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

[SaparotRob]

I had actually meant documentation but yeah, lots of those planes. It'd been nice if a few more of those planes had been "rescued".

 

[Admiral Beez]

I had actually meant documentation but yeah, lots of those planes. It'd been nice if a few more of those planes had been "rescued".

I wonder how much documentation the Japanese high command, IJN and IJA had. From the Baltic and Russia, the Nazi Einsatzgruppen would send detailed reports back to Berlin on exact numbers of civilians they had murdered. I get the sense the Japanese weren't nearly as bureaucratic, instead just getting on with atrocities without reporting back to some central office.

 

[SaparotRob]

Much of the Japanese documentation was destroyed by the bombings. A lot was destroyed by battle. You're going to have to ask Robert Ballard for help if you want to see Kaga's log book. However, much was willfully destroyed to protect themselves. There's also willful misrepresentation. Special Unit 731(?). When testing biological and electronic weapons on civilians and POW's, they referred to the test subjects as "rabbits".

 

[SaparotRob]

But yeah, just having fun in Malaya, Nanjing, and points east. Just some good old traditional brutality.

 

[Admiral Beez]

But yeah, just having fun in Malaya, Nanjing, and points east. Just some good old traditional brutality.

Had the British and Empire troops known what the Japanese had in store for any captured troops or civilians they might have prepared and trained for a fight to the finish. Instead, about 90% of the 145,000 British forces (and thousands of civilians) in Malaya survived to fall into Japanese hands, where they were tortured and murdered. At Dunkirk, the Germans did the British expectations of defeat no favours - they should have consulted the Chinese on how to fight the Japanese and what to expect if they fail.

 

[Schweik]

Perhaps you can provide some sources for your claim regarding the A5M-4 being "retired". You were quick to point out the presence of obsolescent RMI fighters, but now you try to reject the obvious and well documented use of obsolescent aircraft by the IJN in 1942. If the IJN hadn't used the A5M-4 then what would they have replaced them with? Zero and most carrier aircraft production was hopelessly inadequate in 1942, forcing the IJNAF to use older types.

So you don't think the IJNAF had large numbers of "flying boats, biplanes, and other obsolete types"? The IJNAF was much more than just the aircraft on their fleet carriers.

Let me clarify since you seem confused here. By "Retired" I mean that the A5M4 was moved to tertiary districts and / or training duties. The single minor engagement you mentioned in February 1942 is I believe the only significant combat A5M4 had with the US Navy. Only two were operational at Coral Sea. The standard fighter for the IJN was the A6M, as we all know quite well. There were also some A6M2-N floatplane fighters. And of course the Army had the Ki-43.

I say again, the A5M4 was not a significant part of the Japanese forces engaged with the USN in the Pacific in 1942.

 

[Schweik]

This is the conclusion of an article about the 5 April raid:

"It is impossible to say with any degree of confidence what difference it may have made if the Hurricanes and Fulmars had been scrambled in good time, but it seems fair to suppose that they would likely have accomplished more at less cost than they actually did. All four means by which early warning might have been given failed. First, the Catalina that spotted some of the Japanese aircraft failed to recognize or report them. Then the Japanese avoided both the ground warning system and the Fulmar patrol by flying well off the coast during their approach flight. The fourth trip wire, radar, also failed, due to there being only one operational station and to it being sited too far north and suffering from a number of technical and operational problems. The radar failure was undoubtedly crucial. The difference that early warning could make was demonstrated just four days later, when the Japanese attacked Trincomalee. That day, the local radar station detected the Japanese at a range of 91 miles [146 km]. The early warning got the defending fighters airborne in good time and allowed them to draw first blood, when one section of Hurricanes bounced three Zeros and shot down two of them, and no serviceable fighters were caught on the ground. Something of the sort might have happened at Colombo, but 5 April 1942 was one of those days when, on the early-warning front, nothing went right. "
https://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/AA/00/06/81/82/00012/Fall-2014.pdf

Nothing seems to have gone right in any of the engagements between the Hurricane and Japanese fighters. You keep posting subjective analysis as if it is proof of anything, but it's just a single data point (that you happen to like a lot).

