Was Operation Pedestal a greater Axis air attack than any faced by the USN in 1942?

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Difference is that while the RE. Falco II went into combat over Malta in May of 1942 in admittedly small numbers, the 'production' Ki-44s were in Japan and were not used on combat operations. Yes there were a group Ki-44-Is that saw action in China/Malaya but that was 9/11 preproduction aircraft on combat user trials. Accounts say 9 with 2 prototypes brought up to the newer standard. No planes were produced in Sept through Dec while the "trials" were carried out and then a batch of 40 aircraft were ordered while work went forward on the Ki-44 II with the new 2 speed engine. After the Doolittle raid the Ki-44 unit was called back to Japan for home defense and there it and the the new units stayed for most of 1942. the last Ki-44 I left the production line in Oct 1942.
This is one of the aspects of the Pacific war that differs from Europe. It often took weeks (or months for the British and Americans) to deploy new types of aircraft (or other equipment) into combat areas. In Europe they still needed to train crews on new types but it was only one or two tanks of fuel to get a new airplane (or new unit) from the factory or training area to combat zone. The Ki-44 II was used in China in one Sentai and then two Sentai were converted during 1943 to defend the oil refineries in Sumatra. They just were not a factor in 1942.

Ok fair enough, Ki -44 is only in China in 1942.

It might be, it is just that the speed and climb to 5,000 meters were so close. Roll rate and turning circle and other things can affect combat, however nobody has ever claimed the MC. 200 was not maneuverable.
And for all but the last month or so of 1942 the Ki-43 I was the version being used with just a few Ki-43 IIs trickling in.

Ki-43-I still seemed to be pretty dang effective...

And now we are also having to consider the opposition. Like pilot quality/training/experience. The MC. 200 was close to the Hurricane I in performance and is supposed to have been able to able to out maneuver, out climb and out climb the Hurricane although perhaps by not as much as the Ki 43?

Well, yeah that's where we have a problem. There is no Ceylon raid or Singapore type battles for the MC 200 vs. the Hurricane. They did fight a lot, but the Hurricane pilots actually came out on top most of the time, very much in contrast to how they did against Ki-43 or A6M. I think we should really look at this. If you honestly think the MC. 200 compares, is even close to a Ki-43, I think you are missing something. Or who knows, maybe I am. I'd like to break it open and look. I'll start a thread.

Both planes used the ammo in the guns, you could actually fire the Italian ammo in the Japanese guns. Both guns did not synchronize well. But the Italian aircraft carried 370rpg instead of 250rpg.

Edit. They built over 5 times as many Ki-43s as they did MC.200s so just in sheer numbers the MC. 200 wasn't going to have as much impact. Because of the shortage of engines for the MC. 202s production of the MC. 200 continued for a while simultaneously so it's span of time in combat is also from the summer of 1940 through the summer/fall of 1943. A long time to spread 1150 aircraft over.

I think if you look at MC.200 in combat, say roughly even odds of MC.200 vs. Hurricane, Tomahawk or Kittyhawk (which happened several times in North Africa), you'll see a definite pattern. MC.200 are not winning most of these engagements.
Ki-43 on the other hand, especially against the Hurricane, are almost always winning. By steep margins.

 

[Shortround6]

Ok fair enough, Ki -44 is only in China in 1942.

9 or 11 of them. and only for about 5 months.

Ki-43 on the other hand, especially against the Hurricane, are almost always winning.

Well, the Ki-43 was the main opposition for the Flying Tigers, and even with over claiming we know how that turned out.
It took way too long for the Allies figure out they could not out turn/maneuver the Japanese aircraft. They had a lot of trouble with the Italians but for some reason they didn't carry that over. Or the Italians used maneuver for escape more than the Japanese? There were certainly good and aggressive Italian pilots. But they didn't have a large number of combat experienced pilots in the Pacific and the ones the commonwealth had experienced in a different type of fighting. Thach really saved the US from a world of hurt. He took Chennault's warning and turned it into tactic that if not the killer it is sometimes made out to be, it allowed the US pilots to survive to fight other days.

Here is another oddity, The MC. 200 was built to a higher G loading standard than even the American fighters.

The MC. 200 did OK in Russia, the numbers were small but they kept them is service for quite some time and they seem to have more than broke even against the Russians even if they didn't dominate.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Actually, there weren't a lot of Ki-43s available at the start of the war. Two Sentais, 64th and 59th. Most fighter opposition was Ki-27s. It took a loong time for the IJAAF to modernize. The IJAAF was pretty thinly spread too, once the initial conquests were made.

