Nagumo 1942 vs. Fraser 1945 - Aircraft Carriers - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Nagumo 1942 vs. Fraser 1945

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
ickysdad		#61	[-]
Posts: 2790 ( 8-Oct-2007 12:43:29) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Sorry about that I took you to mean WW2. As far as WW1 is concerned though I doubt very much Germany would have surrendered in November,1918 if the US wasn't involved ,the war would most probably have dragged on into 1919 . Of course not saying they wouldn't have surrendered anyways eventually even without US help.
Mark E Horan		#62	[-]
Posts: 342 ( 8-Oct-2007 15:31:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Gang; Just a minor detail - the Germans did not surrender in WWI - their was an armistace - when the German economy collapsed shortyl thereafer, the Alliied nations began treating the Germans as if they surrendered. Of course, the decision to do this resulted in a must larger war 20 years later. Mark
ickysdad		#63	[-]
Posts: 2792 ( 8-Oct-2007 18:04:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Mark, Your so right . However if the war had lasted another 6 months to a year you could have had a case where it would have been hard to tell the difference between the winners & the loosers.
RLeonard		#64	[-]
Posts: 45 ( 8-Oct-2007 18:42:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Just to comment on a couple of disputes flying around this discussion: Keeping the numbers straight, and drawing from a report filed by Comdr. C.E.A. Owen, RN, Liaison Officer aboard USS Shangri-La (how's that, an RN report filed from the USN Fast Carrier flagship), the TF-38 and TF-37 sorties off the Japanese home islands during July and August 1945 for the period that both TFs were present follow: For TF-38 Sorties: 18 July 45 - Strike: 596; CAP: 184; Tons of bombs: 217 24 July 45 - Strike: 1,354; CAP: 393; Tons of bombs: 558 25 July 45 - Strike: 640; CAP: 419; Tons of bombs: 185 28 July 45 - Strike: 1,394; CAP: 396; Tons of bombs: 605 30 July 45 - Strike: 1,224; CAP: 414; Tons of bombs: 417 9 August 45 - Strike: 1,468; CAP: 419; Tons of bombs: 588 10 August 45 - Strike: 1,369; CAP: 411; Tons of bombs: 520 13 August 45 - Strike: 1,167; CAP: 484; Tons of bombs: 380 15 August 45 - Strike: 240; CAP: 537; Tons of bombs: 12 TOTALS - Strike: 9,452; CAP: 3,657; Tons of bombs: 3,482 For TF-37 Sorties: 18 July 45 - Strike: 51; CAP: 40; Tons of bombs: 10 24 July 45 - Strike: 284; CAP: 131; Tons of bombs: 93 25 July 45 - Strike: 175; CAP: 138; Tons of bombs: 46 28 July 45 - Strike: 237; CAP: 132; Tons of bombs: 85 30 July 45 - Strike: 192; CAP: 130; Tons of bombs: 66 9 August 45 - Strike: 258; CAP: 137; Tons of bombs: 105 10 August 45 - Strike: 227; CAP: 132; Tons of bombs: 90 13 August 45 - Strike: 21; CAP: 42; Tons of bombs: 8 15 August 45 - Strike: 17; CAP: 47; Tons of bombs: 1 TOTALS - Strike: 1,462; CAP: 929; Tons of bombs: 504 You may draw your own conclusions. Can't say for TF-37, but regarding the Mk13 torpedo, there were none, say again, none, dropped by TF-38 aircraft during that last summer off the coast of Japan. And the typical aircraft available to TF-38 were: CV's - 4 VF(N); 2 VF(P); 67 VF; 15 VB; 15 VT; Total 103 CV(N) - 36 F6F; 18 TBM CVL - 26 F6F; 9 TBM; Total 35 So figure 9 CVs at 103 each, 1 CV(N) with 54, and 6 CVLs with 35 each, makes, indeed, 1191 aircraft. Of course 1191 aircraft is a far different thing than the number of sorties flown (see above for 6 of the 9 strike days noted with TF-38). Not to particularly take sides, but it helps to recognize that when one very early on clearly used the word "sorties" that it means flights, not available aircraft. Obviously a single aircraft could and did fly more than one sortie per strike day. And further, as Mark noted, aircraft, and pilot/crew, for that matter, losses were made good within 48 hours. There were more than 25 CVEs devoted to replenishment in the Pacific in August 1945; both USN and RN CVEs were involved in that effort. There are almost weekly lists of the CVEs so involved available. Rich edited several times to fix some really odd font formatting and get it the way I wanted. Sheeech R Last Edited By: RLeonard 8-Oct-2007 18:48:45. Edited 3 times.
jlyons97		#65	[-]
Posts: 967 ( 8-Oct-2007 19:23:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hmmm. Wrong war, eh? Let's add/subtract out that made-from-whole-cloth-old-world-expertise-war the following re "didn't hasten the end of the war" Subtract: All munitions shipped to Europe from the US from 1914 forwards. Add: a no-holds-barred U-boat against the translant "shipping" in 1914 - no need to worry, after all, about offending the non-contributory yanks is there? Subtract: A goodly number of US Army/Marine types who made the trip over. Add: No need to worry about US intevention, because there would be none. Subtract: The 1918 offenses, which destroyed at least one entire British army, done to get a win before the yanks got there. I really grow weary. It was not a forgone conclusion in 1917 or 1918 that German was not going to be the first language of the entire continent..
StewartG		#66	[-]
Posts: 410 ( 9-Oct-2007 19:55:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	RLeonard wrote: Just to comment on a couple of disputes flying around this discussion: ... For TF-38 Sorties: ... TOTALS - Strike: 9,452; CAP: 3,657; Tons of bombs: 3,482 For TF-37 Sorties: ... TOTALS - Strike: 1,462; CAP: 929; Tons of bombs: 504 You may draw your own conclusions. Can't say for TF-37, but regarding the Mk13 torpedo, there were none, say again, none, dropped by TF-38 aircraft during that last summer off the coast of Japan. ... So figure 9 CVs at 103 each, 1 CV(N) with 54, and 6 CVLs with 35 each, makes, indeed, 1191 aircraft. Of course 1191 aircraft is a far different thing than the number of sorties flown (see above for 6 of the 9 strike days noted with TF-3. Not to particularly take sides, but it helps to recognize that when one very early on clearly used the word "sorties" that it means flights, not available aircraft. Obviously a single aircraft could and did fly more than one sortie per strike day. Rich Thanks very much for those numbers. I might have been able to generate something similar meself, but didn't have time (nor inclination!) So crunching the numbers, Aircraft Strike Sorties CAP Sorties Bombs TF38 1191 9452 3657 3482 TF37 255 1462 949 504 Total 1446 10914 4606 3986 TF37% 17.6% 13.4% 20.6% 12.6% Now in the earlier exchanges I knew I was being a little generous to TF37 by only doing a comparison on airframe numbers - frankly too bad, and I was careful to make sure I used the correct words to fit the numbers chosen. It's possible to spindle and mutilate the numbers further to account for things like the fact that on 18 July TF37 only had 3 CVs (Indefatigable being late) and from 13 August only had 1 (Indefatigable again). So in Winton's "Forgotten Fleet" (p342) there are abstruse ratios like - Offensive sorties/complement aircraft/strike day (TF37 1.39, TF38 1.39) - Enemy aircraft destroyed or damaged/offensive sortie (TF37 0.21, TF38 0.22) - Tons enemy shipping destroyed or damaged/offensive sortie (TF37 224, TF38 90) - Combat losses as % of offensive sorties (TF37 2.38, TF38 1.61) - Operational losses as % of offensive sorties (TH37 2.0, TF38 0.55) ...and one could say all sorts of things about the extent to which TF37 had mastered this carrier ops business. The large number of Seafires deployed has something to do with the high proportion of CAP sorties and the higher operational loss number. The higher combat loss number is probably a lot to do with the smaller size of attacking groups and consequent inability to saturate defences. The tons shipping destroyed/damaged number is a bit suprising.
RLeonard		#67	[-]
Posts: 46 ( 9-Oct-2007 22:18:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Ah! I neglected to look Winton. Oddly enough, I went out and bought a copy of his Forgotten Fleet years ago, shortly after I found the copy of the Owen report in my father's files (he was assist ops officer for TF-38). Anyway, I had the operating data from the Owen report all set up in a spread sheet, so chopping columns and posting here was no strain. The report was from Owen (who I believe passed on in the front half of this decade) to Commander-in-Chief, British Pacific Fleet, entitled "Report On Second Carrier Task Force Operations 1st July to 15th August 1945." Also have a picture of the entire TF-38 staff on the flight deck of Shangri La with Owen seated in the first row. Thanks for the reminder, sounds like a good excuse . . . errr . . .opportunity . . . to go back and read Winton again after several years of the volume merely holding a place on the shelf. Regards, Rich

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply