US strategy and tactics for Midway if IJN has radar, CIC and radios in the Zeros

Thumpalumpacus · Aug 19, 2021

Admiral Beez said:
Shōhō at Coral Sea; Akagi, Kaga, Sōryū and Hiryū at Midway; Ryūjō at Eastern Solomons; Zuikaku, Zuihō, Chitose and Chiyoda at Leyte Gulf; and Hiyō at Philippine Sea.

To be fair, the air complements, including Zeros, of the last five carriers listed were vastly outnumbered simply by the American strike aircraft, not to mention the escorting Hellcats being thrown in. And those IJN pilots weren't nearly as well-trained as the first six mentioned above. I'm not sure blaming the Zeros for those losses tells the whole story at all.

All the radar/radio/etc wasn't going to change that brute fact.

Admiral Beez · Aug 19, 2021

Thumpalumpacus said:
To be fair, the air complements, including Zeros, of the last five carriers listed were vastly outnumbered simply by the American strike aircraft, not to mention the escorting Hellcats being thrown in. And those IJN pilots weren't nearly as well-trained as the first six mentioned above. I'm not sure blaming the Zeros for those losses tells the whole story at all.

All the radar/radio/etc wasn't going to change that brute fact.

Fair point. But then, did the Zeros ever save a carrier from air attack? I suppose they broke up and utterly destroyed the TBDs at Midway, so that's one.

Thumpalumpacus · Aug 19, 2021

Admiral Beez said:
Fair point. But then, did the Zeros ever save a carrier from air attack? I suppose they broke up and utterly destroyed the TBDs at Midway, so that's one.

True, but the point raised above about only having 16-18 Zeros aboard for both CAP and escort duties meant that in most cases they likely had far more targets than they could engage; and just as in surface naval warfare, it's very often the unengaged units that deliver the decisive blows.

That numerical shortfall would have been partially addressed by your hypothetical equipment additions -- radar and CIC allowing for more efficient positioning prior to engagement, radio allowing for better coordination -- but even so, those radars and CICs needed more airplanes to direct in the first place.

Admiral Beez · Aug 19, 2021

Thumpalumpacus said:
True, but the point raised above about only having 16-18 Zeros aboard for both CAP and escort duties meant that in most cases they likely had far more targets than they could engage....

Putting aside my radar, radios, etc..... the IJN needed to specify its aircraft better. The spec to Jiro Horikoshi should have included the smallest possible footprint when stored. And the strike role should have been a folding-wing dual torpedo-divebomber like the Aichi B7A or Fairey Barracuda. These three steps alone should allow each fleet carrier to more than double its fighter complement.

And the dual torpedo-divebomber needed be so complicated. Develop the folding-wing divebomber first and then stick a torpedo on it.

SaparotRob · Aug 19, 2021

By the time the Hellcats show up, Imperial objectives are well and truly done. However, we are talking about Midway. If the IJN have the equipment proposed by the thread AND doctrine to use it, Midway wouldn't be the decisive an outcome for the USN.
With the added capability, the IJNAF would be way more efficient. Remember how quickly they could launch compared to U.S.S. Yorktown could and CV 5 was the best of the bunch. Perhaps Hornet's flight to nowhere STILL happens. Just one radio message, "Many Helldivers 8 o'clock high!" could have saved another carrier.

SaparotRob · Aug 19, 2021

Admiral Beez said:
Putting aside my radar, radios, etc..... the IJN needed to specify its aircraft better. The spec to Jiro Horikoshi should have included the smallest possible footprint when stored. And the strike role should have been a folding-wing dual torpedo-divebomber like the Aichi B7A or Fairey Barracuda. These three steps alone should allow each fleet carrier to more than double its fighter complement.

And the dual torpedo-divebomber needed be so complicated. Develop the folding-wing divebomber first and then stick a torpedo on it.

I like your post but not so much the Barracuda .

Thumpalumpacus · Aug 19, 2021

Admiral Beez said:
Putting aside my radar, radios, etc..... the IJN needed to specify its aircraft better. The spec to Jiro Horikoshi should have included the smallest possible footprint when stored. And the strike role should have been a folding-wing dual torpedo-divebomber like the Aichi B7A or Fairey Barracuda. These three steps alone should allow each fleet carrier to more than double its fighter complement.

And the dual torpedo-divebomber needed be so complicated. Develop the folding-wing divebomber first and then stick a torpedo on it.