 

[Schweik]

Sorry but some of those are based upon prototypes or Grumman provided Specs rather than actual aircraft kitted out in 1942 armament, armour and SS tanks. The UK tests of the Martlet II and IV were well documented and were combat ready examples. The Martlets (F4F-3/4/A/B) also had single stage engines with FTHs of 14-15K ft versus the two stage engines in the F4F-3/4 with FTHs of ~20K ft, but then most naval air combat occurred at lower altitudes.

You don't actually know that. There is no reason to assume that one specific test you mention is more accurate than the 5 other tests I posted. The consensus was that the Wildcat could fly well over 300 mph and was in fact faster than the A6M at higher altitude. Exact performance would depend on fuel load, equipment and atmospheric conditions etc. as I mentioned already, but you are just cherry picking the (outlier) data that suits your preconceptions or patriotic ideals.

 

[RCAFson]

Let me clarify since you seem confused here. By "Retired" I mean that the A5M4 was moved to tertiary districts and / or training duties. The single minor engagement you mentioned in February 1942 is I believe the only significant combat A5M4 had with the US Navy. Only two were operational at Coral Sea. The standard fighter for the IJN was the A6M, as we all know quite well. There were also some A6M2-N floatplane fighters. And of course the Army had the Ki-43.

I say again, the A5M4 was not a significant part of the Japanese forces engaged with the USN in the Pacific in 1942.

Again, if the A5M4 wasn't there what would have replaced it? The USN also engaged A5M4s during their carrier raids but regardless the A5M4 was present in the Pacific and an important part of IJNAF air defences.

 

[Schweik]

I thought we were looking at IJNAS Zeros vs. RAF Hurricanes? I think in the right hands the Hurricane would be about as able as the P-40. The Zero fought Hurricanes in Burma? What the heck were was the IJNAS doing in Burma?

There were Zeros operating in Burma sometimes, though the main Japanese fighter was obviously the Ki-43, which was devastating opponent to the Hurricane, and no they did not do as well as the P-40, the continued to get slaughtered while the P-40 actually did quite well in that Theater. There were similar problems in the MTO.

As an aside, you have to feel badly for the Hurricanes in Malaya. Early January 1942 the first batch arrive, the maintenance guys work around the clock to assemble the aircraft, and then the still mostly (except for the last three sleepless weeks) inexperienced Buffalo pilots transition over to Hurricanes. They didn't have a chance to acclimatize to their aircraft before they were all dead. The Dutch took over some of these Hurricanes and suffered the same fate.

I agree, the Allies were off balance in the first few weeks of the war.

Imagine instead if in the spring of 1941 two hundred Hurricanes with BoB-experienced pilots arrive. That would make for a fair comparison with the Zero.

Yes, though much better with Spitfires.

 

[RCAFson]

You don't actually know that. There is no reason to assume that one specific test you mention is more accurate than the 5 other tests I posted. The consensus was that the Wildcat could fly well over 300 mph and was in fact faster than the A6M at higher altitude. Exact performance would depend on fuel load, equipment and atmospheric conditions etc. as I mentioned already, but you are just cherry picking the (outlier) data that suits your preconceptions or patriotic ideals.

We can toss out the prototype tests and the spec sheet data.

This report says F4F-4 has a top speed of 319 mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-4058.pdf

This report says F4F-4 has a top speed of 318 mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-4058.pdf

Those tests were done at 7370lb, or about 200lb lighter than the F4F-3 and yet they don't show the climb rate or speed claimed for the F4F-3. Note also how the aircraft failed to meet the guaranteed values.

What consensus? How can you possibly state that the F4F was faster than a Zero at any altitude when the USN tested them side by side and reported that the "Zero was faster at all altitudes above 1000ft"?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf

 

[Schweik]

Again, if the A5M4 wasn't there what would have replaced it? The USN also engaged A5M4s during their carrier raidsm but regardless the A5M4 was present in the Pacific and an important part of IJNAF air defences.

What do you think?

There were two Japanese units mentioned as being in the Marshall Islands in February 1942 on that page in First Team you were quoting from: the Chitose Air Group , which (briefly) had the A5M4, and the Yokohama Air Group which had bombers and seaplanes.

The biography of Hiroyoshi Nishizawa, who was in the Chitose Air Group, mentions that he arrived in New Britain on 3 February in 1942. It states that his unit received their first A6M2s that same week. He was assigned his A6M2 number F-108 on February 10.

Does that answer your question?

