JApanese logistic weakness and carrier operations

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
Eugen Pinak
Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 17:09
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

Re: JApanese logistic weakness and carrier operations

#31

Post by Eugen Pinak » 23 Apr 2015, 09:22

ChristopherPerrien wrote:
Eugen Pinak wrote: Who told you, that IJN couldn't fill out one replacement carrier air group after Coral Sea? They could and they did. The problem was, that IJN top brass saw no need for "Zuikaku" at Midway.
Find me a source that says they had the Zuikaku air group reconstituted by 27May1942, the sailing date for the 1st Airfleet for operation MO, or even 30May1942, the date the mighty USS Yorktown, sailed from Pearl Harbor to settle WWII :milsmile: .
I strongly advise you to read the sources you quote carefully - it saves a lot of embarrassment ;)

http://www.combinedfleet.com/Zuikak.htm
"Zuikaku was on May 25 allocated to the latter June phase of the projected Aluetians Operations should she be required."
So "Zuikaku" had operational air group at least two days before the departure of Kido Butai to Midway.

ChristopherPerrien wrote:The ability to take-off, conduct ops at sea, and find and land on a carrier at sea , are the hardest things a pilot/aircrew can do. And it takes constant and up to date training to be able to do so reliably. This is where the IJN was lacking.
I think, you should tell it to the Marines... sorry, to the pilots of IJN "Tainan" and "Takao" air groups, send to fly from the carriers without any "constant and up to date training" (only short refresher training was provided), or you can tell this to the pilots of the 6th AG, sent to fly from "Junyo" in combat after no carrier training at all :)

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: JApanese logistic weakness and carrier operations

#32

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 23 Apr 2015, 14:30

Eugen Pinak wrote:
ChristopherPerrien wrote:
Eugen Pinak wrote: Who told you, that IJN couldn't fill out one replacement carrier air group after Coral Sea? They could and they did. The problem was, that IJN top brass saw no need for "Zuikaku" at Midway.
Find me a source that says they had the Zuikaku air group reconstituted by 27May1942, the sailing date for the 1st Airfleet for operation MO, or even 30May1942, the date the mighty USS Yorktown, sailed from Pearl Harbor to settle WWII :milsmile: .
I strongly advise you to read the sources you quote carefully - it saves a lot of embarrassment ;)
I had read the source and the notes. Your quote from the same source meant nothing as it reflected future planning for an operation(or part of the Aleutian operation) which happened in late June, after the Zuikaku became operational again. Did the Zuikaku sail on that date or even May30 for that "late june" op? No, She left for that June 11 or 15 depending how you look at it.
IMO- June 10-11, I'll call the Zuikaku "operational". Hashirajima is the key here.

Actions carry a-lot more weight than "future planning".
11 June 1942:
ZUIKAKU departs Kure.

14 June 1942:
Arrives at Hashirajima anchorage.

15 June 1942:
Departs Hashirajima for Ominato to participate in the third phase of the Aleutian Operations.

While the IJN, may not have needed another carrier at MIdway,,, :lol: :lol: ,,, :roll: ,
I don't think the IJN or any navy in May or June 1942 on planet Earth was in the business of letting a fully operational air-craft carrier sit in a depot port for a month/3 weeks or even one extra day, simply because it was not needed at one place on a particular day. By golly there must not had been a World War happening anywhere else on June 4 1942, who needs a spare carrier ? :? and aircrew :idea:



I guess we can bring this up with Tully, and see what he thinks. Not meaning to discount your opinion or anything , as I have seen you over there and I realize you have a-lot of knowledge on this area.

As to carrier pilots and aircrew
I think, you should tell it to the Marines... sorry, to the pilots of IJN "Tainan" and "Takao" air groups, send to fly from the carriers without any "constant and up to date training" (only short refresher training was provided), or you can tell this to the pilots of the 6th AG, sent to fly from "Junyo" in combat after no carrier training at all :)
[/quote]

Your various one-oft's, non-standard, and extreme circumstance examples, are the exceptions that prove the rule so to speak. Highly inadvisable stuff for blue water carrier operations unless you don't want(or don't care) to see your planes and pilots again or have them crashing on landing, on a carrier. Too many carrier pilots have spoken how difficult carrier ops are and of "losing their edge" without constant training to discount my first quote, as it was a "transliteration?"/amalgamation of the same.

You might as well disprove "Bombers did not operate on carriers" , by mentioning the Doolittle raid.


