Maneuverability vs Speed

PAT303 said:

From what I understand 93% loss was from that one strike, same as the 6 Betty's that all went down, lets get real, losing 25% of your A6M's, 52% of Vals and 50% of Kates is simply unsustainable in anyone's language,

Click to expand...

I believe you're thinking of the February attack launched from Rabaul against USS Lexington, but even then your percentage is slightly off (18 Bettys launched, 15 lost IIRC, about 83%, still murderously high).

There were no air-to-air losses of the scale you mention at any of the ensuing carrier battles of 1942.

PAT303 said:

losing 25% of your A6M's, 52% of Vals and 50% of Kates is simply unsustainable in anyone's language,

Click to expand...

Not really, it depends on the situation.

IF you can inflict substantial losses, on the other side, like major warships.

IF you have sufficient time to replace losses, air frame and crew.
IF the other side can't replace their losses in the same amount of time.

Three big IF's.

Carrier battles tend to be separated by months. Many months.

Four major carrier to carrier battles in 1942.
None in 1943
1st carrier to carrier battle in 1944 was in June.

Not saying that carriers weren't doing a lot in 1943 and 1944, but not carrier vs carrier.

RCAFson said:

Yes but they still chewed up the IJNAF raids because their radar detected the raids well before they came into visual range. This allowed the USN to get all or most their fighters into the air, and an alerted and launched CAP, even poorly coordinated, was far superior to a CAP caught by surprise as the bombs were falling.

Click to expand...

I would agree that the USNs poorly coordinated CAP was better than no coordination at all, but the USN did not chew up the IJN raids. Earlier I posted the Japanese losses (from Lundstrom) during the attack on Hornet at Santa Cruz. Of those 24 losses 13 were due to AA, 10 to F4Fs and 1 to an SBD.

Even worse only 5 of the F4F victories came before the Vals launched their attacks. The other Val and the two Kates were shot down on the way out.

Again from Lundstrom

In total at Santa Cruz aircraft shot down 29 and AA 25 Japanese aircraft. It is important to note that at least 13 of the aircraft victories occurred as the Japanese were leaving the scene. In other words, the CAP failed to intercept before the bombers released their loads, hence the loss of Hornet and the damage to the Enterprise.

Santa Cruz marked the combat debut of the Bofors in USN service. Coupled with the increased numbers of Oerlikons the AA defenses where significantly better than in previous battles. The question becomes would extra amour and self sealing tanks protect against 40mm shells. The answer is no.

The USN never had to face any near the flak the Japanses did and that goes along way to explaining the disparity in losses.

PAT303 said:

Absolutely, but how many IJN aircrew were lost compared to the USN?, if an Allied pilot was hit the armour plating, bullet proof glass and SS tanks gave him the best chance to stay up or to get out and if shot down every effort was made to rescue them, the Japanese pilots had none of that, the more you read about the IJN the more you find it wasn't so much about the aircraft but the effect of loosing experienced aircrew that hit them the hardest. The RAF and Luftwaffe learnt back in 1939-40 that planes are easy to replace, pilots aren't.

Click to expand...

Right, I don't 100% disagree, but I would put the emphasis a bit more on the air sea rescue system. After every big carrier battle, the US sent out all the available PBYs, Hudsons, OS2Us, they sent submarines, PT boats after dark. They put a lot of effort into finding their pilots and aircrew who were floating around in life jackets and tiny little dinghy's. And they got some significant percentage of them back (maybe somebody has detailed numbers on this).

At first the attrition wasn't such a big deal for the Japanese. Losses were expected to be high in decisive naval combat, but the payoff was worth the price. But huge defeats like Midway, and (especially, IMO) long painful campaigns of attrition like Pt Morseby and Guadalcanal started bleeding them.

When I was in my single digits, I thought 40mm anti-aircraft craft guns were called "bofors" because that's the sound they made. Boforboforboforbofor...

Reluctant Poster said:

I would agree that the USNs poorly coordinated CAP was better than no coordination at all, but the USN did not chew up the IJN raids. Earlier I posted the Japanese losses (from Lundstrom) during the attack on Hornet at Santa Cruz. Of those 24 losses 13 were due to AA, 10 to F4Fs and 1 to an SBD.
View attachment 727317
Even worse only 5 of the F4F victories came before the Vals launched their attacks. The other Val and the two Kates were shot down on the way out.