Interestingly by the way, the Yokohama Air Group also received 12 x A6M2-N, Zero seaplane-fighters in April, with which they managed to shoot down a B-17 and a B-24 in May and July of that year.

 

[RCAFson]

What do you think?

There were two Japanese units mentioned as being in the Marshall Islands in February 1942 on that page in First Team you were quoting from: the Chitose Air Group , which (briefly) had the A5M4, and the Yokohama Air Group which had bombers and seaplanes.

The biography of Hiroyoshi Nishizawa, who was in the Chitose Air Group, mentions that he arrived in New Britain on 3 February in 1942. It states that his unit received their first A6M2s that same week. He was assigned his A6M2 number F-108 on February 10.

Does that answer your question?

Interestingly by the way, the Yokohama Air Group also received 12 x A6M2-N, Zero seaplane-fighters in April, with which they managed to shoot down a B-17 and a B-24 in May and July of that year.

Right now tell me that the RAI wasn't replacing their older aircraft as well. We know that the A5M-4 was present at Rabaul and at Coral Sea.

 

[Schweik]

Right now tell me that the RAI wasn't replacing their older aircraft as well. We know that the A5M-4 was present at Rabaul and at Coral Sea.

I can tell you that by August 1942, more than half of the supposedly incredible Axis force of 600 aircraft arrayed at various points around the Med to intercept Pedestal were obsolete 1930's vintage types like the Cr 42, G.50, Ro.37, SM 79, Z.506, Z1007, Z501, BR20, S.66 (!!), He 111

There were 57 modern fighters (39 x Bf 109 and 27 x MC 202) and 182 modern bombers (Ju 88 and I'm being generous to include Ju 87).

During the air battles in the Pacific much earlier in May and June of 1942 as best I can determine the Japanese had 2 obsolete type A5M2 fighters which you brought up in a futile comparison, all of the rest of their strike aircraft were at least as modern and just as capable as the best of the Axis air armada at Pedestal.

So in that sense they were doing better than the Americans who still had Buffaloes and Vought Vindicators at Midway and Devastators on their carriers.

 

[RCAFson]

I can tell you that by August 1942, more than half of the supposedly incredible Axis force of 600 aircraft arrayed at various points around the Med to intercept Pedestal were obsolete 1930's vintage types like the Cr 42, G.50, Ro.37, SM 79, Z.506, Z1007, Z501, BR20, S.66 (!!), He 111

There were 57 modern fighters (39 x Bf 109 and 27 x MC 202) and 182 modern bombers (Ju 88 and I'm being generous to include Ju 87).

During the air battles in the Pacific much earlier in May and June of 1942 as best I can determine the Japanese had 2 obsolete type A5M2 fighters which you brought up in a futile comparison, all of the rest of their strike aircraft were at least as modern and just as capable as the best of the Axis air armada at Pedestal.

So in that sense they were doing better than the Americans who still had Buffaloes and Vought Vindicators at Midway and Devastators on their carriers.

How are the SM79, Z.506, Z1007, BR20 and HE111 which were typically armoured and some had SS tanks less effective than a Nell or Betty ? The Z501 and S.66 were still useful for ASR. The CR42 and G.50 were still useful aircraft and better armed and generally better performing than the A5M-4.

The IJN could put the A6M into front line roles because they could use the A5M in secondary roles. The fact is that Kate and Val were passed their due dates as well.

 

[Schweik]

How are the SM79, Z.506, Z1007, BR20 and HE111 which were typically armoured and some had SS tanks less effective than a Nell or Betty ? The Z501 and S.66 were still useful for ASR. The CR42 and G.50 were still useful aircraft and better armed and generally better performing than the A5M-4.

Right. But all but two of the A5M was retired from the front line by the time of Coral Sea, as was the Nell for the most part, while the CR 42, G.50 Z.506, BR 20 etc. are still expected to face the British fleet, as part of this famous 600+ plane air armada you kept mentioning that was arrayed against Pedestal, and which you claimed was superior to anything the Japanese could muster in the Pacific.

I am here to help you come to grips with how ridiculous that is.

