"Vanishing American Air Superiority"

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:32:45 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
wrote:

On Mar 19, 8:22*am, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Mar 18, 11:45*pm, Chris wrote:

On Mar 18, 10:05*pm, Alexander wrote:
...

As I already noted in another post, please don't base your ideas for
what the Germans could do based on the successes of the Japanese Navy.
The Japanese Navy was so much better than the Luftwaffe at sinking
ships that the comparison is ludicrous.
...
Chris Manteuffel

Pearl Harbor was an unexpected attack on close-packed stationary
ships, inspired by the British success at Taranto. The Japanese
weren't that good at bombing defended shipping at sea, Guadalcanal for
example. One can assume that Spitfires would be at least as effective
as Wildcats at protecting the ships.

jsw

Ask the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse how good the Japanese
were at bombing ships in the open sea.

Jack, he said defended shipping and clarified his meaning by a
comment about defending aircraft.

You really must start reading the stuff you respond to.


Peter Skelton

On Mar 19, 9:35*am, Peter Skelton wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:32:45 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum



wrote:
On Mar 19, 8:22 am, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Mar 18, 11:45 pm, Chris wrote:

On Mar 18, 10:05 pm, Alexander wrote:
...

As I already noted in another post, please don't base your ideas for
what the Germans could do based on the successes of the Japanese Navy.
The Japanese Navy was so much better than the Luftwaffe at sinking
ships that the comparison is ludicrous.
...
Chris Manteuffel

Pearl Harbor was an unexpected attack on close-packed stationary
ships, inspired by the British success at Taranto. The Japanese
weren't that good at bombing defended shipping at sea, Guadalcanal for
example. One can assume that Spitfires would be at least as effective
as Wildcats at protecting the ships.

jsw

Ask the HMS Prince of Wales and *HMS Repulse how good the Japanese
were at bombing ships in the open sea.

Jack, he said defended shipping and clarified his meaning by a
comment about defending aircraft.

You really must start reading the stuff you respond to.

Peter Skelton

And the aircraft defending the Prinzu Walsu and Repulsu?

I would not call the ships sunk at Guadalcanal "shipping". They were
warships. Chicago, Quincy, Vincennes, Canberra and Astoria all Cruisers

On Mar 19, 10:02*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:
...
I would not call the ships sunk at Guadalcanal "shipping". They were
warships. Chicago, Quincy, Vincennes, Canberra and Astoria all Cruisers.

They were sunk by IJN gunfire in NIGHT battles where aircraft from
neither side participated. The Japanese Navy ruled the seas by night,
the Cactus Air Force by day, until the battleship Washington arrived.

From "Guadalcanal Diary"
"I found out later that there had been forty Japanese planes
attacking; that sixteen of these were shot down on the spot, and the
remaining twenty-four destroyed by our fighters, one by one, as they
streaked for home. The Japanese torpedo bombers had not gone after the
warships, contenting themselves with merely strafing the transports as
they passed by."

One transport, the George F. Elliot, was hit by a crashing plane and
lost.

So you were a CIA analyst???

jsw

On Mar 19, 1:18*pm, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Mar 19, 10:02*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:

...
I would not call the ships sunk at Guadalcanal "shipping". They were
warships. Chicago, Quincy, Vincennes, Canberra and Astoria all Cruisers..

They were sunk by IJN gunfire in NIGHT battles where aircraft from
neither side participated. The Japanese Navy ruled the seas by night,
the Cactus Air Force by day, until the battleship Washington arrived.

From "Guadalcanal Diary"
"I found out later that there had been forty Japanese planes
attacking; that sixteen of these were shot down on the spot, and the
remaining twenty-four destroyed by our fighters, one by one, as they
streaked for home. The Japanese torpedo bombers had not gone after the
warships, contenting themselves with merely strafing the transports as
they passed by."

One transport, the George F. Elliot, was hit by a crashing plane and
lost.

So you were a CIA analyst???

jsw

What does being a CIA analyst have to do with the ships that were
sunk? I saw a movie at OCS on the superiority of the Japanese at night
fighting that didn't bother to mention that a burning ship provided
light for their attack and precluded the Allies seeing that attack as
it developed.

By the way, which of these battles featured Japanese aircraft sinking
"shipping"?

On Mar 19, 1:18*pm, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Mar 19, 10:02*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:

...
I would not call the ships sunk at Guadalcanal "shipping". They were
warships. Chicago, Quincy, Vincennes, Canberra and Astoria all Cruisers..

They were sunk by IJN gunfire in NIGHT battles where aircraft from
neither side participated. The Japanese Navy ruled the seas by night,
the Cactus Air Force by day, until the battleship Washington arrived.

From "Guadalcanal Diary"
"I found out later that there had been forty Japanese planes
attacking; that sixteen of these were shot down on the spot, and the
remaining twenty-four destroyed by our fighters, one by one, as they
streaked for home. The Japanese torpedo bombers had not gone after the
warships, contenting themselves with merely strafing the transports as
they passed by."

One transport, the George F. Elliot, was hit by a crashing plane and
lost.

So you were a CIA analyst???

jsw

Atlanta, Chicago, Canberra, Quincy, Vincennes and Juneau were
torpedoed. What is your expertise?

The torpedoes were the Type 93, a six thousand pound bulk launched
from a surface ship.