Rn vs IJN (5 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I'd use them as LR escorts and/or fighter-bombers. They could carry a centreline DT and two 500lb bombs, IIRC.
The Firefly could carry two wing mounted 1,000lb bombs, had four 20mm cannon, and could also carry eight 60lb rockets.
It was certainly capable of causing damage to shipping or enemy bomber types.
 
The Brits will be superior in both. They've got better radar, and have had more time to integrates systems and operations.
In reality by 1944, much of the IJN's best pilots, mechanics, fitters, and experienced seamen have been lost. According to Wikipedia, Taihō was fitted with both Type 21 and Type 13 radars, with max effective ranges of 80 and 54 nmi. Shōkaku had a single Type 21 radar. Accordingly to this source, the Japanese Navy's radar sets were unreliable, with faulty vacuum tubes. And then there's the shoddy radios in the IJN's aircraft, presumably causing trouble with fighter direction. Clearly, Japanese electronics had come a long way to go before they reached their postwar rock solid quality.

But for the sake of this comparison, we'll give the IJN the best possible, so the best vacuum tubes and radar techs are aboard. I do not know if the IJN's carriers had fighter director offices (FDO) or CIC where info from the radar operators is used to assign fighter assets, but I assume the radar data was useful. What about the rubbish Type 96 radio in the A6M? Was there a better radio available in 1944 that we could give to our dream team IJN CBG?

How was British radar and aircraft radios at this time? What about AA? IIRC, Japan's AA guns were poor, but without US proximity fuses, are the British any better?
 

Users who are viewing this thread