As for the relative quality of the Japanese and Italian or early German strike aircraft, I'll do my own analysis of the chart I posted earlier, but that is partly subjective. What is objective is how many ships were sunk by the Japanese strike aircraft, and how many fighters shot down by Japanese fighters. The only one out of the stable of Italian antiques that seemed to be able to kill ships was the S.79 but at immense cost (even Skuas and Fulmars could shoot them down). Most of the others, including ostensible replacements or upgraded versions like the S.84 had miserable combat records

The IJN could put the A6M into front line roles because they could use the A5M in secondary roles. The fact is that Kate and Val were passed their due dates as well.

Be real. The Japanese produced 10,000 A6M, they only made 1,000 A5M (starting in 1935) - and most of those were not actually needed any more by 1942.

 

[Schweik]

(and when I say they weren't needed 1942, they couldn't hold up to modern Allied fighters, and were too slow to catch most Allied bombers, so there was no point in retaining them in combat units in front line areas)

 

[RCAFson]

Be real. The Japanese produced 10,000 A6M, they only made 1,000 A5M (starting in 1935) - and most of those were not actually needed any more by 1942.

"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).



Zero production from April 42 to March 43 was 1689 but in the same period IJNAF combat and operational fighter losses totaled 1590. IJNAF Combat and operational losses from Dec 41 to March 42 = 300. High combat and operational losses meant that the A5M-4 was needed as Zero production was barely meeting the loss rate. (data from USSBS JAPANESE AIR POWER)

EDIT: data is for IJNAF.

 

[Schweik]

The combat losses you are speaking off (for Zeros) started at Coral Sea (May 42), and that was at a small scale in terms of fighters lost - I think about 20 or 30. It didn't start really ramping up until Midway (June) and then Guadalcanal (August) and New Guinea (Kokoda trail started in July) started intensifying. By Coral Sea, it seems like just about all of the A5M2 still with the fleet had already been replaced. Similar to but a little faster than the Devastator being replaced in the USN. Most of the fighter losses in and around New Guinea were Ki-43.

"operational fighter losses" sounds like it includes Ki-43. They built about 5,900 of those.

To put it in perspective, the Japanese produced 10,000 A6M during the war.

By comparison,

Prior to their surrender in Sept 1943, the Italians produced about 1,700 modern fighters (260 x MC 205, 1,100 x MC 202, about 200 x Re 2001, 220 x Re 2002), 1,100 x MC 200, 680 x G.50 (some of which went to export) and about 1,800 x CR 42 and 1,000 x CR 32. These slow production runs meant the Italians took a long time to replace their more antiquated biplane and open cockpit fighters with their more modern types.

The FAA acquired ~600 Fulmars, They eventually built 2,600 Seafires by the end of the war. They built 1,700 Firefly's in a production run which went into the 1950s. I couldn't figure out the number of Sea Hurricanes produced as it's mixed in with the Hurricane numbers, but they seem to have been largely retired or pulled back to tertiary duties after Pedestal.

The Germans had no such limitations of course but by mid-1942 most of their best stuff was going to the Russian Front. After Stalingrad that sharply increased as we know.

By comparison to the above, 10,000 Zeros looks pretty impressive. Yes various WW II powers built large numbers of land based fighters but until the second half of the war, even the Americans didn't produce that many Navy fighters (they made 7,800 Wildcats*, many of which went to the British or to low-intensity Atlantic Theater etc.). The Japanese had a land war to consider in China, but their Navy was almost completely focused on taking out the American and ANZAC forces (their brief punitive raid into the Indian Ocean served to keep the RN away for a long time). After Pearl Harbor they quite efficiently completed the modernization of their fleet and air armadas, with almost all highly modern aircraft. Their carrier based fighters were more than capable of taking on land based fighters, unlike those of the RN, their Battleships and heavy cruisers were largely state of the art, and their destroyers could take out capital ships with their superb Long Lance torpedoes. They had the most formidable navy in the world by the time of Midway. Only luck and attrition, a much slower rate of production and training, broke them down. But that wasn't telling in 1942.

So your insistence that the A5M was a major part of the Japanese air fleet in 1942 is yet again, laughable. They were not involved in any major combat operations in the Pacific after 1941 that I know of.

* Hellcat production was enormous - 12,000 and they had Corsairs and modern land based fighters like P-38s, P-47s and P-51s, but these were not in Theater in any numbers before 1943 - just a handful of P-38s in New Guinea)

 

[RCAFson]

The combat and operational losses from the USSBS were for the IJNAF only. IJAAF losses are listed separately. The USSBS data came from the IJNAF post war records.