Again from Lundstrom
View attachment 727309
In total at Santa Cruz aircraft shot down 29 and AA 25 Japanese aircraft. It is important to note that at least 13 of the aircraft victories occurred as the Japanese were leaving the scene. In other words, the CAP failed to intercept before the bombers released their loads, hence the loss of Hornet and the damage to the Enterprise.

Santa Cruz marked the combat debut of the Bofors in USN service. Coupled with the increased numbers of Oerlikons the AA defenses where significantly better than in previous battles. The question becomes would extra amour and self sealing tanks protect against 40mm shells. The answer is no.

The USN never had to face any near the flak the Japanses did and that goes along way to explaining the disparity in losses.

Click to expand...

Santa Cruz was not a stellar moment for USN CAP GCI, however the CAP still shot down ~10-15% of the attackers prior to weapon release against Hornet and Enterprise and disrupted the cohesion of the attack. CAP shoot downs after weapon release still caused severe attrition and weakened subsequent attacks.

I would really say that the Solomons and New Guinea campaigns, and carrier battles of 1942, were to the IJN what the Battle of Britain was to the Luftwaffe in 1940, to some extent.

SaparotRob said:

When I was in my single digits, I thought 40mm anti-aircraft craft guns were called "bofors" because that's the sound they made. Boforboforboforbofor...

Click to expand...

You're not wrong.

SaparotRob said:

When I was in my single digits, I thought 40mm anti-aircraft craft guns were called "bofors" because that's the sound they made. Boforboforboforbofor...

Click to expand...

No, that was the Pom-Pom-Pom-Pom-Pom

No, those are the British versions.

Another general contribution by me. I think maybe (though we're talking a lot about the World War II Pacific Theater a lot here) we should take a bit of a look at the Spanish Civil War, which along with the MTO is a particular interest of mine.

Let's look at the Condor Legion and the Italian Legion in the Spanish Civil War. The Condor Legion started off supporting Franco with Arado Ar 65 and Ar 68 and Heinkel He 51 biplanes. Those planes were pretty agile, but were also fairly slow (top speed of barely over 200 mph). When the Soviets started sending I-15 biplanes and I-16 monoplane fighters to support the Republicans, the Arado and Heinkel biplanes were outclassed.

Italy responded by sending in Fiat CR 32 biplanes, which were agile but a good 30 mph faster than the Ar 65, Ar 68 and He 51s (most of which were used for ground attack or as trainers afterwards), and Germany responded by sending in He 112A and later Bs and Me 109B/C/D and ultimately E models.

It would seem that even back then, speed and agility at speed was favored over outright traditional agility. A problem that was exacerbated when Italy sent in BR 20s, SM 79s, Germany He 111s and Do 17s, and the Soviets SB-2s.

BarnOwlLover said:

Another general contribution by me. I think maybe (though we're talking a lot about the World War II Pacific Theater a lot here) we should take a bit of a look at the Spanish Civil War, which along with the MTO is a particular interest of mine.

Let's look at the Condor Legion and the Italian Legion in the Spanish Civil War. The Condor Legion started off supporting Franco with Arado Ar 65 and Ar 68 and Heinkel He 51 biplanes. Those planes were pretty agile, but were also fairly slow (top speed of barely over 200 mph). When the Soviets started sending I-15 biplanes and I-16 monoplane fighters to support the Republicans, the Arado and Heinkel biplanes were outclassed.

Italy responded by sending in Fiat CR 32 biplanes, which were agile but a good 30 mph faster than the Ar 65, Ar 68 and He 51s (most of which were used for ground attack or as trainers afterwards), and Germany responded by sending in He 112A and later Bs and Me 109B/C/D and ultimately E models.

It would seem that even back then, speed and agility at speed was favored over outright traditional agility. A problem that was exacerbated when Italy sent in BR 20s, SM 79s, Germany He 111s and Do 17s, and the Soviets SB-2s.

Click to expand...

