Japanese Victory at Midway

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby Bgile » Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:57 pm

Most aircraft are shot down when the opponent opens fire before you see him. US fighters were better suited to that fact of arial combat than Japanese fighters. Once they learned not to try to turn with a zero, they had the advantage. More firepower and more ability to get home in a damaged condition. For example, it was unlikely that a P-38 would often be able to turn with a zero, but P-38s sure shot down a lot of zeroes.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby Bgile » Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:03 pm

Amare1 wrote:Right. But look at a couple of factors: Japanese here have the finest aircrews ever. US is rather less experienced and their aircraft still aren't any match for the Japanese types.
Out of the US aircraft, which do you think can make serious damage to the Japanese fleet? SBDs of course, but B17s, P39s, TBDs and other types they had here... no way.

Of course the Japanese couldn't keep Pearl when in 1943 US industry comes to its best, but I'm not implying to what would happen later, I only want to talk about this situation - Battle of Hawaii.


A small nit. There were TBMs there. There were only a few on Midway and Saratoga got the first carrier squadron (arresting gear mods were needed for the other CVs), but there were more on Oahu.

Amare1
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby Amare1 » Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:07 pm

@IWD. Are you intentionally ''misquoting'' me? If you're watching only dogfights, not including AA fire, the Japanese lost six planes (plus two heavily damaged). The US had 15 downed and 8 too badly damaged. That's 23 to 8 aircraft lost in air-to-air combat, and not 15 to 14 which you said.

At Coral Sea the losses numbered 43 planes in the actions of 8 May. That ''70'' number includes hidroplanes from other ships, airplanes lost on Shoho which was sunk, planes which ditched in sea, land-based planes and about 20 planes lost in a night action when they couldn't find their carriers. That factors can't count in the carrier battle which began on equal terms in the morning of May 8th. At Midway there wouldn't be those factors so ''43'' is a good number to work with. Not 70.

And without possession of a Zero captured at Aleutians, Hellcat wouldn't be as advanced, it would have been at least 40 percent worse, and by the way at the ''Battle of Hawaii'' there wouldn't have been many of them in use.

I say again, skilled Japanese pilots flying A6Ms against less skilled but brave US pilots flying F4Fs and other types. It's a tough one.

We'd all like a normal discussion, right? So don't talk nonsense about P40 having a chance against Zero in a normal combat without many other factors and we can all have a good time.

@Bgile. TBM's, right, but have a look at their Midway action. No results and heavy casualties. Later they improved but face it, until 1944 the US torpedo bombers were flying coffins with no ability to do any serious damage to the enemy fleet.

User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby Legend » Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:58 pm

1. :? I'm sorry, but I just don't get what you're trying to get with the Alutian Zero thing. The zero was good, but not great. As our friends have noted, the losses were about equal with just the P-40. Now, TELL ME HOW THE P-38 WAS USING THE ALUTIAN ZERO TECH!?! There was no use from that, if we never got the stupid zero, and none of our other fighters worked, then we would have just produced the hell out of the P-38. Now, sure they didn't work on carriers, but we could have either made the wings folding or made a more compact design, improve current designs, or just give up.

2. :think: You may be right about the 43 losses instead of 70 losses thing, but in the long run that doesn't make a whole lot of difference. If the Japanese did take Pearl, the Alutians, and had taken Malibu, their economy and resources would be so stretched that a strike force of our remaining BB's that we pulled from the Atlantic would penetrate THOUSANDS of miles into Japanese territory. By the time the slower Japanese ships, now don't pretend the IJN was faster, that's just a lie with no hope of a comeback. The BB's they had that were fast enough had no armor of enough quality to stand up to 16in shells. By the time the slower ships make a counter-strike and catch up to the Americans in their new island, the Americans will have land based aircraft launching sorties agains the ships, giving heavy losses to the IJN.

Amare1 wrote:@I say again, skilled Japanese pilots flying A6Ms against less skilled but brave US pilots flying F4Fs and other types. It's a tough one.

We'd all like a normal discussion, right? So don't talk nonsense about P40 having a chance against Zero in a normal combat without many other factors and we can all have a good time.