 

[RCAFson]

So it looks like during Pedestal, there were actually 39 x Bf 109 and 27 x MC 202 serviceable, and 182 modern bombers (Ju 88 and Ju 87). Admittedly that is a fairly large number of Axis bombers, mostly Ju 88s.

But everything else was a mix of obsolete types, weird seaplanes recon aircraft. Aside from some semi-plausible G.50, MC.200, and CR.42s, and admittedly fairly dangerous SM.79s, the total includes Z.506, BR.20, Z.501, and S.66. None of those are really even combat planes in 1942, let alone front line.

I think there were also some Re 2001 in Sicily but haven't been able to track those down yet, but no more than 1 squadron IIRC.

So instead of 72 badly outnumbered FAA fighters fending off an astonishing armada of 600 enemy planes, we actually see 245 British fighters (72 navy planes assisted by over 137 Spitfires and 36 Beaufighters) supported by about 100 modern bombers and recon planes, against ~75 front line Axis fighters and 182 modern bombers plus a mish-mash of mostly obsolete types. Some very obsolete. And most of whom I don't even think flew missions during the battle.

As originally presented, Pedestal was 8-1 odds against the FAA fighter pilots, mostly flying Sea Hurricanes. But we (cough) forgot 137 Spitfires. And we implied that there was 600 front line Axis fighters and strike planes.

In actuality in terms of front line fighter strength it looks like more than 3-1 odds in favor of the British, with the additional factor that most of the best Axis fighters would only be able to participate in the fighting at the very end of the convoy's journey when it was just about at Malta.

At Midway by comparison, it was about 1-1 on fighters (with the Japanese having a few more modern types), but the Japanese had 150 front line bombers while the Americans really only had 100 (the SBDs).

This is what was originally presented:

You mean like the SHIBs during Operation Pedestal? Where they successfully defended the convoy against a far greater scale of attack than that faced by any of the USN carrier TFs during 1942. The losses to the convoy only occurred after the RN carriers were forced to turn back due to the Sicilian Narrows. During the last day's Axis attacks the SH1Bs were contending with massed raids escorted by Axis fighters. The SH1Bs were allotted the high altitude CAP duties due to their superior climb rate.

Where in that did I state:

.... 72 badly outnumbered FAA fighters fending off an astonishing armada of 600 enemy planes...

?

The IJN was using a very similar mix of medium bomber/torpedo strike aircraft in 1942 as the RAI in terms of performance and payload, but none of the IJN primary carrier strike aircraft were modern by 1942 ETO standards. The IJN's mix of recon aircraft was also very similar to the RAI ETO recon aircraft except that they had nothing like the Luftwaffe's JU88s.

Regardless the bottom line here that PEDESTAL was attacked by ~246 strike sorties over a two day period when the RN carrier force was out of reach of support by Malta's mostly short range fighters, and the SH1B was the primary carrier fighter successfully defending PEDESTAL during those two days.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

9 or 11 of them. and only for about 5 months.

About as many Re 2001 as were in action at any given time

Well, the Ki-43 was the main opposition for the Flying Tigers, and even with over claiming we know how that turned out.

Actually, in about 40% of the air combats they had they were up against Ki 27s, but those are also surprisingly dangerous fighters in spite of definitely being obsolescent (and quite slow due to fixed undercarriage and small 780 hp engine. About as fast as a Fiat G.50 though and not much slower than a MC.200

It took way too long for the Allies figure out they could not out turn/maneuver the Japanese aircraft. They had a lot of trouble with the Italians but for some reason they didn't carry that over. Or the Italians used maneuver for escape more than the Japanese? There were certainly good and aggressive Italian pilots. But they didn't have a large number of combat experienced pilots in the Pacific and the ones the commonwealth had experienced in a different type of fighting.

This is another fallacy. They had very inexperienced pilots in the Pacific and in the MTO. Many British and Commonwealth pilots complained bitterly (and I have the interview transcripts) about lack of training on type, lack of air combat training, lack of gunnery training etc., in the Med. The Australians actually worked out a method for ad-hoc gunnery training partly to deal with this defecit.

Pilot training levels were about the same in both Theaters.

