superior to the Zero, but their combat record in 1942 against Allied fighters - the same Allied fighters in both Theaters, was roughly the same. Heavy slaughter in the first few months of the year, followed by increasing parity and a slight inferiority by the end. Allied types like the Spitfire V struggled against both the A6M and the Bf 109F. Lets not forget that training is also a factor. I would suggest that say Kidō Butai or Tainan Kōkūtai air units were as well trained and motivated as JG 27 or 77, but I am not sure about all those CR 42 and CANT 1007 units.

You're really reaching here. The performance, payload and protection of ETO Axis aircraft was superior to the IJNAFs, end of story.

As for the 110 which you seem to think (do you really) is so effective, in historical reality, the Bf 110 was deployed several times against Allied strike aircraft, some of the very same types used in the Pacific. Of those, only the Blenehim proved to be vulnerable. The Bf 110 performed so poorly and took such devastating losses in North Africa that they were withdrawn to Crete to contend with Skuas and Sea Gladiators, against which they could still hold their own.

This is just too far out there... The Me110 was devastating against Allied strike aircraft and had enough firepower to rack up hundreds of kills against Allied 4 engine bombers.

On top of this, the Japanese had over 1,500 x Ki-45 which were at least as good as Bf 110s

The KI45 didn't really enter combat until late 1942 and was a complete non-factor in the naval airwar.

By my count - 66 modern fighters (Bf 109 and MC 202), and 232 modern (or nearly modern) strike aircraft (144 x Ju 88 + 40 X Ju 87 + 48 SM.79*** ). That ads up to 298 or less than half of the Axis force. Which was exactly my original point. It's also the case, and this is significant, that the very short range of the small number of modern fighters meant that they could not be used to escort the (admittedly, impressive number of) 144 x Ju 88s except when they were very close to base, which severely limits their effectiveness.

The Japanese by contrast, as we know, could escort their bombers very long distances with excellent fighters, and their naval fighters were as good as any land based types.

So you exclude aircraft that generally outperformed their IJNAF counterparts, to come up with a meer ~300 aircraft, but all of these far surpass what the IJNAF could field.

Seeing as the SBD was able to survive several encounters with A6M, it's very unlikely that they would prove highly vulnerable to CR 42s or G.50s. I don't think they would be dominating TBFs either. Both were used in the MTO.

The SBD did not fare well against the A5M4, much less the Zero and the A24 proved less than successful in the ETO.



I'll leave off here. The rest is just repetitive.

 

[RCAFson]

And yet, here once again you are not applying a consistent standard. You accuse me of moving goalposts with great outrage, but this is rather bold. We know perfectly well there were more than 28 sorties flown at the Battle of Midway, just that most of the original sorties were against Midway island because they hadn't yet found the American fleet, and they were devastated before they could strike at the US carriers. That is quite an artificial distinction.

Since when did we agree that only strikes against carriers count? Transports don't count? Other surface ships? Other merchant ships? I already listed just a few of the Japanese Naval air strikes around Australia around the time of the first Darwin raid in early 1942, did you count those? I believe your original claim was that the Axis air forces arrayed against Pedestal were (and this is a direct quote): "far more powerful airforces than the IJN ever gathered, after Pearl Harbour and prior to Philippine Sea. "

A statement impressive in it's passion, it's patriotic fervor, and one might say, intense dedication to a particular group in WW2, but not in any way consistent with reality.

Just like the comparison of the handful of A5M and E8 to 300 obsolete Axis aircraft - pretending that there were only 28 sorties at Midway is just not on the level.

Yeah, the KB directed itself against an unsinkable aircraft carrier at Midway, and only flew a handful of strikes against the USN carriers. At Ceylon I only counted the KB strikes against RN ships, and excluded the strikes against airbases.

The Axis employed 659 aircraft for Pedestal of which over 500 would have been at least as good as top line IJNAF aircraft. The most aircraft the IJNAF ever massed against an Allied naval force at sea, prior to Philippine Sea was against the BEF and Ceylon in April 1942.

Again, your claim of '300 obsolete Axis aircraft' during Pedestal is nonsensical since nearly every aircraft used was a least as well performing as their IJN counterparts and over 500 (of 659) were as good or better than the best aircraft IJN deployed in Mid 1942.

