RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective?

RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (Full Version)

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

Message

gradenko2k -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 4:01:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf Kurita is probably one of the biggest cowards/idiots of all military history Does history not forgive Kurita his faults after being hammered by attacks since the Palawan Passage, facing an overly tenacious DD/CVE force, not actually knowing that they were just DDs and CVEs, overworked, lacking sleep and not being a fanatically suicidal? I actually felt bad for the rap that he got after reading an in-depth book on the Battle of Leyte Gulf. IMO, Nishimura and Halsey both acted worse (at least for that battle, if not their whole careers)

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 4:31:49 AM)
weep for the crews of Zuikaku, and the BBs of surigao strait that made the Yamato's attack possible if he was not fanatical, it was the wrong choice for a commander Yamato was supposed to inflict major damage to the enemy and then be sunk in battle, instead it was sunk by aircraft later and caused no major damage

Tiornu -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 4:34:40 AM)
quote: Nobody else in the world had a torpedo that could make 49 knots for over 10,000 yards. Yes, that's the question. Which of the hits around Guadalcanal were at such long ranges? Anything beyond about 8000 yards would be worth noting. quote: I actually felt bad for the rap that he got after reading an in-depth book on the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Yes, the traditional Western view has yet to escape the traditional Western perspective and sources. I tend to think that we'll never know exactly what was going on inside his head. Even his own subsequent comments are contradictory.

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 4:48:53 AM)
demand the option to replace kurita with kamikaze pilot [:D] 99agr rating.. out of ammo? ram them CVEs.. Yamato can make 27kts , CVEs just 21? [&o]

LoBaron -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 6:40:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf Kurita is probably one of the biggest cowards/idiots of all military history Kurita was far from a coward and idiot. Feel comfortable in your chair at home? [8\|] He was one of the few commanders left to the Japanese who was not prepared to sacrifice 1000s of his men for no gain. Asessing the situation, and without any intel about the success of the carrier diversion, he came to the conclusion he was opposing 3rd fleet and the diversion had failed. He still ordered an attack, and only retreated after the heroic USN response with every plane and ship they could throw into battle made him believe he had been spotted and was under attack by 3rd fleet carriers and their escorts, and that he had no chance whatsoever to engage the landings. One can say that the attack itself was not performed in the best tradition of Japanese naval battles - which might also be understandable as the whole fleet was constantly mauled by HE bombs dropped from carrier planes, but to call somebody a coward and idiot who slugs it out against enemy air supremacy for hours - before deciding to retreat and save his men, is about as wrong as you can get.

nate25 -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 6:53:55 AM)
+1. What's up with the name-calling, CSW? Ever had someone shooting at you? Don't go around thinking you know exactly what you'd do in that situation. Especially if you're responsible for lives (in this case a lot of them). Nate

spence -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 11:31:31 AM)
quote: Yes, that's the question. Which of the hits around Guadalcanal were at such long ranges? Anything beyond about 8000 yards would be worth noting. It was off New Georgia or Kolombangara I think but the DD USS Strong was sunk by a Long Lance at about 45,000 yards or so. The accompanying cruisers picked up the firing ships disappearing off the edge of their radar screens some time before. When USS Strong blew up 20 minutes later the US Commander thought she had hit a mine.

Cavalry Corp -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 11:55:51 AM)
Back on topic- All the Jap old CL are good for mixing with DD or light groups say to cover landings were light enemy forces may be expected. I have found they have also faired well opposing and draining allied CA and CL of ammo in night battles as they seem difficult to hit. The Kitakami and Oi I sometime put in heavier groups ( if available) were they may expect to meet allied BB. There is much more chance I think of landing a TT hit on slower ships. You should think of them as tough DD. As the war goes on upgrade as required.

CT Grognard -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 11:59:09 AM)
The "official" performance of the Type 93 torpedo as announced by the IJN was 11,000 metres at 42 knots. However it could go double that distance at 50 knots, was the most advanced torpedo in the world. Long Lances were involved in the sinking of 23 Allied warships: 6 CAs, 5 CLs, 11 DDs and a CV (but then again, in the case of CV Hornet, she was just finished off, having already taken 3x 250kg bomb hits and 3x aerial torpedo hits).