Thach really saved the US from a world of hurt. He took Chennault's warning and turned it into tactic that if not the killer it is sometimes made out to be, it allowed the US pilots to survive to fight other days.

From what some of the Japanese pilots said, the Thach weave was a major problem for them. But it wasn't just that. Allied pilots had very good gunnery training. In the Pacific (but not, until mid 1942, in the MTO) the Allied pilots were using figure four / wingmen pairs and also had radios. Japanese fighters in 1942 usually did not (often just the flight or squadron leader had a radio). The US Navy pilots were able to coordinate their fights a lot better. Then of course there were the effects of attrition. A lot of the air battles between F4F and A6M were fairly even, but the attrition, the rate of recovery of living pilots and aircrew from a lost aircraft, was heavily in the favor of the Allies.

Here is another oddity, The MC. 200 was built to a higher G loading standard than even the American fighters.

The MC. 200 did OK in Russia, the numbers were small but they kept them is service for quite some time and they seem to have more than broke even against the Russians even if they didn't dominate.

Here is the thing about the MC. 200 vs. the Hurricane. The Hurricane, especially the Mark II, could outrun it, and it could out turn it. The MC.200 was about the same in climb and dive but had no real advantage there. The Hurricane also had heavier armament so head-on passes were very dangerous for the MC.200, and the Hurricane had much better altitude performance thanks to the two speed supercharger. Though the MC.200 was pretty small, the open cockpit also imposed extra drag, affecting acceleration.

Against the Ki 43, the Hurricane could maybe outrun it at some altitudes (depending on types and if Hurricane had a tropical filter), but the Ki-43 easily out turns the Hurricane and had much better roll as well. Ki 43 had better acceleration and better climb. It didn't have much power but it was so light it remained pretty spry at medium to higher altitudes... Ki-43-II has the same ceiling as the Hurricane IIC. Ki-43 has Hurricane could dive faster but roll and dive acceleration were slow. This is what a 1944 RAF report said about the Hurricane in Burma:

"The Hurricane, longest in operation is now completely outclassed by the Japanese fighters, and is confined to ground attack in which its specialized bombing technique has made it a remarkable success."

Main Japanese fighter at that time was still Ki-43. At this same time P-40s are still being used for fighter sweeps and fighter escort in the exact same area, worth noting.

 

[MikeMeech]

Hi
The 'OP Pedestal 11th-13th August' overview map from the OH 'The War at Sea 1939-1945' Volume II 'The Period of Balance', may be of use when looking at this operation:

The book 'Malta:The Spitfire Year' by Shores/Cull/Malizia, contains the Axis air ORBAT for 'Pedestal' in Chapter 8, this may be of interest:

Mike

 

[MikeMeech]

Hi
Friedman's 'Fighters Over The Fleet' has this reference Pedestal':

On Midway the same source has this:

The book 'The Two-Ocean War' by Morison, has this map regarding Midway:

With information regarding attacks on the US Fleet:

What can we gather from all this, besides the fallacy of trying to compare very different battles, and both had strategic effects on the war? Well if you are looking at the intensity of Axis air attacks on Allied fleets at sea then obviously the air attacks on the Pedestal operation was more intensive as it involved more Axis aircraft attacking Allied ships over a longer period of time. Midway involved successful air attacks against Japanese carriers, this was not an option open to the Pedestal Op. for obvious reasons. Air assets from Malta could and did attack Axis airfields destroying and damaging aircraft but they could never 'sink' an airfield so unable to destroy large numbers of Axis aircraft like could happen when a carrier is sunk. As I said totally different battles, but Pedestal was longer and involved more Axis aircraft constantly attacking over that period as the Axis always knew they were there as there was noway they could not be found.

Mike

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Thanks for posting that Mike, those are the same sources I used previously for Pedestal in past discussions, but was having trouble finding again (some old links broke and I lost some stuff on an old HDD).

I would draw very different conclusions than you have from this data, but you have brought light to the discussion by presenting all this hard data.

I'll post some analysis later, but I'll note up front, it's quite interesting how the superior British fighter direction helped them leverage their somewhat marginal fighter assets (in terms of quantity, not referring to quality which is a separate issue) quite a bit. Also interesting that the Axis had such trouble properly coordinating their attacks.

 

[WARSPITER]

What can we gather from all this, besides the fallacy of trying to compare very different battles, and both had strategic effects on the war?

