Construction of Carriers instead of Battleships

World War II General WWII Discussion
#41

Using “Guadalcanal: The Definitive Account of the Landmark Battle” by Richard B. Frank as a source, I now realize that the main Japanese base was indeed located at Rabul, which did cause difficulties and fatigue of Japanese pilots. A base was constructed closer to Guadalcanal, located on Buin, but difficulties in terrain frustrated construction for three critical months until November of 1942. The IJN was able to deploy “Long-range Zeros” (A6M Model 21s) and they had an adequate loiter time over Henderson Field than the Model 32s, which had better performance at higher altitudes but at the cost of range and maneuverability.

It should be noted that the Catus Air Force also suffered from fatigue in poor living conditions, chronic shortages, and occasional shelling from the IJN…

#42

Nick,

When you say the kill ratio was 1:1, that means an even swap. That’s not exactly being on top or being able to ‘deal with’ them. The F6F, F4U, and others had way higher kill ratios.

And that’s the whole point. By that time we understood the Japanese fighters and how to defeat them reliably. The only scenarios left where the Japanese fighters (with exceptions of the George, Jack, Tony, and the few others that had better performance than the A6M or Ki-43) could reliably win were low altitude low speed encounters (which made it difficult for an American fighter to escape), and zoom climbs at low speed.

By then we understood all the weakness and how to exploit them under most encounters.

Deaf

#43

Um, what’s your point or argument is here? I never said it was anything better than an even swap. It was you that was implying that US pilots were having their asses handed to them by the Zero A6M (as well as the Ki-43 Oscar, which was pretty much the IJA version for all practical purposes) and were being shot down left and right that was only rectified by the finding of a intact crashed Zero. The truth is that US pilots held their own against what were often better trained and seasoned pilots until they got better, and a new generation of fighters arrived to tip the balance of attrition into the US’ favor. And while the Japanese fighters had superior aeronautical trim characteristics, they were inferior in armament and were fragile allowing the Americans some measure of edge…

Few encounters took place at low level, and US fighters only had to dive to escape. Incidentally, the 1:1 was just a rough guess, and it may well have been a bit more in the US aviator’s favor, I don’t know. But even at that even ratio, the advantage still went to the US as fighter losses would become just a blip on the production and US pilots would be replaced far more readily…

#44

It has been touched on in various posts above but not condensed into one post as I will try to do here.

Whatever the relative advantages and disadvantages of the Japanese and Allied aircraft, factors of equal or greater contribution to Allied victory flowed from (a) a different concept of the worth of the life of the pilot, in many senses, and (b) how he should be trained.

(a) The worth of the life of the pilot was less in Japanese than Allied thinking, with the result that, for example, less protection was provided for the pilot in armour and less survivability of the plane he was in with self-sealing tanks. Admittedly, the Allies, then being Britain allied with itself and its dominions, were equally deficient in pilot protection against Germany early in WII by not providing armour protection for the pilot, but at least they learned that lesson early and corrected it where the Japanese largely didn’t.

(b) Japanese training was fairly lengthy compared with American training and aimed to imbue the pilot with a warrior spirit linked to past myths, not unlike some Nazi training of German forces. Allied training just worked on a fairly pragmatic basis of training pilots in the mechanics of flying and instructing them in relevant tactics etc, which produced adequate pilots more quickly than the Japanese approach.

When those two aspects are combined with the relative populations of Japan and America, the latter being the primary Allied combatant against Japanese air forces, and with the relative industrial and training capacities of both nations it was inevitable that Japan would start to run out of pilots sooner or later and that America would produce pilots in greater numbers than Japan could.

As the Battle of Britain showed, when Britain’s declining pilot numbers put it at risk while it had a relatively ample supply of planes, it doesn’t matter how many or how good a nation’s planes are if it doesn’t have the pilots to fly them effectively in combat. Which, a bare six months into its Pacific War, began not to be the case for Japan and which just got steadily worse from there on, for the reasons outlined at (a) and (b) which have nothing to do with the technical abilities of the opposing aircraft.

#45

Nick,

At the first of the war the only aircraft we had to fight them with consisted of the P-36, P-39, P-40, F2A, F4F, as well as CA-13 Boomerang (Australian) and a few Hurricanes and Spitfires. We did try the tactics you have mentioned. They were not appliable to all the fighters used. Many of our pilots did die and our ‘clocks’ were cleaned.

Notice what happened to teh F2A pilots at Midway.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/midway.htm

The P-39 and P-400 faired badly at Guadalcanal and Port Moresby. Saburo Sakai considered the P-39 easy meat.

It helped but the best we got was 1:1 ratio. It was only after we captured the A6M Alutian fighter and unlocked it’s ‘secrets’ did we start getting much higher kill ratios. That is the point. Even if everyone had of headed Chennault’s warnings (and it turned out we actually did have the A6M’s characteristcs as one of our radio code breakers before the war went to a Japanese airshow and sure enough the A6M was on display along with a chart showing it’s speed, max range, max ceiling, and wingspan, length, horsepower, and other specs.)

One or two advantagious manuvers does not make a winning combination. It takes an understanding of the aircrafts strong/weak points .vs. your aircraft.

Deaf

#46

I’m not sure if the P-36 ever saw active service with the US in WWII, and don’t foprget the P-38 which was sent to the Pacific just after Midway I believe…

And what of Midway? Over 400 Japanese pilots were killed and according to Wiki, the US lost 98 aircraft and the Japanese lost 248…is that having “our clocks cleaned?” Really?

And if you are talking about the singular bombing raid on the Midway Atoll installation, I think you should be aware that the defenders were at a disadvantage because they detected the Japanese late and were unable to get their aircraft to a proper interception altitude. They also had Brewster Buffaloes which was a shoddy, miserable aircraft --unless one was Finnish-- as they solved many of its flaws and apparently loved it as much as the Red Air Force loved the Aerocobra…

http://www.warbirdforum.com/midway.htm

The P-39 and P-400 faired badly at Guadalcanal and Port Moresby. Saburo Sakai considered the P-39 easy meat.

Didn’t I already mention this like three times now?

Yes, the P-39/400 was a poor performer at higher combat ceilings and nearly useless as an interceptor. But it was made somewhat more effective when used in tandem with Marine and Navy Wildcats as the latter fighters could cover the higher altitudes while the Army pilots would try to draw the Japanese fighters down - again, tactics…

It helped but the best we got was 1:1 ratio.

So, how is a 1:1 kill ration “getting our clocks cleaned?” And I haven’t counted, but in the excellent, but very long & extraneous, book I’m taking forever to read on Guadalcanal now (by Richard B. Frank), I would say that in fact the Japanese lost more Zeros than the US did Wildcats and Aerocobras. The P-38 Lightenings came later and increase the effectiveness of fighter interception still more…

It was only after we captured the A6M Alutian fighter and unlocked it’s ‘secrets’ did we start getting much higher kill ratios. That is the point. Even if everyone had of headed Chennault’s warnings (and it turned out we actually did have the A6M’s characteristcs as one of our radio code breakers before the war went to a Japanese airshow and sure enough the A6M was on display along with a chart showing it’s speed, max range, max ceiling, and wingspan, length, horsepower, and other specs.)

Oh please, stop with the dramatic “secrets” stuff. The recover certainly helped training and tactics, but it wasn’t all that big of a factor and had little overall impact. The US still would have deployed the same Hellcats and Corsairs, optimized P-38s (the fuel system was tweaked, and the Lightening shot down more Japanese aircraft that anything else) after the end of 1942…

One or two advantagious manuvers does not make a winning combination. It takes an understanding of the aircrafts strong/weak points .vs. your aircraft.

Deaf

If does if it wins one battles and turned the tide of the War at Midway…

#47

And four Curtiss P-36 Hawks were able to get airborne in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and shot down two Japanese Nakajima B5N bombers. We didn’t use many but we did use some.

Were all the 400 pilots killed at Midway shot down? Were even 1/4th of them shot down?

And the fact we were at disadvantages on Midway Atol and with the P-39/P-400 is the what I mean by air combat is situational. You don’t always have an altitude advantage, or speed. But by understanding the enemys aircraft’s strength and weeknesses you can exploite then in many more ways that just one or two tactics.

BUT THAT IS WHAT WE HAD! And yes, they had their clocks cleaned. The only two aircraft that could hold their own was the F4F and P-40, and only in certian circumstances. The other aircraft could not and paid the price. Dead pilots are dead pilots reguradless if it’s a P-400 or P40.

That happend only when we had the right circumstances. Many times we could not cover and we sure didn’t at the first of the war.

Nick, what about other planes lost? It was not fighter .vs. fighter combat.

Considering we were producting 10 times as much as Japan, P-40s and F4Fs would have sufficed. And the P-38s fuel system was not tweaked. All they did was put the mixture to lean, high manfold pressure, low RPM. Nothing was done to the engines on ANY of our planes (and all were improved by Charles Lindenburg’s techinque. But even Amelia Earhart learned that from Lindy back in 1937. Pitty Roosevelt kicked Lindy out of the service. We could have used it before WW2.)

SDB’s turned the tide at Midway, not any fighter Nick.

Deaf

#48

Correct. Only, Wiki claims five got aloft they shot down two Zeros, not bombers, in exchange for one P-36 shot down - for what it is worth and Wiki might or might not be correct on this…

Were all the 400 pilots killed at Midway shot down? Were even 1/4th of them shot down?

I don’t know. Many obviously died on the carriers, but then, does it matter? Did the US pilots “get their clocks cleaned” then?

And the fact we were at disadvantages on Midway Atol and with the P-39/P-400 is the what I mean by air combat is situational. You don’t always have an altitude advantage, or speed. But by understanding the enemys aircraft’s strength and weeknesses you can exploite then in many more ways that just one or two tactics.

Um, there were were no AAF units flying P-39s at Midway Atoll…it was mostly Buffaloes with some Wildcats…

BUT THAT IS WHAT WE HAD! And yes, they had their clocks cleaned. The only two aircraft that could hold their own was the F4F and P-40, and only in certian circumstances. The other aircraft could not and paid the price. Dead pilots are dead pilots reguradless if it’s a P-400 or P40.

Um, the Wildcat and Tomahawk were the main USAAF and USN fighters, and you’re forgetting about the P-38, which was a pre-War design that again shot down the most Japanese aircraft by a fairily wide margin. The rest relegated to secondary combat duty of ground attack, such as on Guadalcanal, in which the Aerocobra excelled…

BTW, do you have any conclusive facts showing how the Zero so dominated US fighters that it actually altered the outcome of any major battle? I certainly can’t. There was The Coral Sea, Midway, and Guadalcanal, and in every case US fighter pilots held their own and the IJN never had air superiority…

That happend only when we had the right circumstances. Many times we could not cover and we sure didn’t at the first of the war.

Um, WTF are you talking about? Right circumstances? It happened when pilots did it!

Nick, what about other planes lost? It was not fighter .vs. fighter combat.

Um, please read the book, then form you opinion, most were fighter vs. fighter. Some were AAA fire, and some were mechanical failure…the latter two circumstances mitigates nothing, since the Wildcats and P-39s were usually outnumbered by Zeroes…

Considering we were producting 10 times as much as Japan, P-40s and F4Fs would have sufficed.

But I thought they were so inferior? In any case, the development of newer aircraft was started even before the War…

And the P-38s fuel system was not tweaked. All they did was put the mixture to lean, high manfold pressure, low RPM. Nothing was done to the engines on ANY of our planes (and all were improved by Charles Lindenburg’s techinque. But even Amelia Earhart learned that from Lindy back in 1937. Pitty Roosevelt kicked Lindy out of the service. We could have used it before WW2.)

Um, the “manifold” regulates the air-fuel mixture making it part of the fuel system. Nice Google-phu though…I didn’t say “engines”…

SDB’s turned the tide at Midway, not any fighter Nick.

Deaf

Just like the Vals and the Kates mostly turned the tide at Pearl Harbor…

But the Zeroes failed to stop them…

BTW, I’m beginning to get sick of you repeating yourself and quibbling at every point, which sort of seems like trolling…

#49

Going back to my earlier post about the relative numbers of pilots and the speed of training being at least as, or perhaps even more important than, the technical aspects of planes:

Does it matter how they died? After all

Or whether they’re sunk on carrier, or all die of the pox. The result is the same for the air capability of the relevant nation.

#50

Nick, Mate, as an independent observer of this thread I don’t see it that way.

I see you and Deaf Smith as both making fair and sensible points in an interesting and vigorous debate on a very worthwhile topic.

As an independent observer, I think the difficulty is that the points of difference you each place emphasis on are points which the other doesn’t see as equally or even particularly significant, e.g. the importance or lack thereof of the captured Japanese plane, so you’re not always talking at the same level about the same thing.

#51

I think we’re just spinning our wheels with the same points…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

The problem being that on a historical website with just a smidgen of pretension on accuracy, then statements such as “getting their clocks cleaned” despite a good amount of accuracy to the contrary seems a bit dodgy…

#52

What is required is rigourous interrogation, with Deaf Smith put upon the rack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A

#53

Yes yes! He wouldn’t expect it! Because NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!

#54

Exactly! :mrgreen:

#55

True, but getting back to the topic the fact remains that the British were much more flexible in their training than the rigid Japanese.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol5Dfs7jqFI

#56

Yes. Their flexible, unconventional means spawned men of valour and gallantry…

This is their story (beginning at 2:26)…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWWPk9jrvqk&feature=related

Then of course, we shall see the intricate, brilliantly executed Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMqSmiC_xHg

#57

Brilliantly executed by men such as these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh_shsRfXqk

#58

Put me on the rack?

Hmmmm. 5th dan TKD, Krav Maga, IDPA expert and above in all classifications, IPSC class ‘A’. Ok. Just try it guys…

Rising Sun,

The mention of 400 killed has to do with weither we had a full handle on the Japanese fighters (kill ratio that is.) Most of our pilots did die in either combat or aircraft accidents (we, and the Japanese had ALOT of accidents.)

The Japanese, according to the book, “Combined Fleet Decoded”, it said that the Japanese lost more planes and pilots to accidents in the pacfic than n combat. And those lost on the carriers certinaly didn’t die in their aircraft (well actully, I bet some were sitting in it when the SDBs dropped their eggs.)

Anyway, let’s just say as the war progressed and we learned more and more about the enemy, we did better and the Japanse did alot worse.

Deaf

#59

The one thing certain after Midway is that the flaws in their pilot training programme ensured they would never again sufficiently train pilots to a standard as high as Japan’s enemies. Pilot quality declined after Midway, though there were still good, experienced pilots around they would succumb to better trained pilots, more modern aircraft of the Allies.

This was also true of the Japanese war industry, incapable of replacing losses, especially with warships.

digger

#60

I don’t think you need any of that to defeat the rack in the Spanish Inquistion video. :wink:

I assume that TKD is Tae Kwon Do, but what’s the other stuff?

That about sums it up.

Leaving aside the stuff you and Nick have been discussing which apply at the micro level of individual combat, I think the reasons were more to do with factors at the macro level related to national attitudes and resources, notably industrial capacity, which were what made it virtually inevitable that America would defeat Japan.

Of course, if Midway had gone Japan’s way it would have taken America longer to win, but the result of the contest was never in doubt as long as America maintained its will to win as Japan could never defeat America on the American continent or even launch a half-way serious invasion, regardless of the fears of the American public at the time.