3. :negative: American pilots were just as good as Japanese ones, maybe better by a hair. We are all human. And we were then too. Yeah, they might have thought differently then us, but in the long run it's the person with the most training, the most experience, and the most help. We were a superpower then. They could simply not produce the Zero quickly enough and in large enough numbers to turn the turning tide.

4. :?: "Less skilled but brave." I don't mean to get defensive here, but COME ON! You've got to be kidding me! You're basically calling US pilots stupid. I'm trying not to bring up all the Japanese brainwashing stuff. False superiority, suicide missions, all the stuff the IJN convinced those poor pilots! OOOHHHH... Still trying not to write more than would seem nice... :evil: :evil: :evil:
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby lwd » Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:44 am

Ok things are getting a bit confused so lets back up a bit. First of all what kind of losses can we expect in a Japanese victory at Midway? They've still got to attack and indeed make at least a couple of attacks vs the Island. Then there are that attacks vs the CVs. Unless you say they basically catch the US CVs flat footed they are going to take a fair amount of losses there. So they loose 14 on the first Midway strike. Then they've got to make at least two strikes and probalby more vs the US CVs. Indeed because of the seperation they may not even find the second group until after at least one of the strikes has returned. It just seams extremely unlikely that they are only going to loose 40 or 50 planes. My guess is that they would be lucky to keep it under 100 which is approximatly what the US loss without the need to attack an island and catching the Japanese off guard. Now they can replace these but in doing so it's going to cost them time. Then there's the question of whether or not they can take Midway even if they win the CV battle. If as some very knowledgeable people think it's unlikely with the force they bring to Midway in the first battle then do they hit Midway again? or do they go directly to Hawaii? Even if they go directly you know the US is going to be building up the defences there including a lot more planes and they can do it in the time it's going to take the Japanese to return.

Now the F6F may have been improved as a result of US experances with the Zero but as the dates above show the Aleutian zero had essentially no influence on the development of the F6F. In any case the P-40 and F4F had as I stated an exchange ration of near 1:1 with the Japanese fighters. That's not even considering that there may well be P-38's at PH by the time the Japanese attack.

As for pilot quality the Japanese navy had probably the most difficult and intensive pilot training of any of the air forces in WWII. However it took them a year to train a pilot and they didn't have a large number in the pipeline. The USN wasn't all that far behind and indeed may have been ahead in some areas such as team work.

Amare1
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby Amare1 » Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:57 pm

Thanks for the good posts, that's exactly what is needed - a good discussion, rather than fighting over stupid things like US fighters from early in the war being able to cope with Zero.

@Legend. Come on man, I'm not calling the US pilots stupid. Why would you think that? ''Less skilled'' means that the Japanese are more skilled. That's not calling them stupid. And ''brave'', that certainly isn't calling them stupid, what are you talking about???

@Iwd, where did you get that info of P40 and F4F having equal exchange rate vs Zero? We all know that P40s fought at Dutch East Indies, Phillipinnes and New Guinea, yet they were outmatched by Zeroes every time. So where did the 1:1 ratio come from? I'd be thankful if you posted a link.

About the pilot training, as I said before, US did prevail in 1943 but by then the Japanese still matched them well. You have to say that Guadalcanal (end of 1942) saw some major improvements from the US such as AA defense of the ships, CAP efficiency, but still two equal and unresolved battles at Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz were fought, even with the Japs fighting with ''second unit'' pilots while the ''first unit'' was lost at Midway. In the case of Japanese having that ''first unit'' at hand, plus the US losing battles rather than winning them not allowing improvements in war strategy to grow (such as CAP efficiency or pilot combat experience) - the Japs would have the advantage, considering the ''pilot efficiency''.

My intention overall was to show that there was just a slight possibility for Japan to snatch peace, and avoid being defeated in the war. There was absolutely no chance of invading US mainland, that's nonsense, but ''Battle of Hawaii'' that I'm trying to relive in maybe December of 1942, may give Japanese victory and a chance to win peace if the public opinion is for peace in the Pacific and war on Germany. What do you think the US public would react if the Hawaii were lost?

