Corsair vs Zero

[GregP]

If there weren't any escort fighters, daylight bombing would have been abandoned. If there weren't an mechanics, the fighters and bombers wouldn't take off. And it just keep son coming ...

However, if there wasn't an Obama, we'd probably have a good President.

 

[parsifal]

Fighters were indeed important and an integral part of the campaign, but there were many raids undertaken without fighter escort. more than half of these unescorted raids were at night but some were not.

Some of the operations got caught and were shot up, but equally, air superiority was not achieved by fighter operations in the pacific. Or at least not predominantly by fighters. Most of the heavy lifting was done by strike aircraft, which downgraded Japanese capability and made it easier for other element to win battles and do their part.

The Japanese fighter forces were always hard pressed by the heavy defensive armament of the allied bombers , the thin ranks of their own number and the lightweight construction of their fighters. The distances involved also played a big part in this. New Guinea is roughly 2.5 times longer from end to end than London to Berlin. The island is roughly twice the size of Germany. The German were flat out defending their country with 1000 fighters, the Japanese might have 300 to cover the same area. Having the fighters there was "nice to have", "a help", but not essential, in the environment of the SWPAC battles. Most aircraft were being lost to causes other than those to fighters by a wide margin.

 

[GregP]

So ... you want to eliminate the fighters? Or what?

 

[parsifal]

No they are needed, and in 1942 were more critical in defending allied airfields against Japanese attentions than escorting enemy fighters. More than anything, the battles in the SWPAC and SoPac were battles for airfields. You used your own fighters to mostly defend your own airfields, and your bombers to dislocate and damage your opponents airpower capabilities, mostly by suppression of his airfields and supply points (which usually were the same thing). Only if you had spare fighter capacity would you use them to escort your bombers.

You are saying it was a team effort, and I agree with that. Id even agree, to an extent that it was a team effort within the narrow parameters you are applying (ie escort bombers etc). But it was more of a team effort of an all arms effort, with airpower in general ploughing the fields so that our ground and naval forces could occupy and contain the enemy with minimal losses, whilst our fighters protected our airfields and thereby keep our airpower relevant and dominant.

 

[GregP]

That's one way to look at it. It has merit.

I'd say that attacking an airfield with fighters just before a bombing raid would do a LOT to suppress response by enemy aircraft and might even take out some flak and personnel, making the fighters an integral part of the overall airfield attack ... perhaps the most effective part if they get a lot of aircraft on the ground.

 

[bobbysocks]

You can take out your enemy's top admiral in an ambush, but you need a few thousand of your best brains at home figuring out the systems to do it, another illustration that the fighter is just the equipment that meets the enemy, there must be a whole nation behind it to make it work to best effect.

yes, I do have to concede to that point...yamamoto was ambushed and Rommel was taken out of action by strafing fighters. those circumstances did have an effect on various situations. AND fighters carrying bombs provided essential CAS....but you are not going to win a war of any magnitude soley with fighter bombers.

 

[GregP]

Neither will you win one solely with bombers. Hence, the "teamwork."

 

[pbehn]

yes, I do have to concede to that point...yamamoto was ambushed and Rommel was taken out of action by strafing fighters. those circumstances did have an effect on various situations. AND fighters carrying bombs provided essential CAS....but you are not going to win a war of any magnitude soley with fighter bombers.

I was making the same point in a different way. Operation Vengeance is described as an aviation mission performed by fighter aircraft. The mission was merely a by product. Prior to the mission taking place the allies had to set up systems to intercept Japanese messages. They had to find out a system to break their codes. Once the codes had been broken they had to be translated. Once translated they had to be again decoded (Yamamoto wasnt named he himself had a code). Then an operation had to be devised to spring the ambush and much more importantly convince the Japanese that it was not by breaking codes. All in all literally thousands of people were involved in in some way in getting those fighters in position to ambush Yamamoto.

Keeping the fighters ahead of the opposition and the bombers of all types ahead of the game regarding getting there and back safely and with increasing accuracy was a massive effort by all branches. The US Bomber campaign in Europe involved covering huge areas of the UK in concrete for bombers, fighters and recon aircraft and all the accommodation food power telephone lines etc etc etc etc WW2 was a massive technical and civil engineering project.

 

[Mobick]

Most of you guys have some pretty extensive knowledge of the aviation jistory of WW2 and then of course, the Korean War. It is something that has always fascinated me. But one question? When the the Flying TIgers were fighting on behalf of China vs Japan, how did the American fighters fair against what the Japs were flying? What were the Japs flying and what were the Flying Tigers' aircraft? It's my understanding that the only thing that the Americans had to their advantage, was an aircraft that could take significant amounts of damage and would continue to fly. How many squadrons were in China and how well did they fare in Air to Air combat against the Japanese? Was only one squadron named the Flying TIgers? How much action did we see in those years before we declared war on Japan, after Pearl Harbor? Were we still providing assistance to the Chinese after Pearl harbor? Also, how did the Japanese conquer so much land from the Chinese when they still had the most populous country in the world (not sure about India). Why didn't the Chinese throw million and millions of men at the Japanese? The Japs were not only destroying every village or town that they set out to conquer but they were told to impregnate all the women. I don't understand how a country (Japan) that at that time had no more than 18-20M people living on that island (I am guessing high here as now the country only has a populous of 25M), defeat the Chinese and of course, not for America, it would have been worse. I ask because I am wondering about a conflict with China now? Could Japan, if we continue to encourage them to build a stronger fighting force, take on China by themselvs? China would have air superiority, however Japan is part of NATO, Correct? So again we would have to defend Japan, or if they eliminate the JSDF and buy billions of dollars in American planes, again, would Japan be able to handle China on their own? I have seen the Chinese version of the F-35 and it is larger and less manuverable than ours is, but I am pretty certain that F-18A (all models) could engage and destroy any Chinese fighter jet. At what point does the Chinese get an advantage over Japan with their military that could easily be fielded in the tune of 15 million men ( a number I pulled out of my hat, but they have 1 Billion people to draw from)?. Would the US have air superiority over every country? Russian MIG's are (are they on 31 now?) I think just as capable of all of our planes, sans the F-22 and F35? The F-35 has so many problems, that I think our best aircraft right now is the F-22. Can any Russian plane match the F-22? One thing I am certain of is that our pilots are the best in the world. Second best is the Israel Air Force. This comes to me from my uncle that flew F4's in the Vietnam War. That's his opinion, clearly not mine, as I would not know. But I love all things related to combat aviation; maybe one of you guys can give me the many answers to my many questions?

 

[tomo pauk]

Most of you guys have some pretty extensive knowledge of the aviation jistory of WW2 and then of course, the Korean War. It is something that has always fascinated me. But one question? When the the Flying TIgers were fighting on behalf of China vs Japan, how did the American fighters fair against what the Japs were flying? What were the Japs flying and what were the Flying Tigers' aircraft? It's my understanding that the only thing that the Americans had to their advantage, was an aircraft that could take significant amounts of damage and would continue to fly. How many squadrons were in China and how well did they fare in Air to Air combat against the Japanese? Was only one squadron named the Flying TIgers? How much action did we see in those years before we declared war on Japan, after Pearl Harbor? Were we still providing assistance to the Chinese after Pearl harbor? Also, how did the Japanese conquer so much land from the Chinese when they still had the most populous country in the world (not sure about India). Why didn't the Chinese throw million and millions of men at the Japanese? The Japs were not only destroying every village or town that they set out to conquer but they were told to impregnate all the women. I don't understand how a country (Japan) that at that time had no more than 18-20M people living on that island (I am guessing high here as now the country only has a populous of 25M), defeat the Chinese and of course, not for America, it would have been worse.

Welcom to the forum.
If I may advise you to use term 'Japanese', the short term you use is considered derogatory today.
Above Burma in late 1941/early 1942 Japanese were flying mostly Ki-27 (monoplane, fixed undercarriage, good maneuverability, rate of climb & visibility; weak firepower, protection, rate of roll & dive; radios??) and Ki 43 (reractable U/C, faster than Ki 27 but considerably slower than what Flying tigers had, again good maneuverability and other attributes as for the Ki 27); plus bombers, of course. Flying tigers' fighters were far better mount if the pilot playes to it's strengths (speed, rate of roll & dive). 'FT' also have had a rudimentary early warning chain, where the incoming raids were spotted from ground and alert was issued. IIRC they have had a 20 min to warm up engines, take off and climb.
Flying Tigers were not present in China. Please take a look here. They were fighting Japanese after the Peral Harbour was attacked, not before.
From 1942, US was helping China materially to wage war vs. Japan.
Japan have had more people than Germany, for example, plus what was under their control i Korea and Manchuria. Almost 72 milion of people at start of 1939. For how a low-population country can defeat a high-population - please see UK vs India, or Mongolia vs. China in the medieval times. One can't just throw men at bullets.

I ask because I am wondering about a conflict with China now? Could Japan, if we continue to encourage them to build a stronger fighting force, take on China by themselvs? China would have air superiority, however Japan is part of NATO, Correct? So again we would have to defend Japan, or if they eliminate the JSDF and buy billions of dollars in American planes, again, would Japan be able to handle China on their own? I have seen the Chinese version of the F-35 and it is larger and less manuverable than ours is, but I am pretty certain that F-18A (all models) could engage and destroy any Chinese fighter jet. At what point does the Chinese get an advantage over Japan with their military that could easily be fielded in the tune of 15 million men ( a number I pulled out of my hat, but they have 1 Billion people to draw from)?. Would the US have air superiority over every country? Russian MIG's are (are they on 31 now?) I think just as capable of all of our planes, sans the F-22 and F35? The F-35 has so many problems, that I think our best aircraft right now is the F-22. Can any Russian plane match the F-22? One thing I am certain of is that our pilots are the best in the world. Second best is the Israel Air Force. This comes to me from my uncle that flew F4's in the Vietnam War. That's his opinion, clearly not mine, as I would not know. But I love all things related to combat aviation; maybe one of you guys can give me the many answers to my many questions?

There is plenty of opinions mixed with flag vawing in this paragraph. Perhaps it would've been the good thing to post this in the 'Modern' sub-forum.

 

[tyrodtom]

I don't think I've ever seen so many misconceptions put forth in one paragraph.
So many I don't know if anyone would want to tackle them all.

Wikipedia is hardly the gold standard when it comes to accurate information, but I think you could help yourself by looking on Wiki about Flying Tiger history, WW2 and earlier in China, etc.

 

[pbehn]

One thing I am certain of is that our pilots are the best in the world.

I am glad you appreciate the quality of training in the RAF.