Was Operation Pedestal a greater Axis air attack than any faced by the USN in 1942?

[RCAFson]

And I'd refer you to post #11, where you refer to the defending force as being 36 Sea Hurricanes, 16 Fulmar, and 10 Martlets - or 62 fighters.

Reverting to none after the carriers withdrew.

This neglects the 137 Spitfires and 38 Beaufighters at Malta, which is the key missing bit IMO.

How many Spitfires were flying CAP over Pedestal on Aug 11 and 12?

I'm trying to be civil here but you're just not making much sense and trying to twist my post into something that I never stated. I stated very clearly, that I was referring to IJN carrier strike sorties vs USN carrier TFs in the Pacific in 1942 vs the number of Axis strike sorties (~246) flown against PEDESTAL on Aug 11 and 12.

 

[elbmc1969]

So, according to Shores/Cull/Malizia, the Axis had 66 single-engine fighters available, plus 20 Italian fighters tasked to air base defense (and of less capable types). The Germans order of battle lists everything in the vicinity and does not mention that any fighters were on airbase defense duties. I would be surprised if the Luftwaffe simply trusted the Italians to protect their bomber bases ...

In addition, the Germans had 8 Bf110s and 12 Ju88C night fighters. The night fighters were obviously a non-factor in the air attacks, which were all made during daylight. (Unless you wanted to sacrifice them as decoys.)

If we ignore the Malta-based aircraft, the British have a tiny nominal superiority in single-engine fighters. Throwing in the Bf110s might give the Axis an advantage or two fighters or so.

What about the Malta-based aircraft? The problem is that they are non-overlapping with the carrier-based aircraft. Their employment divides the battle into three phases for the British: the carrier-protected phase, the nearly-unprotected phase, and the Malta-protected phase. It's obvious, but I'll say it: range meant that only a fraction of the Malta-based aircraft could be over the convoy at any time. That fraction increased as the convoy got closer to Malta, transit times decreased, and CAP endurance increased. In any case, the Sea Hurricanes (and Martlets, and Fulmars) are irrelevant to this portion of the battle.

If the British were utterly unable to achieve concentration of force, the Axis was not perfectly concentrated either, since the aircraft were based all over Sicily and on Pantelleria.

Anyhow, I don't know if any of this is helpful or even slightly insightful.

 

[RCAFson]

So one thing I would point out right out the gate from looking at this analysis, is it helps clarify one of the major points we've been discussing in this thread and in some of it's precursors and off-shoots - the importance of range in naval air combat. I'll just mention a couple of specifics:

If the Axis had good long range fighters
...Then they could have launched attacks against Pedestal two or three days before they did. You can argue that "range doesn't matter because the Allies have to come to the where the Axis bases are." But this ignores the reality - if you can only escort the bombers once the convoy is 50 or 60 miles away, you are giving yourself much fewer opportunities to sink the ships. The same obviously applies in carrier combat. If the Germans had a fighter like the A6M they could have been sending waves of Ju-88s and SM.79s escorted by first-rate fighters. Instead of either sending them by themselves or holding them back.

On 11 August, 27 Ju 88s and 3 He 111s attacked Pedestal just before sunset, having flown 200 nmi from their base on Sardinia. They made a rushed and hasty attack, to evade the CAP, since they were unescorted - beyond the range of their Bf 109 fighters - and they missed in all their attacks. What would have happened if that had been 27 D3As or G4Ms? How about if they had been escorted by first line fighters?

Because the Allies did have long range strike aircraft
The night after this attack on 11 August, Liberators and Beaufighters attacked the Axis bases in Sardinia, destroying multiple Axis aircraft and setting hangars on fire.

Longer ranged Axis fighters could have protected Axis warships
Then their surface ships may have also been able to attack. On the night of 11/12 August the Italians sent two cruiser divisions and 17 destroyers from Sicily and Italy to attack the British convoy. A British Wellington recon plane spotted them and sent fake messages to a fictitious Liberator unit, the Italians canceled the sortie because there was no guarantee of air cover.