Great idea bringing in Spanish Civil War. I would say it's also a close parallel to the fighting in Manchuria which we have also touched on a little bit earlier in the thread. Many of the same exact aircraft took part. The battlefield was even kind of similar.

Spanish Civil War is a good example of 'fighters follow the bombers'. And as you noted, in Spain it was a situation in which some of the newer bombers were achieving higher speeds and altitude than most of the fighters, which contributed to the (mistaken) belief by many military leaders around the world in the notion of 'the bomber always gets through'

I don't agree with your characterization though of speed trumping maneuverability in Spain. The I-16 which you mentioned was fast for the time - a good bit faster than the CR.32. I think Spanish Civil War era I-16s were making about 270-280 mph initially, which was improved up to close to 300 mph. The CR.32, the most capable Fascist fighter that was available in larger numbers, topped out at about 220-230 mph. So it was much slower than the I-16. It was maybe even a little slower than the I-15 biplane.

And yet from what I remember, in the air battles between the I-16 and the CR.32, it was actually the Fiat which did a little bit better. Other factors turned out to matter besides speed. The I-16 and I-15 could climb better than the CR.32, but the CR.32 had the advantage diving and was more maneuverable than the I-16. The early I-16s were lightly armed, with just two 7.62mm machine guns, whereas the CR.32 was being armed with a pair of much heavier 12.7mm machine guns. The CR.32 also had better low altitude performance, and a lot of the fighting took place low over the battlefield, which is where the bombers were concentrating their efforts (and the fighters too, in strafing runs).

Perhaps more importantly, the Italian pilots seemed to be a bit better trained than the Soviet pilots and others flying for the Republican side.

The small number of Bf 109Ds which participated in the war were about equal to or maybe a little better than the I-16 in speed, and were only armed with four 7.92 machine guns, but the pilots were well trained and the 109 climbed, dived, and handled well compared to the I-16. I believe (somebody can correct me) they also had radios.

As for the bombers though, the fairly zippy I-16 actually could catch most of the bombers you mentioned, and also the Germans Ju -52 and the dreaded Ju-87 which had it's first combat debut in Spain, but until the I-16 was a bit more heavily armed and protected (it eventually got 20mm cannon and pilot armor, though I am not sure if that made it in time for the Spanish Civil War) it wasn't that effective as a bomber killer.

Also worth noting, CR.32 continued their career into the Second World War in North Africa, where they spent a good amount of time going toe to toe with British Gloster Gladiators. The Gladiator was slightly faster (about 250 mph), had four .303 machine guns, and climbed a bit better. The CR 32 was a bit more maneuverable and dived better. The fighting, as far as I can remember from reading the operational history in Shores, was fairly bloody, and about even, maybe a bit in favor of the British.

The Italians also introduced their CR.42, a faster more streamlined biplane (or sesquiplane) which had better high altitude performance than the Gladiator, and was about 25 mph faster. But the Gladiators held their own, and maybe a little more. The Gladiator had better low altitude performance, and (at least somtimes!) working radios, and maybe their pilots had a bit better training.

SaparotRob said:

When I was in my single digits, I thought 40mm anti-aircraft craft guns were called "bofors" because that's the sound they made. Boforboforboforbofor...

Click to expand...

And for the AA guns that didn't work well at all it is foobarfoobarfoobarfoobarfoobar......

Is "ack-ack" still a thing?

SaparotRob said:

Is "ack-ack" still a thing?

Click to expand...

More to do with cats and fur balls these days.

I think it's also Martian for "We come in peace".

Thumpalumpacus said:

I have. A big radar return showing that flight profile will most certainly be a priority target, because it's either an AWACS, a refueling tanker ... or a missile truck.

Click to expand...

IF you're a "missle truck", I say bring 'em on. It sounds like you'll have enough for everyone.

SaparotRob said:

Is "ack-ack" still a thing?

Click to expand...

Followed by beer-beer.

Some gun shot sounds from different languages/ethnicities (maybe - I am not a linguistics specialist)

English_______bang - bang
French_______ pan - pan
Japanese_____bak - bak(?) or ban - ban(?)
Spanish______pum - pum
Arabic_______ tok - tok
Portuguese___bam - bam
Lao__________bak - bak
Russian______ba - bakh