Japanese defensive strategy...

[mdiehl]

"While our pilots are better then the Japanese the F4F is inferiour to te A6M2"

Not exactly correct. That was not the USN assessment. The USN assessment was "We're killing 3 enemy fighters for each one fighter that we lose, and these results are just unacceptable. We should be able to do much better, here are some ideas...."

[mdiehl]

The TBD can only go on a strike over 175 miles if it leaves a crewman behind and does not intend on returning to the base it launched from.

You are in error. The TBD can hit the TF 334 nm away if the commander wishes to maximise the risk of operational loss. Either way, the Japanese CVs have to deal with Midway, which leads you right back into the historical situation. If the CVs have to deal with Midway's a/c, they're vulnerable to the USN CV's strikes.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

"While our pilots are better then the Japanese the F4F is inferiour to te A6M2"

Not exactly correct. That was not the USN assessment. The USN assessment was "We're killing 3 enemy fighters for each one fighter that we lose, and these results are just unacceptable. We should be able to do much better, here are some ideas...."

Hi, The complete quote from Nimitz's AAR was

74. Our F4F-4 is markedly inferior to the Japanese Zero fighter in speed, maneuverability, and climb. These characteristics must be improved, but not at the cost of reducing the present overall superiority that in the Battle of Midway enabled our carrier fighter squadrons to shoot down about 3 Zero fighters for each of our own lost. However much this superiority may exist in our splendid pilots, part at least rests in the armor, armament and leak proof tanks of our planes.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The TBD can only go on a strike over 175 miles if it leaves a crewman behind and does not intend on returning to the base it launched from.

You are in error. The TBD can hit the TF 334 nm away if the commander wishes to maximise the risk of operational loss. Either way, the Japanese CVs have to deal with Midway, which leads you right back into the historical situation. If the CVs have to deal with Midway's a/c, they're vulnerable to the USN CV's strikes.

Hi, Midway did launch strikes against the IJN CV. The result was Midway lost all it's strike aircraft and did no damage. I'd say the Japanese worried too much about Midway and not enough about enemy CV.

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The TBD can only go on a strike over 175 miles if it leaves a crewman behind and does not intend on returning to the base it launched from.

You are in error. The TBD can hit the TF 334 nm away if the commander wishes to maximise the risk of operational loss. Either way, the Japanese CVs have to deal with Midway, which leads you right back into the historical situation. If the CVs have to deal with Midway's a/c, they're vulnerable to the USN CV's strikes.

I'd really question that a little, what are you doing? Removing both the Torpedo AND the gunner? [:D]

[mogami]

Hi, And flying a kamikaze strike

[byron13]

Gosh, this is fun. I could watch this thread all day. Better than anything on tv.

[mdiehl]

Mo, you can't assume that a Midway strike will automatically be defeated because you can't know in advance what is going to be there. That is why, at the time, it was so important to the Japanese op planners to suppress Midway as a functional base, and why they did not dink around with wanker ideas like "maybe if we're lucky a fast bombardment force will run the gauntlet undetected and wipe the face of the atoll down to a cm-tall stubble." It makes about as much sense, as an operational plan, as counting on a volcano to erupt at just the right moment and resolve all your worries for you.

If you guys want to b1tch about the 334 nm strike radius for the TBD b1tch to the naval historian, not to me. There are hundreds of sources that stipulate that the loaded range (I'm forced to assume that that's the one-way range) of a TBD was in excess of 900 statute miles (782nm). These are clearly maximum one-way ranges of a/c with operational load outs. The USN History web site (you know, the one maintained by the U.S. Navy) gives the TBD-1 a range of 1080 nm. A maximum range, IMO, but doable, and without your made up caveats about missing personnel or armament.

[mdiehl]

Laugh it up all you want, fuzzballs. Here's the straight dope from the U.S. Navy:

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/app1-3.pdf

Now read, very carefully, the specs on the right hand side of the page. Observe that it says "Maximum Range: 1080 statute miles." The F4F wildcat is given a "combat radius of 324 nautical miles." There are numerous independent printed and web site sources that give similar figures, and NO current sources that limit the strike ranges to less than 200 nm.

Now kindly, say "Doh," print out 400 copies of the document, bind them into a stack and hit yourself in the head with it twenty times, each time repeating "I should not rely on just one source." [:D]

[mogami]

Hi, Are you taking into account the need for strikes to form up or are you simply sending a stream of aircraft towards the enemy? I think the TBD was listed as having a range of 700 miles as a level bomber. I can't find the altitude or speed it needed to use to attain this distance. (1,000 lb bomb load) The torpedo range was considerably less. Also they may be factoring in the return range being less then the attack range. ( The CV could shorten the return range by around 50-75 miles if they do not have to recover other aircraft and steam full speed in the direction the strike will return. ) Of course a land base cannot do this.
The reason this is important and contrasts the higher range you report is the fact that USN CV TF commanders appear to have always tries to be less then 200 miles from the enemy CV before launching strikes.