If the Axis had better long range strike aircraft
The Ju 88 and SM.79 were pretty good. The Ju 87s were better. But the Ju 88 and SM.79 didn't have as good a 'kill rate' as the D3A and B5N did, probably not as much as the G3M or G4M either. We have seen some data in another thread which shows the extremely high rate of accuracy of the D3A in particular, not just against the US but also against the British, such as when 53 D3A dive bombers hit HMS Cornwall and HMS Dorsetshire 28 times in five minutes, plus 15 near misses. We know that the Ju 87 could also bomb very accurately, as we can see in the attack on Illustrious on 7 January 1941 during Operation Excess, in which it was hit six times by 30 stukas. But Ju 87s lacked long range, and in spite of having armor and self sealing tanks, couldn't survive an encounter with Allied fighters unescorted. But a D3A could strike twice as far as a stuka. Even if most of them were shot down, they still carried a bite. In one raid against Pedestal, all but 4 Ju 88s were shot down or driven off, and those four attacked, but got no hits. During Midway, a Japanese strike was decimated by USN CAP, but three D3As got through. All three scored hits. Four B5Ns got through as well, scoring two torpedo hits. This is lethal!

If the Allies had more effective fighters with better range
Like if they had all Martlets instead of the mix of Sea hurricanes, Fulmars and the few Martlets they actually had, then they could have intercepted the enemy strike aircraft at a further distance from the fleet. All of this also depends on recon, fighter coordination, radar and other factors. But it's also just a matter of how far your fighters go out on their patrol. When a strike is intercepted at 60 miles from your ships, you have a much better chance of breaking up the attack than if you intercept it 20 miles away. I think the British had a problem here, mainly due to the short legs of the Sea Hurricane in particular, but they partly made up for it by very good fighter direction. The Americans conversely had a longer ranged fighter in the Wildcat, but their fighter control was more haphazard. When they intercepted raids further out, the outcomes were better.

This also applies to the British land-based fighters. If the Spitfires had longer legs, they could have helped the convoy when it was further out, in greater numbers, and for longer. Which brings me to...

If the Allies had more fighters with a longer loiter time
Another factor which seemed to be telling during Pedestal was that the CAP was small, and enemy strikes were at least in part intercepted by aircraft launched at the moment they were detected. This is even possible in part because of the efficient fighter control system. But it was also probably done in prt due to the kind of problems posed by the Sea Hurricane described by RN officers and FAA pilots, i.e. that Sea Hurricanes couldn't stay up long, and the carrier was constantly having to turn into the wind to launch or recover them...

"16. The short operational endurance of the Hurricane and small amount of ammunition carried must result in frequent turns into wind to land on aircraft which have been in combat, greatly aggravating the position in regard to flying off others or maintaining sections standing by to fly off."
-Report from Commanding Officer, HMS Ark Royal to Flag Officer Commanding Force 'H' ADM 199/ 847 31 July 1941

Obviously this is a problem when you are in a convoy that's trying to get to their goal as fast as possible. So for this reason they would keep some on deck, to launch when the enemy planes were spotted.

What was the longest range strike that IJN carriers made against USN carriers in 1942?

I've pointed out that HMS Southampton was sunk by Stukas operating ~300nm from their base.

Intercepting further from the fleet than historically was almost impossible due to the detection range of the fleet's radar vs the time needed to vector the CAP onto the enemy aircraft If the FAA's Martlets could have been assigned high cover or could have intercepted further out then they would have done so. As we've discussed at length the difference in range and endurance between the SH1B and an F4F-4 is quite small and in the Pacific, even when cruising for economy with no contact with the enemy, F4F-4s were running out of fuel after ~3.5 hours. The Captain of Ark Royal was comparing the SH1B to the Fulmar, but as we've seen the F4F-4 was only marginally better than the SH1B. Additionally the vastly superior climb rate of the SH1B meant that it could be launched right from the carrier and still have the ability to intercept incoming raids. During Pedestal and PQ18 SH1B endurance turned out to be a non-factor in terms of aircraft recovery.

 

[RCAFson]

So, according to Shores/Cull/Malizia, the Axis had 66 single-engine fighters available, plus 20 Italian fighters tasked to air base defense (and of less capable types). The Germans order of battle lists everything in the vicinity and does not mention that any fighters were on airbase defense duties. I would be surprised if the Luftwaffe simply trusted the Italians to protect their bomber bases ...

In addition, the Germans had 8 Bf110s and 12 Ju88C night fighters. The night fighters were obviously a non-factor in the air attacks, which were all made during daylight. (Unless you wanted to sacrifice them as decoys.)

If we ignore the Malta-based aircraft, the British have a tiny nominal superiority in single-engine fighters. Throwing in the Bf110s might give the Axis an advantage or two fighters or so.