 

[Schweik]

Yeah, the KB directed itself against an unsinkable aircraft carrier at Midway, and only flew a handful of strikes against the USN carriers. At Ceylon I only counted the KB strikes against RN ships, and excluded the strikes against airbases.

The Axis employed 659 aircraft for Pedestal of which over 500 less than 300 were anywhere near as good as baseline IJNAF aircraft.

Fixed it for you. That helps put it all into perspective. That is why 3rd and 4th string aircraft like Skuas and Fulmars, Gladiators and Sea Hurricanes could play any role at all. Once they had to contend with first line German aircraft they had to turn around and go back where they came from. Just like the (equally obsolescent) RN forces at Ceylon.

By trying over and over to pretend that A5M4 was a major part of the IJN air fleet you have completely discredited yourself. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it actually true in the historical record, which we can all easily check.

As for Ceylon, the British also had land aircraft which you conveniently forget. The US were outnumbered as well at Coral Sea but made out much better, as I have already pointed out.

Again, your claim of '300 obsolete Axis aircraft' during Pedestal is nonsensical since nearly every aircraft used was a least as well performing as their IJN counterparts and over 500 (of 659) were as good or better than the best aircraft IJN deployed in Mid 1942.

Show me where SM.84, He 111, Z.1007, Z.506 ever sunk any significant number of ships in 1942. That is the criteria of what makes a strike aircraft, not your assessment of performance or weight of bombs carried. If bomb tonnage was all that mattered, as I said previously, the Lancaster would have been the biggest ship killer of the war, and we know that certainly was not the case.

Show me one Italian OR German aircraft which sunk as many major warships as the D3A?

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
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. Numerous U-boats.
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----------- ?

At least according to Wikipedia, in and near Ceylon, in 5 days the IJN April 4-9, destroyed the following -

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 lost 20+ aircraft

During Pedastal in 12 days (3-15 August), according to Wikipedia the supposedly incredible air fleet of Germans and Italians destroyed the following:

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 lost 2 x submarines and 40-60 aircraft

Notice, most of the air attacks resulted in "no damage". This was definitely not the case when IJN attacked the RN.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Comparing anti-shipping crew values of IJN vs ETO Axis seems a little skewed. D3A pilots trained for this stuff and were some of the most highly experienced aircrew in the world at the time.

No doubt the Allies suffered in the Med at the hands of German/Italian air forces, but when one thinks of both equipment and training both, I think the Allied navies in the Pacific suffered more, with the possible exception of the Crete evacuation.

 

[RCAFson]

Notice, most of the air attacks resulted in "no damage". This was definitely not the case when IJN attacked the RN.

The RN had aircraft carriers with carrier fighters defending Pedestal and they did so successfully. The IJN attacked RN ships that had no air cover. The USN deployed fragile carriers and poorly performing F4Fs, combined with poor GCI which resulted in a poor showing for the USN carriers in 1942.

 

[GrauGeist]

The RN had aircraft carriers with carrier fighters defending Pedestal and they did so successfully. The IJN attacked RN ships that had no air cover. The USN deployed fragile carriers and poorly performing F4Fs, combined with poor GCI which resulted in a poor showing for the USN carriers in 1942.

wow..."fragile carriers" and "poorly performing F4Fs".

The Yorktown took a severe beating not once, but twice and would have been saved if it weren't for being torpedoed.
Those "poorly performing F4Fs" made a showing against veteran IJN pilots because they were well-built and performed above and beyond what was expected of them.

Might want to take those Union Jack tinted glasses off to get a better look at what happened in the PTO.

 

[Schweik]

And everywhere else lol

 

[RCAFson]

wow..."fragile carriers" and "poorly performing F4Fs".

The Yorktown took a severe beating not once, but twice and would have been saved if it weren't for being torpedoed.
Those "poorly performing F4Fs" made a showing against veteran IJN pilots because they were well-built and performed above and beyond what was expected of them.

Might want to take those Union Jack tinted glasses off to get a better look at what happened in the PTO.

I've posted the total number of strikes flown against USN carriers in 1942, and they resulted in the loss of 3 USN fleet carriers. Lexington blew up because of a flawed AVGAS system, and at Midway Yorktown was stopped dead in the water by a 250kg bomb hit.

