Know Your Japanese Cruisers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message


Amoral -> Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/16/2010 6:57:06 AM)

Know Your Japanese Cruisers

Japanese cruisers all share certain advantages. They all have either 8 or 12 long lance torpedos, and they can all carry troops. They are also bigger, more heavily armoured and more durable than the cruisers the allied player has at the start. Most classes carry 10 x 20cm (8”) guns.

Furutaka and Aoba class - CruDiv Six
Ships: Furutaka, Kako, Aoba, Kinagusa

[image]http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/4609/aobaclass.png[/image]

Stengths

  • none

Weaknesses

  • thin belt armour
  • 6 x 20cm (8”) guns
  • 4 x 12cm (4.5") secondary
  • only carries 200 troops


Myoko Class - CruDiv Five
Ships: Myoko, Nachi, Haguru, Ashigara

[image]http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/2445/myokoclass.png[/image]

Strengths

  • 8 x 12.7cm (5”) secondary armament

Weaknesses

  • unarmoured tower
  • no torpedo reload


Takao and Maya Class - CruDiv Four
Ships: Takao, Atago, Chokai, Maya
[image]http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/6530/takaoclass.png[/image]

Stengths

  • depth charges (Maya starts with type 95 mod 2)

Weaknesses

  • 4 x 12cm (4.5”) secondary. The Takao class upgrades on 3/42 to 8 x 12.7cm (5”). Maya gets 12 x 12.7cm dp guns on 12/43.


Mogami Class - CruDiv Seven
Ships: Mogami, Mikuma, Suzuya, Kumano

[image]http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/3457/mogamiclass.png[/image]

Stenghths

  • Heavy Armour
  • 12 x 12.7cm (5”) secondary
  • 12 x long lance torpedos
  • 33 kt speed

Weaknesses

  • none


Tone Class - CruDiv Eight
Ships: Tone, Chikuma

[image]http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7476/toneclass.png[/image]

Stengths

  • 12 x 12.7 cm (5”) secondary
  • 12 x long lance torpedos
  • 5 float planes
  • 12000 endurance
  • 35 kt speed

Weaknesses

  • 8 x 20cm (8”) guns




Chickenboy -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/16/2010 12:47:27 PM)

Amoral,

Thanks for the reminder about the capabilities of the IJN CAs, but I respectfully disagree with your bullet summary points about 'strengths' and 'weaknesses'. If nothing else, the 61cm Type 93 Long Lance torpedo in ALL of them is a strength over the alternative 53cm torpedo used by other IJN surface (and submarine) forces. Frequently, one hit from this larger weapon is enough to cripple or sink even the largest of foes. It's probably the best torpedo in the game and needs to be accorded some respect at all times.




Cyber Me -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/16/2010 12:59:00 PM)

Thanks for posting. Now I know what I'm sinking.
I guess the main advantages for Japan's CAs is their experience and long lance torp.
I had a SCTF I was trying to arrive at target during daylight, but the enemy TF intercepted me
at night and surprised my TF sinking most.




Nemo121 -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/16/2010 2:45:54 PM)

Ah but are those Long Lances actually worth it or would you be better off downgrading them to Type 93s with no reloads and going for better armour or AAA etc? Same with the depth charges. They aren't all that useful so could the weight gained from removing them be better used in adding more AAA?




viberpol -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/16/2010 3:01:36 PM)

Actually, I think the long lances torpedo hit rate has been toned down somehow in subsequent patches... [&:]
Now during a standard STF vs STF action I am happy to see 2-3 hits while that was rather normal some time before...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Ah but are those Long Lances actually worth it or would you be better off downgrading them to Type 93s with no reloads and going for better armour or AAA etc? Same with the depth charges. They aren't all that useful so could the weight gained from removing them be better used in adding more AAA?




Chickenboy -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/16/2010 3:06:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Ah but are those Long Lances actually worth it or would you be better off downgrading them to Type 93s with no reloads and going for better armour or AAA etc? Same with the depth charges. They aren't all that useful so could the weight gained from removing them be better used in adding more AAA?

I don't believe that this is an option in this game. I assume you're referring to the theoretical addition of AAA in place of the torpedoes?




Q-Ball -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/16/2010 3:21:37 PM)

I'm with Chickenboy, other than the AA suite, they don't have weaknesses vs. the Allied cruisers. They are flat out better, particularly when you pair that with superior crew training at night, which is usually when they fight. The only problem is you only get 18 of them.

The USN CLs match up a little better, but IJN CAs still better pound for pound.

There is a huge drop-off of course to the old IJN CLs, which are fast and carry Long-Lances and that's about it. I hardly ever sink anything with the 5.5 in guns on them.




JohnDillworth -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/16/2010 3:54:23 PM)

Don't know if it comes into play so much in the game but I have always been partial to the idea of the Tone class. All the armament up front, but plenty of room for search aircraft in the back. Cruisers were traditionally, the scouting arm of the fleet and in the aircraft carrier age this is the perfect compliment. This played into the doctrine (there is that word again)of keeping your carrier aircraft together for the big strike. Didn't work out at Midway but the idea seems solid.
One advantage that is not mentioned is that these IJN cruisers are absolutely the best looking warships in the world.




Nemo121 -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/16/2010 4:55:16 PM)

I think the Tone class is useful as using its floatplanes to spot instead of long-range carrier-planes helps keep the Allies unsure as to whether KB is in the area or not. That alone is worth a significant investment in resources. The query is whether you would be better off building a couple more CS instead of lessening the surface combat effectiveness of these CAs.

Question: How much effort was required to build a fast CS like Japan had compared to a CA and if they had just fitted out the Tone class conventionally how many more CS could they have built instead? 1, maybe 2?




d0mbo -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/16/2010 7:26:46 PM)

To the OP:

No worries! I'm on a first name basis with my CA's.


[Hijack]
What's also interesting is the superb Japanese BS's that can withstand no less than 9 1000lb Dauntless hits and get away only lightly damaged. Can only imagine the frustration of my opponent when he sees the replay. When will THAT be fixed?

Ok, Hijack off.





Misconduct -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/16/2010 8:38:29 PM)

I just absolutely love the Japanese cruisers, anything under 6,000 yards you are just waiting for "torpedo launch at target". Whether its a slow 18knot Japanese CL, or the Mogami cruiser,
I have won my share of engagements simply because of the Torpedo.

Although the 22,000 yards is a bit of a royal pain in my backside, nothing sucks more then when they start lobbing torpedoes at 20,000 yards, 18,000 yards then when the action gets to 6,000 yards
you are out of torpedoes...




Q-Ball -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/16/2010 9:43:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Question: How much effort was required to build a fast CS like Japan had compared to a CA and if they had just fitted out the Tone class conventionally how many more CS could they have built instead? 1, maybe 2?


Hard to say, the CS was certainly cheaper; much smaller machinery required, and the 8in Turrets were also very expensive to produce. Not that aircraft handling and maintenence facilities are cheap.

In general, I would like to know the relative cost of various ship-types, because it would be fun to use 20-20 vision to re-prioritize IJN construction. Tonnage is only one part of the equation, complex systems and large machinery made ships like the SHOKAKU very expensive. (The SHOKAKUS carried the largest power plants in the IJN, including the YAMATOS)




akdreemer -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/16/2010 10:03:42 PM)

Actually they have one serious weakness in deficiency of turret armor, a rather thin 25mm which makes their main guns extremely vulnerable to just about any naval gun the Allies had.

Pensacola - 62mm
Northampton - 62mm
Portland - 62mm
New Orleans - 150mm
Wichita - 200mm
Baltimore - 200mm

Also, no US cruiser ever succumbed to a single torpedo hit, whereas several IJN cruisers succumbed to single hits.




herwin -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/16/2010 10:19:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

Actually they have one serious weakness in deficiency of turret armor, a rather thin 25mm which makes their main guns extremely vulnerable to just about any naval gun the Allies had.

Pensacola - 62mm
Northampton - 62mm
Portland - 62mm
New Orleans - 150mm
Wichita - 200mm
Baltimore - 200mm

Also, no US cruiser ever succumbed to a single torpedo hit, whereas several IJN cruisers succumbed to single hits.



Was that due to the engineering space layout they inherited from the RN?




mariandavid -> RE: Single Hits? (10/16/2010 10:56:37 PM)

I am not sure about this: The only CA that I can track that falls under this category ws Chikuma by one Mk 13 (though some stories persist that this was due to sympathetic damage from tube detonation - others that this, as with the other losses was due to scuttling when the Main Fleet retreated from the escort carriers at Leyte Gulf). As for others due solely to torpedo damage: Kako from 3x Mk 10, Atago 4x Mk 14, Maya 4x Mk 14, Hagura 3x Mk IX, Ashigara 4x Mk IX. The limited turret armour was a design decision - it was felt that (rightly so) turrets could not be proofed against the 8"gun - instead the 'protection' lay in very good locking and fire-proofing, and with the belt and barbette protection being adequate in combination at the shell storage and trunk level.

Neil - the early ones yes - though as with the RN largely because of constraints due to tonnage limitation and very large fuel loads. I sort of remember David Brown mentioning that the Chief Naval Constructor pointing out that split boiler/engine cost 25mm armour and/or one main turret on a displacement of c7,000 tons - ie early IJA and Exeter.




Nemo121 -> RE: Single Hits? (10/17/2010 12:54:38 AM)

Don't forget also that the IJN felt that their CAs would be used for one massive battle ( maybe spread over two days ) in which a mission kill was as good as an overall kill so unless they could make the turret invulnerable there wasn't much benefit to making it "fairly well protected". They either made it invulnerable or didn't bother with it much cause over the course of two days in the decisive battle there wouldn't be any time to effect repairs to the turrets if they got hit by a large shell.

So, they seem to have focussed on making sure that a dead turret wouldn't mean a dead CA. Hell, the Long Lances were the primary armament of these CAs in many ways in any case.


Query Any idea how much tonnage the 8 Long Lances and 8 reloads ( and the machinery to allow for that ) took up?




mariandavid -> RE: Single Hits? (10/17/2010 2:19:54 AM)

Nemo: A twin Type 89 weighed 15.75 tonnes, each torpedo about 1,800 kg. I cannot yet find the weight of the other two elements - the twin firing stations, range and angle-finders and the reserve armoured boxes. Incidentally the reserves were the problem - the tubes had emergency firing mechanisms (local and central) in case a fire broke out - but there was nothing one could do about the reserve torpedoes. Both the RN (think of the Hood) and the IJN had strange ideas about unprotected explosive charges. Although to be fair - at the time the belief was that if the explosion could be vented, or even better exposed to the open air, no serious structural damage would take place. What they forgot was the high chance of fire and of blast damaging fire and water control systems.




crsutton -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/17/2010 4:54:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

Actually, I think the long lances torpedo hit rate has been toned down somehow in subsequent patches... [&:]
Now during a standard STF vs STF action I am happy to see 2-3 hits while that was rather normal some time before...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Ah but are those Long Lances actually worth it or would you be better off downgrading them to Type 93s with no reloads and going for better armour or AAA etc? Same with the depth charges. They aren't all that useful so could the weight gained from removing them be better used in adding more AAA?



Yes, I am happy to see 2-3 hit per surface battle as well.....[:D]

Actually, I think "all" torpedo hits vs fast ships have been toned down. Including air and sub lauched as well. When your planes and ships have caught slow ships or heavily damaged ships they have commited murder. This is the way it should be. The Japanese had a few big sucesses with torpedoes in 1942 but after that a hit or two would have been considered a major sucess by either side.




Amoral -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/17/2010 8:22:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

Actually they have one serious weakness in deficiency of turret armor, a rather thin 25mm which makes their main guns extremely vulnerable to just about any naval gun the Allies had.



Is that reflected in the game?




LoBaron -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/17/2010 9:25:50 AM)

Yes. [;)]

[img]http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshots/images/841aoba.jpg[/img]




d0mbo -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/17/2010 12:01:00 PM)

I can attest to one of my commerce raider CA's stumbling accross a convoy with a small DD as escort. She sunk them all but one of her turrets was damaged/destroyed (it was shown as red in the data screen) by a mere 4" shell.

So yes, it is definately in the game and WAD!





PaxMondo -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/17/2010 3:01:26 PM)

+1.  Damaged /destroyed turrets on IJN CA's is VERY common for me to see. I have 2 CA's headed for HI right now for this very repair.




Cyber Me -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/17/2010 5:31:27 PM)

The Japanese lost five CA that had long lance torpedoes exploding in their tubes as a major contributing factor to their loss and one CA was beached to prevent sinking before heading to Truk for repairs. Also Furutaka sank after her long lance torpedoes detenated, but she probably was finished even without that extra damage.
Chokai: In the Battle of Samar she was struck by a 5 inch shell which caused a sympathetic explosion in the long lance torpedo tubes knocking out the engines and rudder. Falling out of formation she was attacked by planes which gained a 500lb bomb hit. Chokai became dead in the water and was scuttled next day.
Abukuma:On 26thOct, 1944, Abukuma was struck by two 500lb bombs dropped by B-24s. A fire broke out in the engine room and soon spread to the aft torpedo room, where four long lance torpedoes exploded. 5 mins later she sank.
Aoba: April 3, 1943, was hit by a single bomb dropped by a B17. Two long lance torps exploded. She had to be beached to prevent sinking while repairs were carried out to allow Aoba to return to Truk.
Furutaka: During the Battle of Cape Esperance Furutaka was hit by nearly 100 shells, some of which caused the long lance torps to explode. She sank that night.
Mikuma: After colliding with Mogani during the opening day of Battle of Midway, Mikuma was returning to Wake when attacked by carrier planes on 5th June, 1942. Mikuma received five hits , including one among the long lance torp tubes, the resulting explosion destroyed the ship.
Mogami: During the Battle of Midway Mogami collided with Mikuma which caused considerable damage to her. She was ordered to Wake, and was attacked en-route by carrier planes. Fortunately the Mogami's crew had managed to jettison the torpedoes moments before a bomb landed near the torpedo tubes.
During the Battle of Surano Strait Mogami was involved in another collision (this time with Nachi) resulting in a fire which spread among the torpedo tubes soon exploding five torpedoes that crippled the ship.
Suzuya: A near miss bomb caused the long lance torpedoes to explode. Within an hour she was abandoned and two hours after that she sank.
The compressed oxygen fuel system gave the Japanese long lance torpedo several advantages over their enemies' designs including much better range, better speed, more payload, wakeless, allowing the Japanese to launch their torpedoes from unexpected ranges. The Japanese considered these advanatges so great they classified it as a top secret weapon. Eventually the allies captured a long lance torpedo in 1943, revealing to them it's qualities. But the compressed oxygen fuel system needing high amounts of maintenance, specially trained crew, oxygen generators on board the warship, and also the compressed pure oxygen prooved to be very volitile- exploding spontaneously when exposed to flame.




Amoral -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/17/2010 6:09:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Yes. [;)]

[img]http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshots/images/841aoba.jpg[/img]


Heh. Cool.

Any tips on what sort of port you need to repair one of those turrets? Can it be done with enough naval support? An AR? Or do you need a repair yard?




Misconduct -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/17/2010 9:18:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Yes. [;)]

[img]http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshots/images/841aoba.jpg[/img]


Heh. Cool.

Any tips on what sort of port you need to repair one of those turrets? Can it be done with enough naval support? An AR? Or do you need a repair yard?


An AR only fixes Flooding damage not any serious system damage (i.e engine or turret loss)
I would say you need a repair yard, and not a small one either (in this case if you have enough damage you want to patch up the Major damage first then send it to a decent sized repair yard)





rtrapasso -> RE: Know Your Japanese Cruisers (10/18/2010 2:53:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cyber Me

The Japanese lost five CA that had long lance torpedoes exploding in their tubes as a major contributing factor to their loss and one CA was beached to prevent sinking before heading to Truk for repairs. Also Furutaka sank after her long lance torpedoes detenated, but she probably was finished even without that extra damage.
Chokai: In the Battle of Samar she was struck by a 5 inch shell which caused a sympathetic explosion in the long lance torpedo tubes knocking out the engines and rudder. Falling out of formation she was attacked by planes which gained a 500lb bomb hit. Chokai became dead in the water and was scuttled next day.
Abukuma:On 26thOct, 1944, Abukuma was struck by two 500lb bombs dropped by B-24s. A fire broke out in the engine room and soon spread to the aft torpedo room, where four long lance torpedoes exploded. 5 mins later she sank.
Aoba: April 3, 1943, was hit by a single bomb dropped by a B17. Two long lance torps exploded. She had to be beached to prevent sinking while repairs were carried out to allow Aoba to return to Truk.
Furutaka: During the Battle of Cape Esperance Furutaka was hit by nearly 100 shells, some of which caused the long lance torps to explode. She sank that night.
Mikuma: After colliding with Mogani during the opening day of Battle of Midway, Mikuma was returning to Wake when attacked by carrier planes on 5th June, 1942. Mikuma received five hits , including one among the long lance torp tubes, the resulting explosion destroyed the ship.
Mogami: During the Battle of Midway Mogami collided with Mikuma which caused considerable damage to her. She was ordered to Wake, and was attacked en-route by carrier planes. Fortunately the Mogami's crew had managed to jettison the torpedoes moments before a bomb landed near the torpedo tubes.
During the Battle of Surano Strait Mogami was involved in another collision (this time with Nachi) resulting in a fire which spread among the torpedo tubes soon exploding five torpedoes that crippled the ship.
Suzuya: A near miss bomb caused the long lance torpedoes to explode. Within an hour she was abandoned and two hours after that she sank.
The compressed oxygen fuel system gave the Japanese long lance torpedo several advantages over their enemies' designs including much better range, better speed, more payload, wakeless, allowing the Japanese to launch their torpedoes from unexpected ranges. The Japanese considered these advanatges so great they classified it as a top secret weapon. Eventually the allies captured a long lance torpedo in 1943, revealing to them it's qualities. But the compressed oxygen fuel system needing high amounts of maintenance, specially trained crew, oxygen generators on board the warship, and also the compressed pure oxygen prooved to be very volitile- exploding spontaneously when exposed to flame.



IIRC, some analysis have shown that the IJN actually lost more of its own warships to Long Lance explosions (after being struck by gunfire, bombs, etc.) than it sank Allied warships with them... and this doesn't include other instances where the long range of the Long Lance worked against the Japanese: i.e., in the final engagement of the USS Houston where the Long Lance torps missed the Allied ships and ended up exploding against the hulls of the IJ transports unloading troops...

AFAIK, the "sympathetic detonation" of torpedoes stored on ships is not modeled in the game.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.718994