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"
