Good day again.
I was reading up on the Japanese Naval and Army air services during the second world war and I what I read was generally interesting. The IJN was definately the best trained and most efficent air arm in the world at the time, though their lack of planning for a long war and other shortsighted policies (as well as lack of resources and industrial capacity) would definately lead to its demise towards the end.
So after I had read enough about the IJN, I decided to move on to its army counter-part, the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force (or service, whichever you perfer) and so far I didn't do that much reading up, but I will be doing so soon. Anyhow, I do have some questions about the IJAAF, if you people care to answer.
1: The pilots of the IJN were very well trained and the navy was very strict when it came to choosing who could be an aviator or not. That being said, how did the IJAAF compare in this regard? Did they have a strict system of selection and training as well? (I should mention that it normally took an IJN pilot 50 to 64 months to complete training under pre-war conditions).
2: Just how considerable were the IJAAF pilots were against their allied enemies? I know that the IJAAF pilots didn't rack up as impressive a victory count as the IJN, but that was due to the major differences between the policies of the two services, plus give what responsibilities the IJAAF had, anyway.
I think that's it for now, anyway, I do have one other question about naval aviation as well.
I know that the purpose of naval aviators is basically to bomb targets and not achieve air superiority. But under what conditions would it normally take for naval aviators to see a lot of air-to-air action? Bomber pilots make history, and fighter jocks make movies, I know, but if fighter jocks don't protect their bomber friends, they won't be able to achieve their history making.
I suppose that the reason why the USN and IJN had so many aerial shoot downs is because of the uniqueness of the pacific war, and the vast oceans that made extensive use of carriers necessary (land-based aircraft were used, of course, but the long ranges and smallness of the islands were obviously a hinderance, hence the need for floating airbases...). During the Korean war, the USN only had one ace, but I'm fairly certain they shot down quite a bit of aircraft, the big issue there must have been the fact the USN didn't operate in areas were there was plenty of enemy air activity (the USAF were the ones who went 'mig alley' often, I guess). During the Vietnam conflict, they only had one ace as well, but so did the USAF, and this was because of poor training on part of ALL US military pilots, the folks in charge of making the aircraft and training the pilots made plenty of mistakes and by the time a new training program was set up (Top gun for the Navy and Red Flag for the Air Force) the conflict in Vietnam was coming to a close and most of the fighting was pretty much over.
Of course, the lack of targets over Vietnam did have a large deal to do with it, but that's another issue.
So guys, any answers and comments? If so, then don't hesitate to voice them.