Official AAR by Adm Sherman for Battle of Coral Sea (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message

Feinder -> Official AAR by Adm Sherman for Battle of Coral Sea (1/11/2003 4:42:19 AM)

The official AAR of Adm Sherman on the Battle of Midway from 15 May 1942...

Gonna bookmark this one, to give me some reading material for next slow day at the office...

-F-

[URL=http://detailsite.tripod.com/CV2_afteraction_report_5.8.42.htm]AAR for Midway by Adm Sherman[/URL]



** Edit : I changed the title from "Cool! Look what I found!" after sticking around to read the whole thing. It seemed irreverant. They did everything they could to save her. It's very interesting reading tho.

** D_mn-it. It won't let me change the thread title. Mod... Do you mind do that for me?

Highest Regards,
-F-



smithmr -> (1/12/2003 2:43:08 AM)

Thanks for the link, That was an interesting read. Nice use of the SBD's to protect the ship.

Mark



Oleg Mastruko -> (1/12/2003 6:42:14 AM)

What is a "VF", in this context (he talks of enemy planes downed):

By VF-2: Certain:

2 VS at enemy carrier.

1 VF, type 00, at enemy carrier.
1 VF, Me-109, over LEXINGTON.
1 VF, 00, over LEXINGTON.
1 VF, 0,over LEXINGTON.

End quote.

Does he mean VF-1 squadron downed the plane in question or something else?

Also, what Jap plane could have possibly been misidentified as Me 109?? I find it curious that Me 109s even got mentioned in otherwise very detailed and accurate (bar the Ryokaku mis-nomer) report. I never read that US suspected Japs to have German fighters at this stage of war? Comments?

O.



Grotius -> (1/12/2003 7:12:47 AM)

I am the least qualified person on this board to answer this, but I do remember some debate here about whether a particular Japanese fighter was a modified German aircraft. The consensus seemed to be no. Nonethless, some folks perceive some similarity between some German and Japanese fighters.

I now bow out in favor of someone who knows what they're talking about. :)



Hard Sarge -> (1/12/2003 8:42:58 AM)

The Allies named a plane the MIKE, which ended up being a 109 E that the JP were testing (the post on the Tony, talk about how it was tested vs a P-40, and 109 E)

early in the war, there were a number of reports of combat with 109's, which along the same lines, the GE called almost any 2 engine SU bomber a Martin bomber, believeing they were US planes

HARD_Sarge



Feinder -> (1/12/2003 10:07:24 AM)

There was a Japanese Army fighter called the "Tony" that looked alot like the Bf-109 (also), I don't specifically know anything about the Mike.

Yeah, I wondered about the identification of "Me109" in the report also. Dunno. Seems like there's very little similarities between the A6M2 and Bf-109.

A6M2 - Bubble (sorta) canope, rounded wing-tips. Looks more (vaguely) like a Spitfire to me (if you're going to mis-identify it).
Bf-109 - Flush canope, sqare wings.

Still, I'm not over target going 300mph and having alot of shooting going on, it would certainly be hard to identify the exact type.

Maybe a "Type 109" fighter was a US classification for the A6M2, besides the common reference "Zero"?

-F-



Cap Mandrake -> (1/12/2003 12:59:53 PM)

That was fascinating about the use of SBD's to defend against Jap Torpedo Bombers...clearly an ad hoc arrangement...an interesting contrast to the famous story about Japanese fighters being out of position to attack the SBD's after diving to attack the TB's at Midway.



Oleg Mastruko -> (1/13/2003 3:13:30 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hard Sarge
[B]The Allies named a plane the MIKE, which ended up being a 109 E that the JP were testing (the post on the Tony, talk about how it was tested vs a P-40, and 109 E)
[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, *army* fighter Tony is modified Me 109, but didn't Tony come only later in war, like in late 43 or something?

Here we have carrier fighters, and it's May 42, when Tony wasn't used not even as Army fighter so I still find curious that US knowledge re Jap naval equipment was so small at the time they thought there were Me 109s (or copies) on the carriers.

The actual mis-identification of planes so different in appearance as Zero and 109 is not entirely incomprehensible to me, becuase it's not easy to see in the chaos of the battle, but I am curious as to - why 109?

I doubt that any real Me 109 over ETO was EVER misidentified as, say, Zero or Oscar. :) Fear of German equipment was greater than that of Jap equipment?

O.



panda124c -> (1/13/2003 9:03:18 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Feinder
[B]There was a Japanese Army fighter called the "Tony" that looked alot like the Bf-109 (also), I don't specifically know anything about the Mike.

Yeah, I wondered about the identification of "Me109" in the report also. Dunno. Seems like there's very little similarities between the A6M2 and Bf-109.

A6M2 - Bubble (sorta) canope, rounded wing-tips. Looks more (vaguely) like a Spitfire to me (if you're going to mis-identify it).
Bf-109 - Flush canope, sqare wings.

Still, I'm not over target going 300mph and having alot of shooting going on, it would certainly be hard to identify the exact type.

Maybe a "Type 109" fighter was a US classification for the A6M2, besides the common reference "Zero"?

-F- [/B][/QUOTE]

IIRC the Tony was an Oscar with a license build Daimler Benz V-12 engine (same as Me 109) this seems to be the source of this mis-identification but the Tony and Oscar were IJA fighers and not ship based.



Feinder -> (1/13/2003 10:44:49 PM)

Here's a pic of the "Tony". There weren't any at Coral Sea at the time, but I like pics... :^)

-F-

Rats. I hate anglefire. Lemme see if I can grap a different one.



mdiehl -> (1/13/2003 11:12:38 PM)

[QUOTE]Yes, *army* fighter Tony is modified Me 109, but didn't Tony come only later in war, like in late 43 or something?[/QUOTE]

A modified Oscar, as Pbear noted, not a modified ME 109. It featured an in-line knock-off of the DB-V12, but the Japanese had some trouble servicing the engine. Its relationship to the Oscar is similar to the P40s relationship to the P36. Both started out as radial driven designs. The replacement of the lower HP radials with higher HP in-lines resulted in a streamlined forward configuration, and alterations to the size and shape of the rudder.

Tonies were in-design in mid 1941 and introduced into service in mid 1942. Owing to their shorter range, they did not see alot of combat until the New Guinea campaign began to really heat up in late 1942.



TIMJOT -> (1/14/2003 1:28:06 AM)

I will take a stab at the mystery 109. Could it have been a D4Y2 "Judy". It had a Damilier-Benz V-12 inline engine and long sloping canopy. I could see it being mistaken as a 109 in the heat of battle. I believe to have read somewhere that the first few production models were deployed on IJN CVs as scout bombers in spring 42.

Judy pict. [URL]http://64.124.221.191/ijna/d4y3.gif[/URL]


On another note. This months issue of Naval History Magazine had an artical on Adm.Jack Fletcher. It sites his use of SBDs as CAP as one of his biggest bonehead mistakes, in which he had several in his career. The SBDs actually only shot down 5 Kates with the loss of 5 of their own. Not the one SBD loss claimed by Adm.Shermans AAR. Frankly Im surprised that a week after the battle according to the AAR, he was still claiming only one CAP SBD shot down. Shouldnt they have known their actual losses by then or was it a diliberate cover-up for a bad idea.



Howard Mitchell -> (1/14/2003 1:28:54 AM)

The Ki-61 'Tony' was not related in any way, shape or form to the Ki-43 'Oscar'. They were even designed by different companies (Kawasaki and Nakajima respectively).

The Ki-61 was powered by a liscensed-built DB 601A, designated a Ha-40. This was replaced by an improved version, the Ha-140 in later versions. Both were without doubt the most unreliable engines the Japanese ever mass-produced.

The Ki-61 was first met by the Allies over New Guinea in April 1943.

Bf-109s were often mentioned in early Allied reports. Japanese aircraft were poorly known, unlike German ones, and there was a certain degree of belief that the Japanese couldn't produce anything worthwhile themselves so must be using German designs. Additionally the Allies frequently used each other's aircraft types. Given the chaos and confusion of a carrier battle its hardly surprising that mis-identifications took place.



XPav -> (1/14/2003 1:49:34 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cap Mandrake
[B]That was fascinating about the use of SBD's to defend against Jap Torpedo Bombers...clearly an ad hoc arrangement...an interesting contrast to the famous story about Japanese fighters being out of position to attack the SBD's after diving to attack the TB's at Midway. [/B][/QUOTE]

They did it at Santa Cruz too.



showboat1 -> (1/14/2003 1:50:47 AM)

I recall a few mentions of combat with alleged Me-109's while reading the Big E by Stafford. One SBD gunner reported shooting one down during his withdrawal after bombing the Kaga.



XPav -> (1/14/2003 4:18:08 AM)

Never trust an eyewitness. :D



panda124c -> (1/14/2003 5:51:00 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Howard Mitchell
[B]The Ki-61 'Tony' was not related in any way, shape or form to the Ki-43 'Oscar'. They were even designed by different companies (Kawasaki and Nakajima respectively).

The Ki-61 was powered by a liscensed-built DB 601A, designated a Ha-40. This was replaced by an improved version, the Ha-140 in later versions. Both were without doubt the most unreliable engines the Japanese ever mass-produced.

The Ki-61 was first met by the Allies over New Guinea in April 1943.

Bf-109s were often mentioned in early Allied reports. Japanese aircraft were poorly known, unlike German ones, and there was a certain degree of belief that the Japanese couldn't produce anything worthwhile themselves so must be using German designs. Additionally the Allies frequently used each other's aircraft types. Given the chaos and confusion of a carrier battle its hardly surprising that mis-identifications took place. [/B][/QUOTE]
Oops sorry for spreading propaganda you are, of course correct, the Ki-61 was a totaly different design from the Ki-43. The book I have compare the two aircraft, the Ki-43 was more manoeuvrable but the Ki-61 was faster. My confusion arises from the Ki-100 which was a radial engined Ki-61 (late war). ;(
This book also states about the Ki-61:
"The only Japanese fighter powered by a liquid-cooled engine to see operational service, the Ki.61 Hien (Swallow) was mistakenly believed to be a licence-build version of the Messerschmitt Bf 109 when it was first encountered by the Allies over New Guinea in April 1943."



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9375