That is the crux of the matter really. All of the battles / events in your post ended by being strategic victories for the allies.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

That is the crux of the matter really. All of the battles / events in your post ended by being strategic victories for the allies.

Except for PQ-17, which admittedly had an actual Axis submarine element and potential surface threat to it as well. It's probably the only real Allied convoy defeat involving Axis aircraft, though Pedestal came mighty close.

 

[WARSPITER]

Except for PQ-17, which admittedly had an actual Axis submarine element and potential surface threat to it as well. It's probably the only real Allied convoy defeat involving Axis aircraft, though Pedestal came mighty close.

I was only referring to Mike's Med and Pacific posts as they were events where carriers played crucial roles.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Well the original thread topic was based on a claim in another thread by RCAFSon that the air attacks at Pedestal, and specifically the heroic defense made by the Sea Hurricanes, was beyond anything faced by the USN in all of 1942. And I think we can already see in the data that is ridiculous, but we will continue to zoom in a little bit more

So by definition per the OP, it's not just Midway that matters, but also Coral Sea, Guadalcanal and the Solomon Islands, naval battles around New Guinea, and Midway, plus some other smaller actions, that bear looking at.

One major factor at least partly left out of the accounts we read above, was the role that the quite large contingent of Spitfires and Beaufighters at Malta, as well as recon planes and ASW and strike planes at Malta, had in the battle with Pedestal. These did play both a direct and indirect role. Malta Spitfires shot down some of the strike aircraft, I think Beaufighters did as well. I believe some Malta planes also did strikes against Axis airfields. I'll try to locate some examples.

I think more broadly, yes you definitely can compare the two Theaters and it would be profitable to do so. We tend to look at these as if they took place in different universes but of course, they did not. The Japanese also tangled with the British and the Americans tangled with the Germans and Italians. So we can contrast and analyze the different technical capabilities, tactics and strategy used in both cases and by the armed forces of each nation. This thread will also help inform at least two other threads which are currently active or were recently started.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I was only referring to Mike's Med and Pacific posts as they were events where carriers played crucial roles.

Right, as noted the comparison I offered had subs involved as well.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well the original thread topic was based on a claim in another thread by RCAFSon that the air attacks at Pedestal, and specifically the heroic defense made by the Sea Hurricanes, was beyond anything faced by the USN in all of 1942. And I think we can already see in the data that is ridiculous, but we will continue to zoom in a little bit more

So by definition per the OP, it's not just Midway that matters, but also Coral Sea, Guadalcanal and the Solomon Islands, naval battles around New Guinea, and Midway, plus some other smaller actions, that bear looking at.

One major factor at least partly left out of the accounts we read above, was the role that the quite large contingent of Spitfires and Beaufighters at Malta, as well as recon planes and ASW and strike planes at Malta, had in the battle with Pedestal. These did play both a direct and indirect role. Malta Spitfires shot down some of the strike aircraft, I think Beaufighters did as well. I believe some Malta planes also did strikes against Axis airfields. I'll try to locate some examples.

I think more broadly, yes you definitely can compare the two Theaters and it would be profitable to do so. We tend to look at these as if they took place in different universes but of course, they did not. The Japanese also tangled with the British and the Americans tangled with the Germans and Italians. So we can contrast and analyze the different technical capabilities, tactics and strategy used in both cases and by the armed forces of each nation. This thread will also help inform at least two other threads which are currently active or were recently started.

I'd bet that the sailors aboard Pedestal ships probably felt put about as hard as any American sailor in the early Pacific, once their air cover turned back.

 

[RCAFson]

Well the original thread topic was based on a claim in another thread by RCAFSon that the air attacks at Pedestal, and specifically the heroic defense made by the Sea Hurricanes, was beyond anything faced by the USN in all of 1942. And I think we can already see in the data that is ridiculous, but we will continue to zoom in a little bit more

So by definition per the OP, it's not just Midway that matters, but also Coral Sea, Guadalcanal and the Solomon Islands, naval battles around New Guinea, and Midway, plus some other smaller actions, that bear looking at.

One major factor at least partly left out of the accounts we read above, was the role that the quite large contingent of Spitfires and Beaufighters at Malta, as well as recon planes and ASW and strike planes at Malta, had in the battle with Pedestal. These did play both a direct and indirect role. Malta Spitfires shot down some of the strike aircraft, I think Beaufighters did as well. I believe some Malta planes also did strikes against Axis airfields. I'll try to locate some examples.

