Naval History Forums

Don't have an exact answer for you, but here is some info: After midway, the Japanese began to ramp up their training programs. Carrier Quals remained fairly low however, gradually increasing from around 16 per month in the midle of 1942, to about 35 per month mid '43. You can add a 0 to the back en...

Gary approximately how long did it take the Japanese to train a new CAG ??? :?: I used to know the answer to that - I'll try to find it again. One of the problems with carrier training at least from a Japanese perspective is they had far more "washouts" in training than other navies. The ...

Does anyone know or know where to find Japanese and US air losses in the 3 Carrier battles, Coral Sea, Midway and Santa Cruz? Curious not only how many losses, which I am aware of at least as planes go, but bu what causes - air to air, aa artillery, mechanical issues or ditching, lost when carrier w...

Even simple repairs put Japan at a disadvantage. The Shokaku took damage and was out 9 months - the Yorktown, taking a similar degree of damage was out less than a week. These are extremes, but it points to the issue of slower ship repair by the Japanese. It may have been a bit academic though, as e...

One thing about the Pacific war - unless the Japanese inflicted a fair amount of casualties, be it ships or aircrew, it would be a strategic victory for the allies. In essence, any battle of attrition was an allied victory. Due to the Japanese inability to keep up with the Allies in ship replacement...

I might add one thing I liked about the US carriers was the open hangar design, making them more survivable.

The IJN records from the battle have survived intact and Lundstrom failed to find any IJN A6M losses that would correspond to Vejtasa's kill claims. I suspect that his 7 kill claims at Santa Cruz are also somewhat optimistic. I guess it's not always how good of a pilot you are, but how well you pub...

Had a few questions on fire control. I'll give a bit of my understanding how they work (which may well have some inaccuracies), and then a couple of questions. I'd appreciate any help on the questions, and feel free to correct any inaccuracies :D My understanding is they function roughly as thus: In...

btw
Strasbourg,Dunkerque, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau should be cruisers too.

Throw in the Hood, Repulse class, possibly even the Kongo class

My top 5 1) Essex Class - Could carry a great number of planes, decent speed. 2a) Shokaku Class - Decent plane complement, very fast, very survivable (due to thick armored main deck) 2b) Yorktown class- Carried a lot of planes 4) Implacable Class - A bit low in aircraft, but had the armored flight d...

Interestingly enough, The Val and Kate maneuvered extremely well at slower speeds, able to match many fighters at this, but they were never overly effective against other planes in Air to air to my knowledge.

Must have had much to do with poor armament and the old no armor or self sealing tanks issue

The Essex class would count as one - just like I mentioned you could not say Enterprise, Yorktown and count each as one - the Yorktown class would also count as one.

The Essex class would be my top one too though.

And the US carrier Midway does not count

Just list your top 5 carriers and why, and limit the answers to one class (i.e. cannot say Hornet, Enterprise and Yorktown as 3 carriers )

Give me a Japanese 25mm, with a gyro stabilized sight, belt fed and water cooled over the Oerlikon 20mm or the 1.1" any day!

Throw in a more substantial mount that does not vibrate as much while you are at it too

During early service use, it was found to be unreliable, prone to jamming and ineffective as an AA weapon. Sometimes I think these writings about replaced weapons go a bit overboard on how terrible the original weapon was. The 1.1" did shoot down a lot of planes the first two years of the war....