P.S. At Midway US lost 100 aircraft planes. About 40 were torpedo planes sent with no fighter cover, some were fighters lost in CAP and some were the planes that ditched in the water during the return to their carriers. So you can't use this as an excuse for greater Japanese losses. If they had attacked US carriers, their skilled crews could have made it a ''one-hit-kill'', or without a need for the second attack. Just have a look at Coral Sea, where thay had also a ''second unit'' pilots at hand and needed just one strike from the carriers to sink Lexington and heavily damage Yorktown, for the loss of already mentioned 43 planes.

Why wouldn't the more skilled Jap crews at Midway have better results, for the loss of slightly more aircraft? That really sounds logical.

And yeah, how can you question capturing Midway if the Japs win carrier battle? Those are two small islands which would be batterred to hell by the Japanese BBs and airplanes for two days, until the invasion forces are ready to land. There were no underground bunkers like Iwo Jima nor was the island heavily fortified as Tarawa. So I think the pre-invasion bombardment on the such small area would do serious damage and the capturing of an island would never be in question.

User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby minoru genda » Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:59 pm

Amare1 wrote:And yeah, how can you question capturing Midway if the Japs win carrier battle? Those are two small islands which would be batterred to hell by the Japanese BBs and airplanes for two days, until the invasion forces are ready to land. There were no underground bunkers like Iwo Jima nor was the island heavily fortified as Tarawa. So I think the pre-invasion bombardment on the such small area would do serious damage and the capturing of an island would never be in question.

If you read the thread "Pacific War without Pearl Harbor" started by me, lwd thinks it would be difficult to take Midway even in December 1941 and he puts Wake as an example. I disagree of course. Imagine Yamato shelling the small Island!!
Tora! Tora! Tora!

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby lwd » Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:25 pm

Amare1 wrote:...About the pilot training, as I said before, US did prevail in 1943 but by then the Japanese still matched them well...

The problem with Japanese training wasn't that it didn't produce superb pilots but the time it took to produce them and the lack of emphasis on team work. One of Japan's best aces even commented on it. He got into a dog fight with a bunch of green US pilots. None got a good shot at him but they coordintated so well he couldn't get a good shot at them either....
..., but ''Battle of Hawaii'' that I'm trying to relive in maybe December of 1942, may give Japanese victory

By then I don't see how the Japanese can hope to bring enough force to even have a good chance of winning the naval battle much less successfully invading Hawaii.
.... If they had attacked US carriers, their skilled crews could have made it a ''one-hit-kill'', or without a need for the second attack.

Just how many CV's do you think that Japanese planes sunk without help? Off the top of my head I can't think of any.
Just have a look at Coral Sea, where thay had also a ''second unit'' pilots at hand and needed just one strike from the carriers to sink Lexington and heavily damage Yorktown, for the loss of already mentioned 43 planes.

Why wouldn't the more skilled Jap crews at Midway have better results, for the loss of slightly more aircraft? That really sounds logical.

First of all there's the questio of how much better trained they were. Then there's the fact that the US had much better intel going into the battle. The US had also already started implemening lessons learned and improved tactics. And again even after the CVs are out of the battle the Japenese still have to attack Midway which means they are subjected to even more AA fire and possible fighter interception for that matter. Incidently Lexington sunk because of a serious damage control failure one which was recognized and would not be repeated.

And yeah, how can you question capturing Midway if the Japs win carrier battle? Those are two small islands which would be batterred to hell by the Japanese BBs and airplanes for two days, until the invasion forces are ready to land. There were no underground bunkers like Iwo Jima nor was the island heavily fortified as Tarawa. So I think the pre-invasion bombardment on the such small area would do serious damage and the capturing of an island would never be in question.

Well for one thing at that point in time using BBs for gun fire support wasn't part of Japanese doctrine or part of their plan. Then their's the problems with their landing plan (they acknowledged that their landing boats might not be able to make it over the reef and thus they might have to wade ashore from that point for instance). In any case the Yamato wouldn't have been used for shore bombardment. Barrel life would have been a serious concern because of her barrel design. Then there's the intellignece problem. The Japanese didn't have any idea how heavily the island had been reinforced. So they wouldn't be likely to hang around for days bombarding the island (and providing a tempting target for US subs). If you haven't already I suggest you read Shattered Sword

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby lwd » Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:35 pm

Amare1 wrote:... where did you get that info of P40 and F4F having equal exchange rate vs Zero? We all know that P40s fought at Dutch East Indies, Phillipinnes and New Guinea, yet they were outmatched by Zeroes every time. So where did the 1:1 ratio come from? I'd be thankful if you posted a link.
....