It was the USN themselves that stated that the F4F-4 performed poorly, with a very poor climb rate:

"Fighting Six spent the last few days of March learning about the new model Grumman they would take into battle. They were not impressed: "The planes are like a TBD with a fish,"(7) a grave insult. On 1 April, Gray led a division of four F4F-4s out to the Enterprise at sea for training exercises. He observed the mock torpedo attack on the carrier by Torpedo Six, then landed on board to demonstrate to the air department the features of the F4F-4. That day the squadron took delivery of fifteen F4F-4s just arrived from the West Coast. This was the beginning of a big exchange of aircraft, so Fighting Six would have all available F4F-4s. Gray turned over most of his F4F-3s to Fighting Three and ended up with twenty-three F4F-4s and four F4F-3s. Fighting Six was the first carrier fighting squadron to attain the recommended operating strength of twenty-seven airplanes.

On 3 April with the Enterprise back in port, Fighting Six shifted back to NAS Pearl Harbor to install new gear and commission the factory-fresh planes. Three days later Gray shot off a rocket to Halsey offering his opinion of the Grumman F4F-4 fighter.(8) The performance of the folding wing Wildcat was "exceedingly unsatisfactory." The weight, he felt, simply was too much for the available horsepower, a fact most detrimental to the aircraft's climb and maneuverability. He noted that the F4F-4 had the "feel of a fully loaded torpedo plane." In tests, VF-6 pilots discovered that the climb rate of a fully loaded F4F-4 was only 1,500 feet per minute up to 15,000 feet. Thereafter even that anemic climb rate fell off drastically to 600 feet per minute at 22,000 feet of altitude. Gray found it took almost forty minutes and nearly half of the fuel supply to coax an F4F-4 up to 32,000 feet..." (Lundstrom, First Team).

After Midway, where 28 IJN strike aircraft, in two strikes were able to penetrate the USN GCI directed air defence where the USN had about 60 available fighters, Nimitz sent off a message urgently requesting Merlin engined fighters:

"..Spruance and Browning rated the Grumman Wildcat "greatly inferior'' in comparison with the nimble Japanese
Zero. On 20 June Nimitz relayed their fears to King, noting the "extreme and apparently
increased superiority performance of 0 fighters'' was mitigated only by the vulnerability
of Japanese planes and the superior tactics of the U.S. Navy fighter pilots. "Overall results
have been bad and will be serious and potentially decisive with improvement that must
be expected in enemy tactics.'' Remarkably he called for army Curtiss P-4OF Warhawk
fighters to replace navy F4F Wildcats and Brewster F2A Buffaloes in all marine fighting
squadrons defending forward bases and even asked that the P-4OF "or comparable type"
be tested for carrier suitability; In the meantime the F4F-4s must be lightened, and their
ammunition supply increased even should that require reverting to four guns in place of six.
The swift introduction of the Vought F4U-1 Corsair fighter was an "absolute priority.'' Thus
after Midway the top fleet commanders experienced a serious crisis of confidence over the
effectiveness of the basic U.S. carrier fighter, a worry that would soon influence Fletcher's
most controversial command decision..."
(Black Shoe carrier Admiral, p.200)

The problems in USN GCI fighter direction are detailed in Friedman's Fighters Over the Fleet, but it exacerbated the issues with the F4F-4, since they had such a poor climb rate that it was essential that radar GCI directed them accurately and in sufficient numbers to break up the IJN attacks. By Mid 1942, the RN FAA had had over two years experience with radar GCI and they used it to make effective use of the Fulmar, for example, which had a similarly poor rate of climb:

"The aircraft on board the British carriers were inferior to the
attackers [PEDESTAL] in performance, but that was more than balanced by superior
tactics based on radar fighter direction. The US Navy agreed that at this
point British fighter control was superior. In July 1943, with the US
carrier force badly drawn down, Victorious operated with Saratoga in the
Southwest Pacific. Because her fighter-control techniques were considered
superior, she was made fighter carrier, with all the fighters of both
carriers on board: thirty-six Martlets and twenty-four US F4F-4s." (Friedman, Fighters Over the Fleet)