Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/20/2012 8:02:14 PM)
|
Also, the LL was not correctly used the ships were poorly deployed however when the long-lance was given the chance to fire, the results were devastating (see battles around Guadalcanal) the difficulty was bringing the surface ships into firing position (practically impossible in daylight) At midway, not a single long lance was fired By Santa Cruz, the entire doctrine of naval deployment was revised The Surface Ships were sent aggressively to the front, in fact the USN realized they were out of range to strike the IJN carriers so the first wave was ordered to "strike any IJN ships you can find" since they were aware of the Kongos+cruisers coming at them Hornet was sunk, Enterprise running away pursued by destroyers and cruisers If this was done at midway, the cruisers and destroyers forming a screen some 100 miles in front of the carriers, the USN may have had to fight a surface action at midway (or at least be spotted by floatplane recon much sooner) There were 12 other ships capable of being upgraded to the Kitikami/Oi standard (Kiso, Tama, Kuma, Nagara, etc.) 14 torpedo cruisers with destroyers forming a screen in front of the carriers would have been smart USN would be forced to either fight a surface battle (good for IJN) or maintain a long stand off range preventing them from effective carrier operations (good for IJN) trading CL for CV ships was the only way for japan to win carrier battles (needed more Coral Sea and Santa Cruz battles and fewer midways)
|
|
|
|