As for the Zero and the F4F being on a par I've seen it numerous times but am having a bit of a time tracing it back to a reliable source. For instance at:
http://www.acepilots.com/discussions/mig_vs_sabre.html we have the following
The F4F v. Zero ratio in 1942 based on Japanese losses from their records in was right around 1:1.

AS for the P-40 I specifically stated vs Japanese fighters as a lot of their combat was more with army fighters than with zeros. For it we have such referances as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_P-40
...However, the bulk of the fighter operations by the USAAF in 1942–43 were borne by the P-40 and the P-39. In the Pacific, these two fighters, along with the U.S. Navy's F4F Wildcat, contributed more than any other U.S. types to breaking Japanese air power during this critical period.
...
However, in the Dutch East Indies campaign, the 17th Pursuit Squadron (Provisional), formed from USAAF pilots evacuated from the Philippines, claimed 49 Japanese aircraft destroyed, for the loss of 17 P-40s....
China-Burma-India theater
USAAF and Chinese P-40 pilots performed extremely well in this theater, scoring high kill ratios against Japanese types such as the Nakajima Ki-43, Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki ("Tojo") and the Zero. The P-40 remained in use in the CBI until 1944, and was reportedly preferred over the P-51 Mustang by some US pilots flying in China.[citation needed]

The American Volunteer Group (Flying Tigers) was integrated into the USAAF as the 23rd Fighter Group. The unit continued to fly newer model P-40s until the end of the war, racking up a high kill-to-loss ratio.[40][30]

Units arriving in the China-Burma-India theater after the AVG in the 10th and 14th air forces continued to perform well with the P-40, claiming 973 kills in the theater, or 64.8 percent of all enemy aircraft shot down.
...

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby lwd » Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:41 pm

Amare1 wrote:..., but ''Battle of Hawaii'' that I'm trying to relive in maybe December of 1942, ...

If they are going to hit as late as Dec of 42 then there's a pretty good chance that most or all of the Midway losses could be made up by then even if they loose a 100 planes or so as well as having any damaged CVs back on line. On the other hand that gives the US 6 more months to build up Hawaii's defences and there's the very real quesiton of whether or not the Japanese have enough oil for the operation.

Amare1
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby Amare1 » Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:41 pm

@minoru genda. Yamato would probably sink the Midway island.

@Iwd. Hmmm, where to start?

Let's begin with Hawaii. Oil wouldn't be a problem if this is supposed to be the last operation for Japanese Navy before the ''peace''. So they would give everything they had.

The P40s efficiency grew during the successful campaigns such as Guadalcanal. It wasn't efficient before the successful campaigns. One-on-one with Zero and without improved flying tactics, it is a 10:1 ratio for Zero. It simply outflies the slower and less-manouverable plane.

Midway was less then a month after Coral Sea. How many lessons could have been learned by then? Judging by the US torpedo plane attack, very few.

Yamato and BBs from Japanese Main Fleet wouldn't attack Midway. Four BBs of Kongo class and screening cruisers and destroyers would do the bombardment. And the second Japanese attack on Midway island would meet AA fire which shot down 3 aircraft in 1st attack, nothing serious, and this time the Jap planes would simply drop their load onto the AA positions and silence it. Of the US fighters, only two were able to fly again, plus two whose engine failure may have been repaired. Estimated time of survival for 4 US fighters: 10 seconds.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby Bgile » Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:35 pm

The AVG in China was using the P-40 effectively against Japanese fighters before Dec 7, 1941.

Thatch, known for the "Thatch Weave" used by navy pilots effectively against the Zero fighter, flew off Yorktown during the Midway operation and his pilots were using it then. It was probably being taught to new pilots stateside, but Midway, Enterprise, and Hornet pilots weren't trained in that technique at Midway so their losses were much higher than in Thatch's squadron on Yorktown. The word was getting out, though. DON'T DOGFIGHT ONE ON ONE WITH THE ZERO.