Given their smaller CAGs, the Japanese would certainly have benefitted from a dual-purpose attack plane. I don't know how feasible that would have been from a technical standpoint myself, and would be interested to hear from you or anyone else in the know about that factor; mid-30s planes didn't have an awful lot of power, so saddling a torpedo plane with dive-brakes, for instance, may have been a solid engineering problem?

Such a dual-purpose plane could well have allowed for increased fighter carriage, as you imply.

Thumpalumpacus · Aug 19, 2021

SaparotRob said:
I like your post but not so much the Barracuda .

It sure is one fugly bird ... the French would be proud!

Shortround6 · Aug 19, 2021

British built dreadnoughts for export with 12 in guns,
Minas Geraes and sister.

One reason for the Rio de Janeiro (later Agincourt) to have 12 in guns, common ammo with the older ships.
There were other political and financial considerations.

Shortround6 · Aug 19, 2021

Admiral Beez said:
And the dual torpedo-divebomber needed be so complicated. Develop the folding-wing divebomber first and then stick a torpedo on it.

A wing a folding tip can be built lighter than a wing that folds well inboard. Go back and look at the engines used in the prototypes of the Kate and Val.

Val used a 376 sq ft wing and the Kate used a 406 sq ft wing.

can your modified dive bomber carry a torpedo and if it can, can it do it for the required distance?
First Val used a 709 hp engine, 2nd one used an 839 hp engine, first production models used 1000hp engines, in late 1942 the D3A-2 got 1300hp engines.
This is almost 5 years after the 1st prototype flew.

GrauGeist · Aug 19, 2021

The typical hanger height of IJN carriers was 16 feet, including the armored carrier Taiho.
So that creates a limit to how high a folding wing could be made, too.

Thumpalumpacus · Aug 19, 2021

GrauGeist said:
The typical hanger height of IJN carriers was 16 feet, including the armored carrier Taiho.
So that creates a limit to how high a folding wing could be made, too.

Unless you go in for FAA origami ...

Admiral Beez · Aug 19, 2021

GrauGeist said:
The typical hanger height of IJN carriers was 16 feet, including the armored carrier Taiho.
So that creates a limit to how high a folding wing could be made, too.

The B5N Kate had folding wings. The rest of the CAG should do the same.

GrauGeist · Aug 19, 2021

The A6M and D3A (as shown below) had folding wingtips.

Thumpalumpacus · Aug 19, 2021

GrauGeist said:
The A6M and D3A (as shown below) had folding wingtips.

View attachment 638498

Using the maintenance crew for scale, you're saving twelve foot or so -- obviously every foot counts.

Admiral Beez · Aug 19, 2021

GrauGeist said:
The A6M and D3A (as shown below) had folding wingtips.

True, but that doesn't help much in the hangar.

When, with fully folding aircraft Akagi's hangar could have fitted another half as many aircraft.

Escuadrilla Azul · Aug 19, 2021

Admiral Beez said:
Putting aside my radar, radios, etc..... the IJN needed to specify its aircraft better. The spec to Jiro Horikoshi should have included the smallest possible footprint when stored. And the strike role should have been a folding-wing dual torpedo-divebomber like the Aichi B7A or Fairey Barracuda. These three steps alone should allow each fleet carrier to more than double its fighter complement.

And the dual torpedo-divebomber needed be so complicated. Develop the folding-wing divebomber first and then stick a torpedo on it.

By mid-late 30s, folding wings weren't that common. Early F4F didn't had them neither the SBD, for example.

BTW, a dual torpedo-DB won't be so easy to build, as S Shortround6 noted.

PAT303 · Aug 19, 2021

Another serious concern is the defensive AA, the Japanese didn't have anything equivalent to the Bofors or Oerlikon, later in the war proximity fuses changed the game

GrauGeist · Aug 19, 2021

American carrier hangers were 20 feet high on average, four feet higher than the Japanese carriers.

Admiral Beez · Aug 19, 2021

PAT303 said:
Another serious concern is the defensive AA, the Japanese didn't have anything equivalent to the Bofors or Oerlikon, later in the war proximity fuses changed the game

I have the impression that the entire Japanese carrier program was unfinished. By 1942 to have no radar, no effective AA, no radios in your fighters, it just seems like they'd run out of time, talent and treasure.

Mind you, had the Kido Butai encountered Sommerville's force of radar and Bofers/Oerlikon equipped carriers the Japanese would have smoked the Brits.

US strategy and tactics for Midway if IJN has radar, CIC and radios in the Zeros

Major

Major

Major

Major

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Major

Major

Major General

Major General

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major

Major

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major

Major

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads