Was Port Moresby the first rea defeat of the IJN in the air?

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

I made an off-hand remark that you pounced on. I already acknowledged 2/3 wasn't precise, and not all 'lost' in landing accidents etc. were permanently destroyed. But it does appear that close to that number were lost in accidents, and it's clear that I was substantially correct.

Good to see you consider yourself to be the victim being pounced on, rather than the readers having to deal with someone posting an obviously ludicrous claim which could have been easily checked beforehand. Next just ignore the acknowledgements only came after the problems of their original number and definitions were pointed out. Finally the original statement was "the Aussies lost about 2/3 of their P-40s just flying them across Australia to get to the battle area." Becomes in 1942 the RAAF Kittyhawk loss ratio was 2 in combat to 3 out of combat, or 40% combat, 60% non combat, to be able to claim the original statement was substantially correct all RAAF non combat losses were on ferry flights to the front line and by the end of 1942 the RAAF had no Kittyhawks left. And this sequence continued throughout the war, RAAF gets Kittyhawk, RAAF loses 2/3 moving them to the front line, USAAF keeps supplying Kittyhawk. The idea is for the reader to remember the 2/3 figure and just ignore it now applies to a different time period, location, etc. By the way "a crazy person" might end up with the 26 combat to 37 non combat RAF Kittyhawk losses in 1942.

There was never any question of cutting off the Australians from their supply of 'precious' kittyhawks as you stated.

Now all you have to do is provide the quote I am supposed to have provided, start with "precious". Your standard retreat of making up things about other people would be tiresome if it was not so transparently comical.

the rest of your comments seem to be fiercely engaged in a debate that nobody else is having.

Fascinating, fierce? Laughing too much to be fierce. And I gather you classify yourself as nobody? I know your contribution is reframing the claim to pretend you were right all along and making up claims about other people, which is not a debate. Ever thought accusing people of things they did not do or say is not the likely way to end an exchange?

On 31 January 1942 London Cable 138 tentative RAAF allocation of 250 Kittyhawk, which became a firm 143, which became 129 when 14 were lost at sea and not replaced. As of 27 February 1942 the RAAF was hoping/believing it had 306 Kittyhawk on order, it also implemented a 73 squadron plan requiring 771 Kittyhawk, it takes until early September for the total order number to drop from 771 back to 306. The US released 163 Kittyhawk as the RAAF second allocation (143+163 = 306), to be built October 1942 onwards, 6 of these were lost at sea, 4 more damaged beyond repair in transit. Total number ordered back to 292 (306 minus the 14 RAAF order P-40E-1 lost at sea) in the second half of November 1942. In late January 1943 the total ordered goes to 494. The third allocation of 262 was to be from March to October 1943 production, 202 (143+163+202-14 = 494) of these normal allocation plus a later add on of 60 out of an initial 128 the Australian Foreign Minister managed to persuade FDR to make as a special allocation. Total orders cut to 488 (494 - 6 lost at sea) end April 1943. To 508 on order mid June 1943 (adding back in the 14+6 lost at sea), to 636 end July 1943 (the 128 Evatt mission aircraft), to 568 in October 1943 (Less 68 Evatt mission allocations cancelled), to 746 in March 1944, to 726 again as the lost at sea are removed, to 800 end July 1944, to 809 in mid October 1944 (809-568 = 241, then comes the 20 lost at sea). The fourth allocation was 261 aircraft, 2 of which arrived damaged beyond repair. Production to be January to December 1944.

Final acceptances and deliveries in November 1944, final exports in December, final arrivals in Australia February 1945.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Bickering aside, this is a remarkably informative thread.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Now all you have to do is provide the quote I am supposed to have provided, start with "precious". Your standard retreat of making up things about other people would be tiresome if it was not so transparently comical.

And your pompous, turgid and inept attempt to badger me are both comical and farcical, so we have that in common.

Fascinating, fierce? Laughing too much to be fierce. And I gather you classify yourself as nobody? I know your contribution is reframing the claim to pretend you were right all along and making up claims about other people, which is not a debate. Ever thought accusing people of things they did not do or say is not the likely way to end an exchange?

I'd say look hard in the mirror on this one. But you are right about one thing- I have been engaging with you in this absurd, juvenile posturing you are doing, and I'm not going to any more.

 

[taly01]

I don't think most people understand just how undeveloped and remote northern Australia is let alone Port Moresby and New Guinea, Milne Bay is even rougher. There was no cities or industrial centres for thousands of kilometres, Darwin 1943 was just a small town and a port, mostly cattle trade. I lived in Townsville in far North East Australia in 1995 (where they had a very active US air base in WW2) and to be honest it wasn't much even then!

Even if Japan had succeded in taking Port Moresby and even Darwin, they would have got little resources and just spread out their forces even more thinly in undefensible positions. But maybe they hoped it would be a bargaining point for peace?