Eugen Pinak
Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 17:09
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

Re: JApanese logistic weakness and carrier operations

#33

Post by Eugen Pinak » 23 Apr 2015, 16:37

ChristopherPerrien wrote:
Eugen Pinak wrote:
ChristopherPerrien wrote:
Eugen Pinak wrote: Who told you, that IJN couldn't fill out one replacement carrier air group after Coral Sea? They could and they did. The problem was, that IJN top brass saw no need for "Zuikaku" at Midway.
Find me a source that says they had the Zuikaku air group reconstituted by 27May1942, the sailing date for the 1st Airfleet for operation MO, or even 30May1942, the date the mighty USS Yorktown, sailed from Pearl Harbor to settle WWII :milsmile: .
I strongly advise you to read the sources you quote carefully - it saves a lot of embarrassment ;)
I had read the source and the notes. Your quote from the same source meant nothing as it reflected future planning for an operation(or part of the Aleutian operation) which happened in late June, ...
Which part of "25 May" you don't understand?
ChristopherPerrien wrote:IMO- June 10-11, I'll call the Zuikaku "operational".
YOU may call "Zuikaku" operational at any time you want. But "Zuikaku" was operational as soon as she replenished her supplies after return from the Coral Sea - she wasn't damaged, you know. So IJN assigned her for upcoming operation on 25th May 1942.
Why they didn't send her with Nagumo or Kusaka? - Combined air group of CARDIV-5 was badly mauled at Coral Sea and needed rest. Upcoming battle was seen as "mortal combat" by the USN, IJN saw it as "just another upcoming victory over demoralized enemy". So "Zuikaku" was, apparently, expected to do some mopping-up - and even this only when necessary.

ChristopherPerrien wrote:
I think, you should tell it to the Marines... sorry, to the pilots of IJN "Tainan" and "Takao" air groups, send to fly from the carriers without any "constant and up to date training" (only short refresher training was provided), or you can tell this to the pilots of the 6th AG, sent to fly from "Junyo" in combat after no carrier training at all :)
Your various one-oft's, non-standard, and extreme circumstance examples, are the exceptions that prove the rule so to speak. Highly inadvisable stuff for blue water carrier operations unless you don't want(or don't care) to see your planes and pilots again or have them crashing on landing, on a carrier.
I see, you have no idea, that ALL pilots of fighters, single-engined dive- and torpedo bombers were carrier qualified by definition until c.1939. So only graduates of the very recent flight training courses were not 100% carrier qualified - yet at least some of them were, though I don't know exact percentage.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: JApanese logistic weakness and carrier operations

#34

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 23 Apr 2015, 17:44

Eugen Pinak wrote: So IJN assigned her for upcoming operation on 25th May 1942.
What part of assigned don't you understand? assigned does not mean "operational".

The USN and merchant marine was "assigning" ships/LST's before they were even built.

Eugen Pinak
Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 17:09
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

Re: JApanese logistic weakness and carrier operations

#35

Post by Eugen Pinak » 23 Apr 2015, 18:11

ChristopherPerrien wrote:
Eugen Pinak wrote: So IJN assigned her for upcoming operation on 25th May 1942.
What part of assigned don't you understand? assigned does not mean "operational".
Yes, it does. I've yet to see IJN assigning non-operational air group to an operation. If you have any such example - feel free to provide it.
ChristopherPerrien wrote:The USN and merchant marine was "assigning" ships/LST's before they were even built.
Really? And what operational assignment during the attack on Pearl-Harbor had USS "Essex"? ;)

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: JApanese logistic weakness and carrier operations

#36

Post by glenn239 » 23 Apr 2015, 18:32

ChristopherPerrien The ability to take-off, conduct ops at sea, and find and land on a carrier at sea , are the hardest things a pilot/aircrew can do. And it takes constant and up to date training to be able to do so reliably. This is where the IJN was lacking.
Read Saburo Saki’s book – he covers his carrier training, though he never served on one. There was nothing special about it, except a couple more months training. Once a pilot graduated, he could be schooled for carrier certification. At first, there was no need for a carrier – the training was done at land bases. Later, a carrier was needed for the pilot to be certified for carrier landings. Obviously, the actual carrier landing at sea was the last step in the training. Of the 158 aces of the Imperial Navy in WW2, 65 qualified for carrier operations, but only 36 of those actually fought from a carrier.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: JApanese logistic weakness and carrier operations

#37

Post by glenn239 » 24 Apr 2015, 16:23

glenn239 wrote: Of the 158 aces of the Imperial Navy in WW2, 65 qualified for carrier operations, but only 36 of those actually fought from a carrier.
Correction - of the 158 aces, of them 65 served aboard carrier and 36 participated in carrier actions. The number of carrier qualified IJN aces was higher than 65.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”