Cojimar 1945
Airman
- 28
- Dec 23, 2006
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The wehrmacht may have had very capable soldiers but since Germany's defeat the country's military is not considered to be among the world's strongest. It seems ironic that the Germans would be so capable yet become irrelevant in the postwar era.
Have to agree with Deralder on his comments and would suggest that the other problem is the Policians holding the soldiers back. I believe that the Germans in Afganistan would like to do more to assist the USA, Canadian and British troops in teir hotspots but its the lack of will at home that it stopping them.
smaller forces are typical of Europe though, the up side of it is that European troops tend to be better trained than those of larger forces, and often in very specialised roles over the wide range of enviropments found in Europe, but a lot of the forces wouldn't be as strong as they are if it weren't for the strong international co-operation in Europe, but as a side note Adler what is the German strength limited to?
but as a side note Adler what is the German strength limited to?
A good general source for Allied fighters v the Japanese Army and Navy fighters is "Bloody Shambles" by Shores, first 2 vols about 1941-42 SEA, a third recent one about Burma for the rest of the war. Afficianados pick at minor errors in his chronologies, but still a remarkable book. Two other narrower ones "Flying Tigers" by Ford and "Doomed at the Start" by Bartsch (US fighters in the Philippines 1941-42).Vice-Admiral Nagumo Chuichi arrived in the Bay of Bengal on the 2nd April, 1942 with five aircraft carriers to attack Trincomalee in Ceylon. Vice-Admiral Ozawa Jisabura attacked Cocanda and Vizagapatam on the 5th April. On the 9th Trincomalee was attacked by Nagumo and the RAF attacked Nagumo's flagship, the Akagi.
I'm finding the proper information but that's what I can remember. So, naturally, the Zero would have been met by the RAF.
The big problem with such figures is that the kills are claims. The actual Japanese losses would be much lower; according to the references above across a range of early campaigns Japanese air combat losses were only 25-40% of what the Allies claimed. Also it's not clear those kills exclude Japanese bombers. And actually going the other way, the losses seem to possibly include non air combat; I don't see how the US lost 44 fighters in February 1942 in air combat ex-China. The only unit in action then was the 17th PG in the Dutch Each Indies and didn't lose that many; the Philippine P-40 units had been essentially wiped out by then, P-40 defence of Australia didn't start till March, and P-39's didn't enter combat, in New Guinea, till late April.This was from an earlier post...
For entire 1942 the FEAF lost 148 aircraft in air-to-air combat while destroying 212 = 1.43 to 1 FEAR vs Japan. You could slice numbers and do more research and attempt to insert Japanese aircraft by type, but considering the most numerous aircraft were the Zero and Oscar, these numbers do not represent great success by the Japanese.
Right, that's what the several books I mentioned in the post before last do. I don't think we're dealing in yet to be revealed or state of art scholarship here, none of the books I mentioned about 41-42 v the Japanese are brand new. The picture of Japanese fighter success in 1942, when it turned to failure, and how bad their failures were, all change when the analysis is done based on their reported losses rather than Allied claims. As you say, no big surprise, I just think the real results is what one needs to stick to as far as possible. I think there's still more evaluation of Japanese aircraft implicitly based on exaggerated Allied wartime claims than is the case for German aircraft, though it's sometimes true even of the latter. IMHO there's not much reason in either case anymore, books in English reflecting Japanese accounts of air combat came later than those reflecting European Axis accounts, but there are quite a few good ones now, especially about the early part of the war.That is the case with most of these charts though and until checked with corresponding Japanese reports can be taken with a pinch of salt.
Right, that's what the several books I mentioned in the post before last do. I don't think we're dealing in yet to be revealed or state of art scholarship here, none of the books I mentioned about 41-42 v the Japanese are brand new. The picture of Japanese fighter success in 1942, when it turned to failure, and how bad their failures were, all change when the analysis is done based on their reported losses rather than Allied claims. As you say, no big surprise, I just think the real results is what one needs to stick to as far as possible. I think there's still more evaluation of Japanese aircraft implicitly based on exaggerated Allied wartime claims than is the case for German aircraft, though it's sometimes true even of the latter. IMHO there's not much reason in either case anymore, books in English reflecting Japanese accounts of air combat came later than those reflecting European Axis accounts, but there are quite a few good ones now, especially about the early part of the war.
Joe
The original link in that post is broken, but the tables I think it comes from USAAF Statistical Digest for WWII, would include all kills (claims).The numbers I shown do not include Japanese bombers. There is no denying exaggerated claims on both sides but if you look at the claims and the ultimate completion of the mission, one cannot deny that the Japanese lost air supremacy by the end of 1942 and in some locations even earlier.
The original link in that post is broken, but the tables I think it comes from USAAF Statistical Digest for WWII, would include all kills (claims).
There were exaggerations on both sides but the point is to find the real losses, because the degree of exaggeration varied all over the place. Most importantly, exaggeration tended to be greater when the claiming force was not doing well, as the Allies often were not in 1942 against the Japanese. If all we know is one side's claims we don't know what happened, I think that's a pretty iron rule of studying air wars. But in this case we do know the real Japanese losses, they are given in the sources I already mentioned see several posts ago. There's no reason to deal in outdated claims or unknown and varying degree of exaggeration, claims prove nothing.
It's true the Japanese fighters didn't have the dominance in the second half of 1942 that they did in 1941 and the first half of 1942, but no Allied fighter units consistently bested the Japanese Navy fighter units in 1942; the best was about an even exchange ratio, *real, not claimed*. That didn't really swing to big Japanese deficit until 1943. This is exactly the sort of point where relying on wartime claims gives a distorted picture. It's not a question of if the Japanese fighter units were eventually bested, but when did that really start happening and how much. Claims give the wrong answer.
Joe
Either way you look at the war could not have been won without each other. Where would the US have based there bombers out of to bomb Germany with had it not been for England? What would the Russians have done with out lend lease? Would the US had been able to sustain a Night and Day bombing campaign without the British?
I believe that the Germans in Afganistan would like to do more to assist the USA, Canadian and British troops in teir hotspots but its the lack of will at home that it stopping them.
the losses seem to possibly include non air combat; I don't see how the US lost 44 fighters in February 1942 in air combat ex-China. The only unit in action then was the 17th PG in the Dutch Each Indies and didn't lose that many; the Philippine P-40 units had been essentially wiped out by then,
True, but 10 USAAC P40's where destroyed on the 19th Feb raid on Darwin, and if this list is including non combat losses, I believe alot of US P-40's were written off in Australia due to training mishaps and long ferry flights under taken by in-experianced pilots.P-40 defence of Australia didn't start till March,
According to the site those are air-to-air losses only.[/QUOTE]United States Army Air Forces in World War IIJoe I agree about them being non combat losses. It's possible that that figure of 44 a/c lost in feb is including the sinking of the Langley which went down with a heap of P-40's I believe this happened in Feb '42.