Finally, most aircraft losses in air to air combat occured after one pilot attacked the other one and shot him down before the victim was aware of the attacker's presence. The IJN aircraft were particularly vulnerable to this because they didn't have self sealing fuel tanks or armor. The F4F-3 had self sealing fuel tanks and no armor, but the F3F-4 did (and folding wings) and it began replacing F4F-3's after Midway. Saratoga received them and the TBM.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby lwd » Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:45 pm

Amare1 wrote:...Let's begin with Hawaii. Oil wouldn't be a problem if this is supposed to be the last operation for Japanese Navy before the ''peace''. So they would give everything they had.

From my understanding they went into the war with about a years supply of oil for thier navy. Their oil usage in the first 6 months of the war was also higher than expected. If they are conducting the additional campaigns you suggested and given the minimal production they got in 42 it's not at all clear to me that they would have enough oil to mount an invasion force of the size needed to take Hawaii.
The P40s efficiency grew during the successful campaigns such as Guadalcanal. It wasn't efficient before the successful campaigns. One-on-one with Zero and without improved flying tactics, it is a 10:1 ratio for Zero. It simply outflies the slower and less-manouverable plane.

At high speeds it's actually more manouverable. It's also tougher and can out dive the zero.

Oh and according to: http://www.chuckhawks.com/p40.htm
P-40E-1 of 1941 (also Hawk 87A-4 and Kittyhawk IA), which are similar to the entire series of P-40E, K, and M models, are as follows (taken from The Complete Book of Fighters by William Green and Gordon Swanborough): Max speed, 362 mph

and his zero page at: http://www.chuckhawks.com/zero_A6M.htm
The A6M2 had a top speed of 316 m.p.h. at 16,400 ft.,...the A6M3, which appeared late in 1942..... Top speed was increased to 336 m.p.h. at 19,865 ft

Doesn't sound simply slower to me.
The US planes also all had radios that worked well.
Midway was less then a month after Coral Sea. How many lessons could have been learned by then? Judging by the US torpedo plane attack, very few.

Well they came up with a way of reducing the risk of gasoline fires/explosions and they started implementing the Thatch weave for a couple.
Yamato and BBs from Japanese Main Fleet wouldn't attack Midway.

I'll agree with this.
Four BBs of Kongo class and screening cruisers and destroyers would do the bombardment.

That's not at all clear to me. Certainly some CAs were assigned to bombardment duties and I would expect some DDs to join in. The Kongo class and the rest of the carrier escorts seam an unlikely choice for shore bombardment. Indeed it's not even clear to me that they carried ammo for that purpose. A more likely use of them is trying to hunt down the remaining ships in the US fleet IMO.
And the second Japanese attack on Midway island would meet AA fire which shot down 3 aircraft in 1st attack, nothing serious, and this time the Jap planes would simply drop their load onto the AA positions and silence it. Of the US fighters, only two were able to fly again, plus two whose engine failure may have been repaired. Estimated time of survival for 4 US fighters: 10 seconds.

Hitting AA postions is not always that easy and if they are coming low enough to do it with precision then they will be subject to mg and rifle fire from prepaired defenders. Look at how much better the AA at Wake did during the second raid as compared to the first. The fighter garrison of Midway might also include refugees from the US CVs in any case the fighters based on all evidence would last a lot longer than 10 seconds. For one thing the Japanese used the same faulty escort doctrine that the British, Germans, and USAAF started the war with (ie close escort). This almost guaranteed that attacking fighters got at least one good pass before the escort could react.

Amare1
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby Amare1 » Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:55 pm

I like your new posts guys, but as always I have to reply.

@ Bgile. So you're saying that US pilots except for ones from Yorktown didn't use Thatch Weave? That would imply to US CAP performance similar to Coral Sea (very bad results), right, so Japanese air attack would definitely be fatal. If you have a look at CAP in the battles of Guadalcanal, they didn't do well either, despite all the ''lessons learned''. The thing that hurt the Japanese most at Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz was improved US AA from the ships, and not the fighter intreception. Overall, by 1943 their CAP wasn't impressive at all.

Saratoga received them (F4F-4) and the TBM.


What about Wasp?

@ lwd. Again about oil, that's not much of a problem since they obviously have reserves and would throw everything they had. They had more problems than oil, but I'm sure you can help me with those other problems right?

Surely, you have improved my opinion on P40. But still its lesser manouverability is a killer and Zero takes care of him any time, any where.

Midway shore bombardment - my bad, Kongo class wouldn't attack the island, because they were screening the carriers. Still it would have been bombarded by 4 CAs, a number of DDs and of course aircraft from CVs. Also, as stated numerous times, Yamamoto's main force was waiting for any task possible. If the defense of island would prove seriously strong, I bet he would send some of his main fleet for bombardment - possibly 2 BBs (say Ise and Hiuga).

Do you have some detailed info on Midway ground defences, link possibly.

''Refugees'' from US CV could only be some SBDs from Hornet which landed here. But no fighters.
''10 seconds'' was a figure of speech, meaning ''very quickly''.
Midway's AA fire was said to be ''very powerful'' but still it shot down only 3 Japs and damaged a couple of others. In case of a second attack, don't expect any more than that,
Right, the fighters did get a pass on the bombers which is how they shot down six planes from 1st strike. When the Zeroes turned back at them, it was instantly a turkey shoot. What can you expect from two remaining fighters?

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Japanese Victory at Midway

Postby lwd » Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:15 pm

Amare1 wrote:...
@ lwd. Again about oil, that's not much of a problem since they obviously have reserves and would throw everything they had.

But do they have enough reserves? Sending essentially their entire fleet vs Hawaii along with the required transports, cargo ships, etc is going to consume huge voluemes. And of course they will be expending more than historical becasue they will have more ships being more active post Midway. This might be balanced to some extent by somewhat lower losses of tankers. See http://www.combinedfleet.com/guadoil1.htm for some possible impacts of the oil situation.
Surely, you have improved my opinion on P40. But still its lesser manouverability is a killer and Zero takes care of him any time, any where.

Only if they try to dog fight. If they use zoom and boom it's not that much of a problem and that's what they'd be doing by Dec of 42. Also as I stated before it's only at low speeds that the Zero has a manouverability advantage.
Midway shore bombardment -.... Also, as stated numerous times, Yamamoto's main force was waiting for any task possible. If the defense of island would prove seriously strong, I bet he would send some of his main fleet for bombardment - possibly 2 BBs (say Ise and Hiuga).

The problem is they won't know that they needed the additional prep until the first landing fails and they don't have enough troops for a second landing with them.
Do you have some detailed info on Midway ground defences, link possibly.

There's some info here:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmchist/midway.txt
It's worth noteing how much improvement there was between the first shelling by the Japanese and subsequent ones.
This quote is also of note (they may not have had to wade ashore but rubber boats don't hold up well to even rifle fire)
Captain Toyama stated:"
We were going to approach the south side (of Midway), sending out landing
boats as far as the reef. We had many different kinds of landing boats but did
not think that many would be able to pass over the reefs. If they got stuck
the personnel were supposed to transfer to rubber landing boats."

Here's an extensive OB for both sides:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_oob/OOB_W ... Midway.htm

As before I'd also advise reading Shattered Sword
''Refugees'' from US CV could only be some SBDs from Hornet which landed here. But no fighters.

That depends a lot on how the battle goes.
Midway's AA fire was said to be ''very powerful'' but still it shot down only 3 Japs and damaged a couple of others. In case of a second attack, don't expect any more than that,

Note the improvement of Wake's AA defences between the first attack and subsequent ones. See:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-C-Wake.html
Right, the fighters did get a pass on the bombers which is how they shot down six planes from 1st strike. When the Zeroes turned back at them, it was instantly a turkey shoot. What can you expect from two remaining fighters?

At Midway not a whole lot unless more fighers show up there. But think what happens when they try to hit Pearl and the US has almost as many fighters as the Japanese will have planes in a single attack.

Oh you might also want to take a look at:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron