Väinö I said:
What I meant by easy comparison of carrier planes vs. normal airwings was regarding battles between them. So now when a carrier is attacked by land based bombers it will actually spawn fighters in it's defense. If they both use similar building blocks, that kind of battle would be easier to resolve.
There is a major problem with CAG "building blocks" battling land based airpower. Take the Japanese standard interceptor Ki-43 Oscar for example: during the war they built 6'000 of those. Other interceptor models together at least another 6'000 airplanes.
And now we compare those 12'000 airplanes with CAGs consisting of 20 aircraft each. Even if 75% of these interceptors were "replacements" Japan will have 150 CAG equivalent landbased air groups to manage when at their max. Whats even worse is that UK, USA, USSR, GER all built alot more aircraft then Japan did.
They had another 11'000 fighters in their Zero. Of who only 300 could fit at their Carriers as the most at the same time. The crushing possible numbers of Land based aircrafts overwhelm anything Carriers can put out. Granted enough is invested in appropriate airfields of course. There is a reason the American carrier fleet attacked small backwater japanese islands and not the German messerschmidts and focke wulfs at the European mainland.