I think more broadly, yes you definitely can compare the two Theaters and it would be profitable to do so. We tend to look at these as if they took place in different universes but of course, they did not. The Japanese also tangled with the British and the Americans tangled with the Germans and Italians. So we can contrast and analyze the different technical capabilities, tactics and strategy used in both cases and by the armed forces of each nation. This thread will also help inform at least two other threads which are currently active or were recently started.

Again, I refer readers to post #44:

Was Operation Pedestal a greater Axis air attack than any faced by the USN in 1942?

This is what was originally presented: Where in that did I state: ? The IJN was using a very similar mix of medium bomber/torpedo strike aircraft in 1942 as the RAI in terms of performance and payload, but none of the IJN primary carrier strike aircraft were modern by 1942 ETO standards...

ww2aircraft.net

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

So one thing I would point out right out the gate from looking at this analysis, is it helps clarify one of the major points we've been discussing in this thread and in some of it's precursors and off-shoots - the importance of range in naval air combat. I'll just mention a couple of specifics:

If the Axis had good long range fighters
...Then they could have launched attacks against Pedestal two or three days before they did. You can argue that "range doesn't matter because the Allies have to come to the where the Axis bases are." But this ignores the reality - if you can only escort the bombers once the convoy is 50 or 60 miles away, you are giving yourself much fewer opportunities to sink the ships. The same obviously applies in carrier combat. If the Germans had a fighter like the A6M they could have been sending waves of Ju-88s and SM.79s escorted by first-rate fighters. Instead of either sending them by themselves or holding them back.

On 11 August, 27 Ju 88s and 3 He 111s attacked Pedestal just before sunset, having flown 200 nmi from their base on Sardinia. They made a rushed and hasty attack, to evade the CAP, since they were unescorted - beyond the range of their Bf 109 fighters - and they missed in all their attacks. What would have happened if that had been 27 D3As or G4Ms? How about if they had been escorted by first line fighters?

Because the Allies did have long range strike aircraft
The night after this attack on 11 August, Liberators and Beaufighters attacked the Axis bases in Sardinia, destroying multiple Axis aircraft and setting hangars on fire.

Longer ranged Axis fighters could have protected Axis warships
Then their surface ships may have also been able to attack. On the night of 11/12 August the Italians sent two cruiser divisions and 17 destroyers from Sicily and Italy to attack the British convoy. A British Wellington recon plane spotted them and sent fake messages to a fictitious Liberator unit, the Italians canceled the sortie because there was no guarantee of air cover.

If the Axis had better long range strike aircraft
The Ju 88 and SM.79 were pretty good. The Ju 87s were better. But the Ju 88 and SM.79 didn't have as good a 'kill rate' as the D3A and B5N did, probably not as much as the G3M or G4M either. We have seen some data in another thread which shows the extremely high rate of accuracy of the D3A in particular, not just against the US but also against the British, such as when 53 D3A dive bombers hit HMS Cornwall and HMS Dorsetshire 28 times in five minutes, plus 15 near misses. We know that the Ju 87 could also bomb very accurately, as we can see in the attack on Illustrious on 7 January 1941 during Operation Excess, in which it was hit six times by 30 stukas. But Ju 87s lacked long range, and in spite of having armor and self sealing tanks, couldn't survive an encounter with Allied fighters unescorted. But a D3A could strike twice as far as a stuka. Even if most of them were shot down, they still carried a bite. In one raid against Pedestal, all but 4 Ju 88s were shot down or driven off, and those four attacked, but got no hits. During Midway, a Japanese strike was decimated by USN CAP, but three D3As got through. All three scored hits. Four B5Ns got through as well, scoring two torpedo hits. This is lethal!

If the Allies had more effective fighters with better range
Like if they had all Martlets instead of the mix of Sea hurricanes, Fulmars and the few Martlets they actually had, then they could have intercepted the enemy strike aircraft at a further distance from the fleet. All of this also depends on recon, fighter coordination, radar and other factors. But it's also just a matter of how far your fighters go out on their patrol. When a strike is intercepted at 60 miles from your ships, you have a much better chance of breaking up the attack than if you intercept it 20 miles away. I think the British had a problem here, mainly due to the short legs of the Sea Hurricane in particular, but they partly made up for it by very good fighter direction. The Americans conversely had a longer ranged fighter in the Wildcat, but their fighter control was more haphazard. When they intercepted raids further out, the outcomes were better.

