"Bill Kambic" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins

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.


I'd argue that it made no sense in 1742 either. We know the Japanese
were not so inflexible during WW1 or the Russo Japanese war.
British troops who fought alongside the Japanese at Tsingtao
were very complimentary and the German POW's taken were
treated exceptionally well. Japanese guards who were disrespectful
towards their German 'guests' were punished.

The militarists invoked a perverted version of the code of Bushido
in the interwar period to justify their brutality in precisely the same
way the Nazis tried to portray themselves as mediaeval Knights.

The Japanese army in particular deliberately adopted a policy
of brutality within its own ranks. Japanese officers were encouraged
to beat juniors who's actions displeased them and Japanese soldiers
were taught that they could do the same to their 'inferiors'

This had no justification in the ancient warrior codes of the
Samurai, it was instead a cynical method of ensuring their
own control.


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


Indeed but ultimately not as robust as that of the allies. By 1940
Britain and its Commonwealth alone were training more pilots
than Germany.

Keith