What about the Malta-based aircraft? The problem is that they are non-overlapping with the carrier-based aircraft. Their employment divides the battle into three phases for the British: the carrier-protected phase, the nearly-unprotected phase, and the Malta-protected phase. It's obvious, but I'll say it: range meant that only a fraction of the Malta-based aircraft could be over the convoy at any time. That fraction increased as the convoy got closer to Malta, transit times decreased, and CAP endurance increased. In any case, the Sea Hurricanes (and Martlets, and Fulmars) are irrelevant to this portion of the battle.

If the British were utterly unable to achieve concentration of force, the Axis was not perfectly concentrated either, since the aircraft were based all over Sicily and on Pantelleria.

Anyhow, I don't know if any of this is helpful or even slightly insightful.

Just to clarify, the ME110s were used as escorts and they and the SH1Bs traded kill claims against each other during Pedestal.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

That's because they are two different fields of battle. Pedestal, like other convoy runs, was a running battle through a gauntlet of NSCs (non sinkable carriers). The Axis forces neither had, nor really needed, a surface force. Both opponents faced off in the confines of the Med. Both sides knew (sorta') where the other guy was. The RN carriers were armoured because they knew they were going to get clobbered. The RN developed their doctrine and tactics for a new kind of warfare and where they were going to fight it.
The USN needed big, roomy carriers with as many airframes they could stuff in them just to find the other guy. Same held true for the IJN. There were big fleets involved because that was the only way to do it. The USN developed their doctrine and tactics for a new kind of warfare and where they were going to fight it.
I agree with Just Schmidt's opinion. To me, it's like comparing the Relief of Bastogne to the Battle of Kursk.

There is no way to make an exact comparison between any two battles in WW2. Technically you could say that it's impossible to compare even battles in the same Theater and type - Kursk and Kharkov for example or Coral Sea and Midway, because they aren't exactly the same in terms of objectives, constraints, aircraft and ground or sea assets, intel and supply etc.

But actually you can look at differences between any battle involving tanks, or any battle involving warships and fighter and strike aircraft. When it comes to Med vs. Pacific some of the same warships and aircraft fought in both Theaters.

And the idea that all of the naval warfare in the Pacific was carrier vs. carrier and all in the Med or North Sea is absurd. Both the Japanese and the USN had to contend with 'unsinkable aircraft carriers' - that is what Midway was. It's what Guadalcanal was. It's what Rabaul and Lae were. Truk and Iba. Formosa and the Shortlands.

Almost all the major naval battles in the Pacific from 1942 onward in fact at least partly involved carrier aircraft fighting with land based aircraft flying out of air bases. So it's really not that different except for the fact that neither the Germans nor Italians had any aircraft carriers (at least, none that saw action).

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

How many Spitfires were flying CAP over Pedestal on Aug 11 and 12?

I already can see that Spitfires shot down Axis bombers during the Pedestal battle. I'll provide more data tomorrow.

I'm trying to be civil here but you're just not making much sense and trying to twist my post into something that I never stated. I stated very clearly, that I was referring to IJN carrier strike sorties vs USN carrier TFs in the Pacific in 1942 vs the number of Axis strike sorties (~246) flown against PEDESTAL on Aug 11 and 12.

I am not trying to 'twist' anything. Pedestal didn't happen on just two days. Naval battles in WW2 (involving air strikes on US carriers) routinely involved both land based and naval aircraft on both sides. You said all of 1942 - Midway was just one battle and it was kind of an outlier in that sense.

And those 246 sorties on those two days during Pedestal that you want to limit the discussion to (I won't) were escorted by less than half as many fighters as escorted the IJN strikes at Midway, and in other Pacific war battles as well.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

So, according to Shores/Cull/Malizia, the Axis had 66 single-engine fighters available, plus 20 Italian fighters tasked to air base defense (and of less capable types). The Germans order of battle lists everything in the vicinity and does not mention that any fighters were on airbase defense duties. I would be surprised if the Luftwaffe simply trusted the Italians to protect their bomber bases ...

In addition, the Germans had 8 Bf110s and 12 Ju88C night fighters. The night fighters were obviously a non-factor in the air attacks, which were all made during daylight. (Unless you wanted to sacrifice them as decoys.)

I don't know if the Ju 88c did any strikes but they were used as daytime heavy fighters sometimes in the Med, and could probably hold their own against the FAA cap. They could also strafe. Same for the Bf 110s.

If we ignore the Malta-based aircraft, the British have a tiny nominal superiority in single-engine fighters. Throwing in the Bf110s might give the Axis an advantage or two fighters or so.