This also applies to the British land-based fighters. If the Spitfires had longer legs, they could have helped the convoy when it was further out, in greater numbers, and for longer. Which brings me to...

If the Allies had more fighters with a longer loiter time
Another factor which seemed to be telling during Pedestal was that the CAP was small, and enemy strikes were at least in part intercepted by aircraft launched at the moment they were detected. This is even possible in part because of the efficient fighter control system. But it was also probably done in prt due to the kind of problems posed by the Sea Hurricane described by RN officers and FAA pilots, i.e. that Sea Hurricanes couldn't stay up long, and the carrier was constantly having to turn into the wind to launch or recover them...

"16. The short operational endurance of the Hurricane and small amount of ammunition carried must result in frequent turns into wind to land on aircraft which have been in combat, greatly aggravating the position in regard to flying off others or maintaining sections standing by to fly off."
-Report from Commanding Officer, HMS Ark Royal to Flag Officer Commanding Force 'H' ADM 199/ 847 31 July 1941

Obviously this is a problem when you are in a convoy that's trying to get to their goal as fast as possible. So for this reason they would keep some on deck, to launch when the enemy planes were spotted.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I'd bet that the sailors aboard Pedestal ships probably felt put about as hard as any American sailor in the early Pacific, once their air cover turned back.

I have no doubt about that!

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Again, I refer readers to post #44:

Was Operation Pedestal a greater Axis air attack than any faced by the USN in 1942?

This is what was originally presented: Where in that did I state: ? The IJN was using a very similar mix of medium bomber/torpedo strike aircraft in 1942 as the RAI in terms of performance and payload, but none of the IJN primary carrier strike aircraft were modern by 1942 ETO standards...

ww2aircraft.net

And I'd refer you to post #11, where you refer to the defending force as being 36 Sea Hurricanes, 16 Fulmar, and 10 Martlets - or 62 fighters.

Reverting to none after the carriers withdrew.

This neglects the 137 Spitfires and 38 Beaufighters at Malta, which is the key missing bit IMO.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I'd bet that the sailors aboard Pedestal ships probably felt put about as hard as any American sailor in the early Pacific, once their air cover turned back.

Let me be clear about one thing. I'm not arguing at all that British sailors were not absolutely heroic in all the convoy fights and in all the battles for all the convoys and the other engagements with the Germans and Italians. They went through tribulations I can't even imagine, and pulled off feats of heroism that would humble any of us here.

What I am saying is that these sailors and aircrew would have been better served with more Martlets, which was the best available to our (British and American being very close Allies in WW2 lest we forget) side. The US and British authorities let down those aircrews, but they did the best with what they had. The Hurricane was one of the best fighters in the world in 1940. The Sea Hurricane was not one of the best naval fighters in 1942. Nor was the Fulmar.

I would also however take this a step further and point out what is to me the glaringly obvious - the Imperial Japanese Navy was by far the most serious Axis naval threat in WW2, and the battles in the Pacific were by far the most dire, fraught, and dangerous naval engagements of the war. The British held out against the Germans on their own during the BoB. Sinking the Italian fleet at Taranto, hunting down the Bismark and the commerce raiders, saving Malta, were all major achievements by the British, the FAA, RAF and the Royal Navy.

But these pale in comparison to Midway or to the various surface battles around the Solomons, the Battle of the Bismark sea or the Battle of the Philippine Sea, the Battle of Leyte Gulf etc. That's what I AM saying.

 

[SaparotRob]

That's because they are two different fields of battle. Pedestal, like other convoy runs, was a running battle through a gauntlet of NSCs (non sinkable carriers). The Axis forces neither had, nor really needed, a surface force. Both opponents faced off in the confines of the Med. Both sides knew (sorta') where the other guy was. The RN carriers were armoured because they knew they were going to get clobbered. The RN developed their doctrine and tactics for a new kind of warfare and where they were going to fight it.
The USN needed big, roomy carriers with as many airframes they could stuff in them just to find the other guy. Same held true for the IJN. There were big fleets involved because that was the only way to do it. The USN developed their doctrine and tactics for a new kind of warfare and where they were going to fight it.
I agree with Just Schmidt's opinion. To me, it's like comparing the Relief of Bastogne to the Battle of Kursk.