Combat radius still seems to me to be the distance there and back not how far out. There is no mention of how long a F4F 150 miles from base can remain over target. Is this with external tanks?
A combat radius of 324 miles could mean a F4F flying combat air patrol 6 miles from a CV can make around 54 circles before needing to land. But if it went out 324 miles one way it would not be coming back. (648 miles)

Where did all these legends of Japanese aircraft having greater range come from?
The Japanese launched their strike against PH at around 279 miles.

[jnier]

The evidence about the efficacy of naval bombardment against airfields isn't particularly strong either way, because there were relatively few attempts to shut down an airbase by naval gunfire alone.

USN knocked out Japanese airbases on a regular basis - Tarawa, Iwo, Saipan. But they were destroyed by a combination of aerial and naval bombardment. SO USN operations may not be a good example - but out of those examples Tarawa is the best comparion because Betio and Eastern Island (which housed the Midway airstrip in 1942) are at least similar in size and geography. And Betio's airfield was completely useless after the shelling.

Only the IJN tried destroy airbased by naval gunfire alone and they did not try it very often. The bombardments of Henderson field are the best known examples - and they are not very good examples of what might happen at Midway for two reasons.

Contrary to mdiehl's opinion, I think size matters. Guadalcanal is 2,510 sq mi and Eastern Island is 0.5 sq mi. When all the facilities and aircraft are in such a small area the liklihood of a "hit" increases substantially. So facilities and aircraft at Henderson field are not so densely packed as they are at Midway.

More important is the magnitude of the bomdardment. The bombarment of Henderson was a relatively small scale operation in comparison to the Midway operation.

Check out:
http://users.swing.be/baten/bat/1099.html#63000
http://users.swing.be/baten/bat/945.html#62380

The largest bombardment force that attacked Henderson was 2 BB's, 1 Light Cruiser, and 9 DD's - they destroyed 49 aircraft. At Midway, the Japanese had about 7BB's, 10 CA's, 44 DD's (I think it was actually more than than). That's a pretty big difference and I would guess that not many aircraft would surve a 60 ship bombardment of a 0.5 acre island. But we'll never know.

[mogami]

Hi, The B5N Kate has a listed range of 1200 miles. I know it never flew a strike at that range. (The A6M2 is 1100 miles)
The Vals combat range is 915 miles.
I think these are all one way distance and actual range to target and back is .5 of this.
Kate=600 miles (as a level bomber)
Zero=550 miles
Val=457

Then forming up strikes etc reduces this still further. Evidence is simply that the Japanese prefered to be within 280 of a target before launching a strike. (The USN liked to launch at around 200 miles and then close distance)

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, The B5N Kate has a listed range of 1200 miles. I know it never flew a strike at that range. (The A6M2 is 1100 miles)
The Vals combat range is 915 miles.
I think these are all one way distance and actual range to target and back is .5 of this.
Kate=600 miles (as a level bomber)
Zero=550 miles
Val=457

Then forming up strikes etc reduces this still further. Evidence is simply that the Japanese prefered to be within 280 of a target before launching a strike. (The USN liked to launch at around 200 miles and then close distance)

Don't forget the additional reduction necessary from carrying torpedoes or bombs on the outward leg.

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, The B5N Kate has a listed range of 1200 miles. I know it never flew a strike at that range. (The A6M2 is 1100 miles)
The Vals combat range is 915 miles.
I think these are all one way distance and actual range to target and back is .5 of this.
Kate=600 miles (as a level bomber)
Zero=550 miles
Val=457

Then forming up strikes etc reduces this still further. Evidence is simply that the Japanese prefered to be within 280 of a target before launching a strike. (The USN liked to launch at around 200 miles and then close distance)

Don't forget the additional reduction necessary from carrying torpedoes or bombs on the outward leg.

Don't forget the joy of trying to find your CV that has moved since you left, don't forget the fact that your plane has likely some battle damage and is not quite as air worthy as when you took off, don't forget exactly how long you had to run at military power (major fuel drain) over the target area and certainly don't forget that aircraft fly at different speeds and to stick together may not have been flying at their best economy speed/alt, and heaven help you if you happened to have a 40 kt headwind in an aircraft that cruised at only 130 kts [:D]

The list goes on and on ... there is no end in sight ... all planes hereby have a range of 2 hexes [:'(]

[mdiehl]

The evidence about the efficacy of naval bombardment against airfields isn't particularly strong either way, because there were relatively few attempts to shut down an airbase by naval gunfire alone.

It's rather like saying that the evidence concerning the utility of volcanic eruptions as part of an operational plan isn't strong because Rabaul waited until 1946 to blow and Aetna until late 1945. The evidence is clear, you are just in denial.

USN knocked out Japanese airbases on a regular basis..

Incorrect. The USN bombarded islands and atolls that had airbases many times. On no occasion did the plan rely on the bombardment to shut down the airfield. That was on every occasion accomplished prior to the bombardments by using CV-based aircraft. By the time Tarawa was being bombarded, there were no aircraft left. There were, however, standing buildings. When you consider that Tarawa was even smaller than Eastern Island, the folly of assuming that everything above ground will be ruined is self-evident.

