- Thread starter
-
- #41
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Difference is that while the RE. Falco II went into combat over Malta in May of 1942 in admittedly small numbers, the 'production' Ki-44s were in Japan and were not used on combat operations. Yes there were a group Ki-44-Is that saw action in China/Malaya but that was 9/11 preproduction aircraft on combat user trials. Accounts say 9 with 2 prototypes brought up to the newer standard. No planes were produced in Sept through Dec while the "trials" were carried out and then a batch of 40 aircraft were ordered while work went forward on the Ki-44 II with the new 2 speed engine. After the Doolittle raid the Ki-44 unit was called back to Japan for home defense and there it and the the new units stayed for most of 1942. the last Ki-44 I left the production line in Oct 1942.
This is one of the aspects of the Pacific war that differs from Europe. It often took weeks (or months for the British and Americans) to deploy new types of aircraft (or other equipment) into combat areas. In Europe they still needed to train crews on new types but it was only one or two tanks of fuel to get a new airplane (or new unit) from the factory or training area to combat zone. The Ki-44 II was used in China in one Sentai and then two Sentai were converted during 1943 to defend the oil refineries in Sumatra. They just were not a factor in 1942.
It might be, it is just that the speed and climb to 5,000 meters were so close.Roll rate and turning circle and other things can affect combat, however nobody has ever claimed the MC. 200 was not maneuverable.
And for all but the last month or so of 1942 the Ki-43 I was the version being used with just a few Ki-43 IIs trickling in.
And now we are also having to consider the opposition. Like pilot quality/training/experience. The MC. 200 was close to the Hurricane I in performance and is supposed to have been able to able to out maneuver, out climb and out climb the Hurricane although perhaps by not as much as the Ki 43?
Both planes used the ammo in the guns, you could actually fire the Italian ammo in the Japanese guns. Both guns did not synchronize well. But the Italian aircraft carried 370rpg instead of 250rpg.
Edit. They built over 5 times as many Ki-43s as they did MC.200s so just in sheer numbers the MC. 200 wasn't going to have as much impact. Because of the shortage of engines for the MC. 202s production of the MC. 200 continued for a while simultaneously so it's span of time in combat is also from the summer of 1940 through the summer/fall of 1943. A long time to spread 1150 aircraft over.
9 or 11 of them. and only for about 5 months.Ok fair enough, Ki -44 is only in China in 1942.
Well, the Ki-43 was the main opposition for the Flying Tigers, and even with over claiming we know how that turned out.Ki-43 on the other hand, especially against the Hurricane, are almost always winning.
This is what was originally presented:So it looks like during Pedestal, there were actually 39 x Bf 109 and 27 x MC 202 serviceable, and 182 modern bombers (Ju 88 and Ju 87). Admittedly that is a fairly large number of Axis bombers, mostly Ju 88s.
But everything else was a mix of obsolete types, weird seaplanes recon aircraft. Aside from some semi-plausible G.50, MC.200, and CR.42s, and admittedly fairly dangerous SM.79s, the total includes Z.506, BR.20, Z.501, and S.66. None of those are really even combat planes in 1942, let alone front line.
I think there were also some Re 2001 in Sicily but haven't been able to track those down yet, but no more than 1 squadron IIRC.
So instead of 72 badly outnumbered FAA fighters fending off an astonishing armada of 600 enemy planes, we actually see 245 British fighters (72 navy planes assisted by over 137 Spitfires and 36 Beaufighters) supported by about 100 modern bombers and recon planes, against ~75 front line Axis fighters and 182 modern bombers plus a mish-mash of mostly obsolete types. Some very obsolete. And most of whom I don't even think flew missions during the battle.
As originally presented, Pedestal was 8-1 odds against the FAA fighter pilots, mostly flying Sea Hurricanes. But we (cough) forgot 137 Spitfires. And we implied that there was 600 front line Axis fighters and strike planes.
In actuality in terms of front line fighter strength it looks like more than 3-1 odds in favor of the British, with the additional factor that most of the best Axis fighters would only be able to participate in the fighting at the very end of the convoy's journey when it was just about at Malta.
At Midway by comparison, it was about 1-1 on fighters (with the Japanese having a few more modern types), but the Japanese had 150 front line bombers while the Americans really only had 100 (the SBDs).
You mean like the SHIBs during Operation Pedestal? Where they successfully defended the convoy against a far greater scale of attack than that faced by any of the USN carrier TFs during 1942. The losses to the convoy only occurred after the RN carriers were forced to turn back due to the Sicilian Narrows. During the last day's Axis attacks the SH1Bs were contending with massed raids escorted by Axis fighters. The SH1Bs were allotted the high altitude CAP duties due to their superior climb rate.
?.... 72 badly outnumbered FAA fighters fending off an astonishing armada of 600 enemy planes...
9 or 11 of them. and only for about 5 months.
Well, the Ki-43 was the main opposition for the Flying Tigers, and even with over claiming we know how that turned out.
It took way too long for the Allies figure out they could not out turn/maneuver the Japanese aircraft. They had a lot of trouble with the Italians but for some reason they didn't carry that over. Or the Italians used maneuver for escape more than the Japanese? There were certainly good and aggressive Italian pilots. But they didn't have a large number of combat experienced pilots in the Pacific and the ones the commonwealth had experienced in a different type of fighting.
Thach really saved the US from a world of hurt. He took Chennault's warning and turned it into tactic that if not the killer it is sometimes made out to be, it allowed the US pilots to survive to fight other days.
Here is another oddity, The MC. 200 was built to a higher G loading standard than even the American fighters.
The MC. 200 did OK in Russia, the numbers were small but they kept them is service for quite some time and they seem to have more than broke even against the Russians even if they didn't dominate.
That is the crux of the matter really. All of the battles / events in your post ended by being strategic victories for the allies.What can we gather from all this, besides the fallacy of trying to compare very different battles, and both had strategic effects on the war?
That is the crux of the matter really. All of the battles / events in your post ended by being strategic victories for the allies.
I was only referring to Mike's Med and Pacific posts as they were events where carriers played crucial roles.Except for PQ-17, which admittedly had an actual Axis submarine element and potential surface threat to it as well. It's probably the only real Allied convoy defeat involving Axis aircraft, though Pedestal came mighty close.
I was only referring to Mike's Med and Pacific posts as they were events where carriers played crucial roles.
Well the original thread topic was based on a claim in another thread by RCAFSon that the air attacks at Pedestal, and specifically the heroic defense made by the Sea Hurricanes, was beyond anything faced by the USN in all of 1942. And I think we can already see in the data that is ridiculous, but we will continue to zoom in a little bit more
So by definition per the OP, it's not just Midway that matters, but also Coral Sea, Guadalcanal and the Solomon Islands, naval battles around New Guinea, and Midway, plus some other smaller actions, that bear looking at.
One major factor at least partly left out of the accounts we read above, was the role that the quite large contingent of Spitfires and Beaufighters at Malta, as well as recon planes and ASW and strike planes at Malta, had in the battle with Pedestal. These did play both a direct and indirect role. Malta Spitfires shot down some of the strike aircraft, I think Beaufighters did as well. I believe some Malta planes also did strikes against Axis airfields. I'll try to locate some examples.
I think more broadly, yes you definitely can compare the two Theaters and it would be profitable to do so. We tend to look at these as if they took place in different universes but of course, they did not. The Japanese also tangled with the British and the Americans tangled with the Germans and Italians. So we can contrast and analyze the different technical capabilities, tactics and strategy used in both cases and by the armed forces of each nation. This thread will also help inform at least two other threads which are currently active or were recently started.
Again, I refer readers to post #44:Well the original thread topic was based on a claim in another thread by RCAFSon that the air attacks at Pedestal, and specifically the heroic defense made by the Sea Hurricanes, was beyond anything faced by the USN in all of 1942. And I think we can already see in the data that is ridiculous, but we will continue to zoom in a little bit more
So by definition per the OP, it's not just Midway that matters, but also Coral Sea, Guadalcanal and the Solomon Islands, naval battles around New Guinea, and Midway, plus some other smaller actions, that bear looking at.
One major factor at least partly left out of the accounts we read above, was the role that the quite large contingent of Spitfires and Beaufighters at Malta, as well as recon planes and ASW and strike planes at Malta, had in the battle with Pedestal. These did play both a direct and indirect role. Malta Spitfires shot down some of the strike aircraft, I think Beaufighters did as well. I believe some Malta planes also did strikes against Axis airfields. I'll try to locate some examples.
I think more broadly, yes you definitely can compare the two Theaters and it would be profitable to do so. We tend to look at these as if they took place in different universes but of course, they did not. The Japanese also tangled with the British and the Americans tangled with the Germans and Italians. So we can contrast and analyze the different technical capabilities, tactics and strategy used in both cases and by the armed forces of each nation. This thread will also help inform at least two other threads which are currently active or were recently started.
I'd bet that the sailors aboard Pedestal ships probably felt put about as hard as any American sailor in the early Pacific, once their air cover turned back.
Again, I refer readers to post #44:
Was Operation Pedestal a greater Axis air attack than any faced by the USN in 1942?
This is what was originally presented: Where in that did I state: ? The IJN was using a very similar mix of medium bomber/torpedo strike aircraft in 1942 as the RAI in terms of performance and payload, but none of the IJN primary carrier strike aircraft were modern by 1942 ETO standards...ww2aircraft.net
I'd bet that the sailors aboard Pedestal ships probably felt put about as hard as any American sailor in the early Pacific, once their air cover turned back.