On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Mar 23, 11:21*am, Chris wrote:
On Mar 23, 12:55*am, -did-not-set--mail-host-address--

so-tickle-me wrote:
I'm not sure, maybe you know: I assumed the Japanese were good until
they lost their best attack and dive bomber pilots; and this problem was

It's hard to say precisely: but looking at losses, the Japanese lost
somewhere between 100 and 150 carrier qual'd aircrew at each of the
first couple of carrier battles. The Guadalcanal campaign as a whole
cost the Japanese Navy over 2800 planes, though, so you can see that
it would be where the majority of the pre-war elite died.

Defending fighters breaking up attacks would be the norm anywhere I
suppose, regardless of how well-trained the attacking pilots are.

What is impressive about the Japanese early war aircrew is that
defending fighters often didn't break up the attacks, even when they
were in a position to intercept. Examine the Hiryu's airgroup pair of
attacks on Yorktown at Midway and notice that despite intense losses,
on both occasions the crews got in and hit their targets and did their
damage.

Chris Manteuffel

The relevance is if known Japanese experience predicts how well the
Germans might have done against the RN. To what extent had the skilled
attack pilots been lost during the BoB?

IIRC the RAF and the Luftwaffe both had extensive air-sea rescue
programs. If I further remember correctly the IJN had none. So a
Brit or Jerry knocked down had a chance of rescue and return to duty.
An Jap who got shot down just learned it was his time to die for the
Emperor.

This was a serious waste of manpower by the IJN, but was completely
consistent with with their "warrior ethic." While that might (note
the conditional) have made sense in 1742 by 1942 it was the height of
foolishness.

Further, again from memory, the Germans had a much more robust
replacement pilot program than did the Japanese.



jsw