And Betio's airfield was completely useless after the shelling.

Betio's airfield was useless before the shelling began because there were no aircraft there to shell, so the point is moot.

Only the IJN tried destroy airbased by naval gunfire alone and they did not try it very often. The bombardments of Henderson field are the best known examples - and they are not very good examples of what might happen at Midway for two reasons.

Contrary to mdiehl's opinion, I think size matters. Guadalcanal is 2,510 sq mi and Eastern Island is 0.5 sq mi.

Great. So you are suggesting that the bombardments at Guadalcanal suffered because Japanese shells landed 50 miles off target because the land mass was bigger. Riiiiiight.

When all the facilities and aircraft are in such a small area the liklihood of a "hit" increases substantially. So facilities and aircraft at Henderson field are not so densely packed as they are at Midway.

Henderson field with its central pagoda and non-revetment a/c park was approximately the size of both Betio and Eastern Island. In all cases the actual TARGET of the bombardment, whose location was known in advance, was the same size. The bombardment failed to wipe out everything above ground at Betio. The bombardment failed to wipe out everything above ground at Henderson field. It's irrational to assume that it would have worked on Eastern Island.

Check out:
http://users.swing.be/baten/bat/1099.html#63000
http://users.swing.be/baten/bat/945.html#62380

Utterly irrelevant since the cited web sites do not establish by what criteria success was assessed. The most important point, not raised in either of these cases, is that Henderson DESPITE all that heavy bombardment was not shut down nor did it run out of aircraft.

The largest bombardment force that attacked Henderson was 2 BB's, 1 Light Cruiser, and 9 DD's - they destroyed 49 aircraft. At Midway, the Japanese had about 7BB's, 10 CA's, 44 DD's (I think it was actually more than than). That's a pretty big difference and I would guess that not many aircraft would surve a 60 ship bombardment of a 0.5 acre island.

Well, when you consider that the USN subjected Pelelieu to a bombardment on that scale and that the USN was much better in 1944 at gunnery than the IJN in 1942 you begin to understand that it would not work. But I do enjoy the prospect of six BBs, a bunch of CAs, and DDs in gun range of Eastern Island. The collisions would be magnificent, and the USN CV launched air strikes would make the Phillippine Sea battles look like "favorable" outcomes for the Japanese.

But we'll never know.

You mean you'll never know. Not surprising because data doesn't seem to inform your opinion on this matter.

[mdiehl]

The list goes on and on ... there is no end in sight ... all planes hereby have a range of 2 hexes

I know you posted the idea in jest, but worse ideas have been offered in seriousness in this and other WitP threads.

[TIMJOT]

KB had to come within strike distance of Midway A/C before it could launch it strike, how is it anymore dangerous for a bombardment force? The CVLs can provide direct cover while KB is providing distance cover out of range of Midway. How about if the night bombardment is followed by a dawn air attack? The minimal approach range for the Bombardment TF is increased substantially because the run out can be made at least partially during daylight. A bombardment/air-attack combo probalby could elimante a need for the second strike which intern elimates a lot of that over tasking you like talking about.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


But I do enjoy the prospect of six BBs, a bunch of CAs, and DDs in gun range of Eastern Island. The collisions would be magnificent, and the USN CV launched air strikes would make the Phillippine Sea battles look like "favorable" outcomes for the Japanese.

6 BBs and some covering CAs and DDs cant operate together without colliding into each other?[&:] If the USN CVs launch a strike against the Bombardment TF they loose the initiative against the IJN CVs who now get a free crack at the USN CVs.

Regardless, Personally I would not use 6 BBs. The Yamato and Nagatos were not fast enough. Use the 4 Kongos with another 4 Ca's and about 10-12 DDs

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


But I do enjoy the prospect of six BBs, a bunch of CAs, and DDs in gun range of Eastern Island. The collisions would be magnificent, and the USN CV launched air strikes would make the Phillippine Sea battles look like "favorable" outcomes for the Japanese.

6 BBs and some covering CAs and DDs cant operate together without colliding into each other?[&:] If the USN CVs launch a strike against the Bombardment TF they loose the initiative against the IJN CVs who now get a free crack at the USN CVs.

Regardless, Personally I would not use 6 BBs. The Yamato and Nagatos were not fast enough. Use the 4 Kongos with another 4 Ca's and about 10-12 DDs

Based on the size of the Atoll we are talking about, you would be better off sticking purely to the CL/DD's as their ROF is much higher and you really don't need plunging fire to deal with a perfectly flat little place like that ... The idea is to kill the guys and the equipment, not sink the Atoll [:D]

[jnier]

USN knocked out Japanese airbases on a regular basis..

Incorrect. The USN bombarded islands and atolls that had airbases many times. On no occasion did the plan rely on the bombardment to shut down the airfield. That was on every occasion accomplished prior to the bombardments by using CV-based aircraft.

No my statement is correct. Read my post.

Last time I checked, CV-based aircraft were part of USN.[8|]