What about the Malta-based aircraft? The problem is that they are non-overlapping with the carrier-based aircraft. Their employment divides the battle into three phases for the British: the carrier-protected phase, the nearly-unprotected phase, and the Malta-protected phase. It's obvious, but I'll say it: range meant that only a fraction of the Malta-based aircraft could be over the convoy at any time. That fraction increased as the convoy got closer to Malta, transit times decreased, and CAP endurance increased. In any case, the Sea Hurricanes (and Martlets, and Fulmars) are irrelevant to this portion of the battle.

Fair points, I'd like to explore this aspect (which aircraft did what on what days, exactly) in more detail. I'm sure the convoy was harder to cover when it was further out, but it seems like it was already in range of Malta when the heaviest Axis strikes were coming. And they had a lot of fighters on Malta. Over 130 Spitfires and over 30 Beaufighters. The Beaufighters had quite good range and could definitely kill SM.79s, Stukas, He 111s or low flying Ju 88s.

If the British were utterly unable to achieve concentration of force, the Axis was not perfectly concentrated either, since the aircraft were based all over Sicily and on Pantelleria.

Anyhow, I don't know if any of this is helpful or even slightly insightful.

It is, thanks!

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

What was the longest range strike that IJN carriers made against USN carriers in 1942?

I don't know, that would be worth looking into. I believe they made some quite long range strikes. Land based torpedo bombers even further.

The key factor here though is that in most cases these could be escorted by A6Ms or in the case of the land based bombers, sometimes Ki-43s.

I've pointed out that HMS Southampton was sunk by Stukas operating ~300nm from their base.

I have a feeling that was an outlier, the Stukas don't seem to have made such long range strikes normally.

But again the problem is, Stukas flying unescorted strikes 300 nm or 100 nm from their base, would be decimated by Martlets, Sea Hurricanes, or even Fulmars.

Intercepting further from the fleet than historically was almost impossible due to the detection range of the fleet's radar

It seems that in many cases the enemy strikes were actually detected by friendly recon aircraft or fighters

vs the time needed to vector the CAP onto the enemy aircraft If the FAA's Martlets could have been assigned high cover or could have intercepted further out then they would have done so. As we've discussed at length the difference in range and endurance between the SH1B and an F4F-4 is quite small

This seems to be your unique opinion and not that of multiple RN and FAA officers who I've already quoted. The Captain of the Ark Royal to cite one example that I just quoted upthread, made a point of saying that the Sea Hurricane had unusually short endurance. They never said that about the Martlet that I can find.

and in the Pacific, even when cruising for economy with no contact with the enemy, F4F-4s were running out of fuel after ~3.5 hours. The Captain of Ark Royal was comparing the SH1B to the Fulmar, but as we've seen the F4F-4 was only marginally better than the SH1B.

Again, that is not actually true, in fact the FAA pilots directly contradict this.

"With its excellent patrol range – I actually flew one sortie of four-and-a-half hours in this fighter – and fine ditching characteristics, for which I can vouch as a matter of personal experience, this Grumman fighter was, for my money, one of the finest shipboard aeroplanes ever created."

"The Wildcat was a potent fighter, with splendid maneuverability, good performance, heavy firepower, and excellent range and endurance. On top of this, it was a superb deck-landing aircraft."

-both Eric Brown.

The 'fine ditching characteristics' is a reference to the Sea Hurricane which had a notoriously deadly tendency to flip upside down when ditching

Additionally the vastly superior climb rate of the SH1B meant that it could be launched right from the carrier and still have the ability to intercept incoming raids. During Pedestal and PQ18 SH1B endurance turned out to be a non-factor in terms of aircraft recovery.

Actually I read an account of PQ18 which directly contradicts that, I think it was from the captain. I'll find it tomorrow

 

[elbmc1969]

Question: How many Axis fighters escorted each of the attacks on the convoy while it was covered by carrier-based fighters?

 

[RCAFson]

I already can see that Spitfires shot down Axis bombers during the Pedestal battle. I'll provide more data tomorrow.



I am not trying to 'twist' anything. Pedestal didn't happen on just two days. Naval battles in WW2 (involving air strikes on US carriers) routinely involved both land based and naval aircraft on both sides. You said all of 1942 - Midway was just one battle and it was kind of an outlier in that sense.

And those 246 sorties on those two days during Pedestal that you want to limit the discussion to (I won't) were escorted by less than half as many fighters as escorted the IJN strikes at Midway, and in other Pacific war battles as well.

The only fighter support that the Pedestal ships received from Malta was on Aug 13, after the carriers, and the SH1Bs turned back during the evening of Aug 12. This thread started as a discussion of the SH1B...

I stated IJN carrier strike sorties against USN carrier TFs in all of 1942 and I listed the strike sorties in each of the 4 battles. In each of those 4 battles, there were no shore based IJNAF/IJAAF strikes against the USN carrier TFs.

 

[elbmc1969]

I don't know if the Ju 88c did any strikes but they were used as daytime heavy fighters sometimes in the Med, and could probably hold their own against the FAA cap.

They were used against long-range recon aircraft and against unescorted ASW aircraft, and occasionally against bombers operating beyond the range of single-engined escorts.

I don't want to go into details, but I have to disagree with you about "holding their own" against CAP. The performance differences were immense and the Sea Hurricanes, Martlet, and even the Fulmer would typically be able to simply ignore them. If the Ju88Cs couldn't be ignored, the CAP could easily break up their formations. Beyond that, any Ju88C in a dogfight with any of the FAA aircraft was essentially doomed.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

They were used against long-range recon aircraft and against unescorted ASW aircraft, and occasionally against bombers operating beyond the range of single-engined escorts.

I don't want to go into details, but I have to disagree with you about "holding their own" against CAP. The performance differences were immense and the Sea Hurricanes, Martlet, and even the Fulmer would typically be able to simply ignore them. If the Ju88Cs couldn't be ignored, the CAP could easily break up their formations. Beyond that, any Ju88C in a dogfight with any of the FAA aircraft was essentially doomed.

Well some of those same Ju 88C (I think from the same unit) shot down several P-38s in one incident, though it was certainly an outlier. They clashed with Beaufighters and sometimes other land based aircraft, I just remembered that they showed up in the kill / loss rosters a lot in Shores MAW.

The top speed of the Ju 88C was a bit better than that of the Ju 88A which was able to outrun Hurricanes on numerous occasions, including one of the strikes mentioned upthread a bit on Aug 11 during Pedestal. So conceivably they could hit and run.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

But yeah dogfighting would be a death sentence. If I was the German commander and saw Pedestal coming, I'd send them to do something - attack fighters, strafe, whatever they could do. They were certainly more useful than a BR.20 or an S.66!

 

[RCAFson]

I don't know, that would be worth looking into. I believe they made some quite long range strikes. Land based torpedo bombers even further.

The key factor here though is that in most cases these could be escorted by A6Ms or in the case of the land based bombers, sometimes Ki-43s.


I have a feeling that was an outlier, the Stukas don't seem to have made such long range strikes normally.

But again the problem is, Stukas flying unescorted strikes 300 nm or 100 nm from their base, would be decimated by Martlets, Sea Hurricanes, or even Fulmars.



It seems that in many cases the enemy strikes were actually detected by friendly recon aircraft or fighters



This seems to be your unique opinion and not that of multiple RN and FAA officers who I've already quoted. The Captain of the Ark Royal to cite one example that I just quoted upthread, made a point of saying that the Sea Hurricane had unusually short endurance. They never said that about the Martlet that I can find.



Again, that is not actually true, in fact the FAA pilots directly contradict this.

"With its excellent patrol range – I actually flew one sortie of four-and-a-half hours in this fighter – and fine ditching characteristics, for which I can vouch as a matter of personal experience, this Grumman fighter was, for my money, one of the finest shipboard aeroplanes ever created."

The JU87-R was designed especially to act as a long range strike aircraft. The Me110 was designed as a long range escort fighter.

After mid/late 1942 drop tanks became available for Martlets/F4F-4s and variants. Additionally, the early fixed wing Martlets with no Self Sealing tanks could carry up to 136IG of fuel vs 120IG on the F4F-4/Martlet II/IV with SS tanks and folding wings, which were also considerably heavier aircraft.

The SH1B had rather less endurance than a Fulmar, which in turn had more endurance than a Martlet.

 

[RCAFson]

Question: How many Axis fighters escorted each of the attacks on the convoy while it was covered by carrier-based fighters?

The RAI flew 68 escort fighter sorties in 3 waves and the Luftwaffe around 30-40 on Aug 12.

 

[Shortround6]

The ability to intercept at long range is useful but perhaps not as useful as it seems for Pedestal. With axis strikes coming from multiple locations and unknown times sending the CAP off too far means they have longer to get back. Sort of a horizontal displacement instead of vertical displacement the Japanese suffered from in Midway. That is another aspect of fighter control, keeping your CAP in position to respond to the next threat.

The Fulmar doesn't get a lot of love here but at 6-8,000ft it wasn't as bad as it seems. It was slower than the other fighters but as I have pointed out before, everything else was slower at that altitude. A land Hurricane I (6.25lbs) was good for about 10-15mph over the Fulmar II. Using the 12-16lb boost levels could really suck down fuel.

I would also be more careful about writing off the Italian planes compared to the Japanese planes. The Japanese did do amazing things in 1942, what is even more amazing is that they did it with early versions of their aircraft. Most Japanese planes got better engines during 1942, most of them after Midway. Most of them got the better engines during the struggle for Guadalcanal. At least the Italians weren't using Lewis guns for defensive armament in bombers.

The Martlets during Pedestal were the MK IIs (?). The British only had 90 of the folding wing planes total, minus losses, from the deliveries that started in March of 1941.
The Martlet IVs were first delivered to the British July 15th 1942 but the squadron that got them (#892) was in Hampton roads Virginia for training and did not go on a war cruise until Dec of 1942 on board the HMS Battler. Again the Martlet IIs used the same engine as the F4F-3A. Max speed at 6000ft was about 290mph and that is in low gear on the supercharger.
The Martlet III was the ex Greek order of 30 planes and they didn't have folding wings.

 

[Macandy]

Op Pedestal?

Tested the pre war armoured carrier fantasy to near destruction.

The Fulmar and Sea Hurricane were poor, and were not carried in big enough numbers to break up enemy attacks by bombers.

Sending strikes by axis bombers against a USN Carrier would have ben 'interesting'.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Let me be clear about one thing. I'm not arguing at all that British sailors were not absolutely heroic in all the convoy fights and in all the battles for all the convoys and the other engagements with the Germans and Italians. They went through tribulations I can't even imagine, and pulled off feats of heroism that would humble any of us here.

What I am saying is that these sailors and aircrew would have been better served with more Martlets, which was the best available to our (British and American being very close Allies in WW2 lest we forget) side. The US and British authorities let down those aircrews, but they did the best with what they had. The Hurricane was one of the best fighters in the world in 1940. The Sea Hurricane was not one of the best naval fighters in 1942. Nor was the Fulmar.

I would also however take this a step further and point out what is to me the glaringly obvious - the Imperial Japanese Navy was by far the most serious Axis naval threat in WW2, and the battles in the Pacific were by far the most dire, fraught, and dangerous naval engagements of the war. The British held out against the Germans on their own during the BoB. Sinking the Italian fleet at Taranto, hunting down the Bismark and the commerce raiders, saving Malta, were all major achievements by the British, the FAA, RAF and the Royal Navy.

But these pale in comparison to Midway or to the various surface battles around the Solomons, the Battle of the Bismark sea or the Battle of the Philippine Sea, the Battle of Leyte Gulf etc. That's what I AM saying.

Would you rather die of cancer, or a gunshot to the head? Which is worse, a stab wound or a toothache?

I'm not sure these battles in the two theaters are really comparable.

 

[WARSPITER]

Would you rather die of cancer, or a gunshot to the head? Which is worse, a stab wound or a toothache?

I'm not sure these battles in the two theaters are really comparable.

The only time they can be compared is in their outcome. Any engagement is dire and fraught, ask anyone who has been in one.
The comparable outcome is that they were wins for the allies which means that a win at Midway is a win for Britain and a win in
the Med is win for the USA.

Midway signalled the end for Japanese initiative in the Pacific and therefore India which meant the beginning of the end for them.
All future operations for Japan were always going to be hampered by a lack of strength at sea while the opposition just got better
and stronger.

Pedestal meant the survival of Malta which was the decisive factor in North Africa and meant the Axis forces would lose at Alamein
and thereafter (most decisive factor for Alamein - the Royal Navy). This also meant inevitable defeat for Italy and entry to the European
mainland for the allies in 1943.

Everybody on the allied side wins.

 

[Glider]

The ability to carry more Wildcats when compared to the Hurricane was a significant advantage and one, whilst mentioned almost in passing doesn't do it justice. When HMS Victorious served with the USN as the 'Robin' I think she carried 60+ Wildcats. This is simply beyond the realms of Fantasy had she been carrying Hurricanes.