IJAAF, IJN, and Naval aviation in general

[syscom3]

Salim, have you heard of the following book?

"Shattered Sword"?

Its a gret account of the Battle of Midway using IJN sources. It provides a wealth of information on IJN doctrine and operations in the first several months of the war.

http://www.shatteredswordbook.com/

 

[syscom3]

Jank, the French dont have any extensive power projection assetts at all. The Japanese navy has far more sea going ships than the whole French Navy.

The fact is they're a power in the med and NW Africa, nothing more. No logistics, no nothing.

 

[Jank]

You haven't addressed the points I raised. Merely posessing "sea going ships" does not give you the ability to project power. The Japanese fleet is purely defensive. This is the reason it has no aircraft carriers or other significant aircraft carrying vessels at all. It doesn't have amphibious assault ships designed for moving land forces either. Finally, it doesn't have the various support vessels that are required for maintaining a force abroad.

If you are seeking to invade or hold territory 5,000 miles away, you must be able to move aircraft into the area of operations. You Must Control The Airspace! You must be able to move men, armor and equipment. You must have a support system to feed the war machine.

Japan has literally no ability to mount air attacks (fixed wing or helicopter) from any of its vessels. It doesn't have vessels designed to move ground forces, armor and equipment. It doesn't have any support structure to maintain large warships abroad.

It is a purely a defensive force.

Imagine if both Japan and France had to race to take an unoccupied island, 2,500 miles away and equidistant from each country (just pretend there is such an island for a moment). Both France and Japan must take, occupy and defend the island from the other using only conventional ordinance. Do you really have any doubt that France would either take it from the Japanese or keep the Japanese from taking it?

 

[syscom3]

Japan can project its power out to the Taiwan. It doesnt need to go any further.

The question is could france support its navy in the central pacific if Tahiti and/or New Caledonia declare independence? Answer is no.

Keep the thread on WW2. open a new thread if you want to debate sea power projection of post cold war years.

 

[Jank]

"It doesnt need to go any further."

Excellent measure of ability to project sea power.

By that measure, some s-h-i-t hole African country could boast having a better army than the U.S. on the premise that it only "needs" to control and defend its s-h-i-t hole borders and can do so better than the U.S. can defend all the territories it "needs" to control and defend across the planet.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

"Salim, I believe the Navies of Russia, China and France would presently all rank as superior in force projection."

Great Britian does indeed have more tonnage than France, China and Russia.

Japan vs. France? France ... even if they are a bunch of frickin pansies.

 

[Twitch]

As jank is saying you need a well-rounded inventory of ships to walk the walk after you talk the talk. How many carriers does China have? How many Boomers or attack subs? What about a supply fleet? Same with France. And Russia is a brokeass remnant of what the USSR once was. I've bet their baracle-encrusted, rustbucket fleet is suffering due to lack of rubles for basic maintence. They can't even afford to pay their military men on duty!

It's one thing to arrive as some distant point on the globe in a ship and quite another to have an inventory of ordnance to sustain a protracted conflict. Sabre rattling is one thing but a real shootout is something else.