Historiker -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 12:52:40 PM)
quote: to the masses it is called murphy's law to the scientist it is called ΔS= k ln W epic [:D]

Dili -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 1:44:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Most torpedos were capable of 50kt at short range. The wake is mostly irrelevant at night. No..., they weren't. The initial specs for the Type 94's were based on the faulty premise of the "Decisive Battle" with very long ranged fire. Java Sea proved that wasn't effecient (two Japanese Destroyer Squadrons waisted virtually all their torpedoes at long range for no result)..., but later in the same battle the two heavy cruisers showed what could be done by using them at shorter range and higher speed settings. Sorry i meant torpedos from other nations, plus i checked and not many could get on 50kt but most were around 45kt. The British had a torpedo with 47kt, the Italians had 50kt.

Rising-Sun -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 2:00:05 PM)
Well if you want to succeed doing some nasty torp whore, remember those ships only shoot 20 per broadside. Try train your ship crews at night battles, the closer the enemies is the better chances to score hits.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 4:29:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 No..., they weren't. The initial specs for the Type 94's were based on the faulty premise of the "Decisive Battle" with very long ranged fire. Java Sea proved that wasn't effecient (two Japanese Destroyer Squadrons waisted virtually all their torpedoes at long range for no result)..., but later in the same battle the two heavy cruisers showed what could be done by using them at shorter range and higher speed settings. Sorry i meant torpedos from other nations, plus i checked and not many could get on 50kt but most were around 45kt. The British had a torpedo with 47kt, the Italians had 50kt. Yes..., there were several others that could run pretty fast..., for about 3000 yards. The Long Lance could run faster still..., and for 20,000 yards. The faster a torpedo runs, the smaller the "deflection" that needs to be allowed for it to hit (and the shorter time available for your target to do something unexpected). That made the "Long Lance" quite dangerous. At battle ranges of 7-15,000 yards, where other nation's torpedoes had to use their "slow" setting (or were out-of-range altogether), the Japanese still had a 50-knot torpedo. That's a big advantage...

HansBolter -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 5:27:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf Kurita is probably one of the biggest cowards/idiots of all military history Kurita was far from a coward and idiot. Feel comfortable in your chair at home? [8\|] He was one of the few commanders left to the Japanese who was not prepared to sacrifice 1000s of his men for no gain. Asessing the situation, and without any intel about the success of the carrier diversion, he came to the conclusion he was opposing 3rd fleet and the diversion had failed. He still ordered an attack, and only retreated after the heroic USN response with every plane and ship they could throw into battle made him believe he had been spotted and was under attack by 3rd fleet carriers and their escorts, and that he had no chance whatsoever to engage the landings. One can say that the attack itself was not performed in the best tradition of Japanese naval battles - which might also be understandable as the whole fleet was constantly mauled by HE bombs dropped from carrier planes, but to call somebody a coward and idiot who slugs it out against enemy air supremacy for hours - before deciding to retreat and save his men, is about as wrong as you can get. a big +1

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 5:41:17 PM)
the only lives that matter are those of the civilians you are being paid to protect kurita was ordered to sacrifice yamato and destroy the USN as best he could how many sailors were killed aboard Fuso at Surigao strait? Aboard Zuikaku? all lost so that Yamato could attack Yamato was lost a few months later to an air attack. Those sailors died anyway, for no gain.

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 5:44:44 PM)
quote: Feel comfortable in your chair at home? It is the duty of the soldiers, to preserve the comfort of the gentleman [:'(] I understand why some didn't want to sacrifice Yamato, Yamato was a nice hotel at Truk [:D]

Tiornu -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 6:54:41 PM)
quote: It was off New Georgia or Kolombangara I think but the DD USS Strong was sunk by a Long Lance at about 45,000 yards or so. Java Sea also comes to mind regarding hits from ranges where other torpedoes could not match the LL's performance. But I don't know the Guadalcanal ranges offhand.

Dili -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 8:15:24 PM)
quote: At battle ranges of 7-15,000 yards, where other nation's torpedoes had to use their "slow" setting (or were out-of-range altogether), the Japanese still had a 50-knot torpedo. That's a big advantage... But how many times that happened and what was the success rate ? an hit at 45kyds is a lucky hit nothing more. I can see their specific characteristics have some effect at 10km distance if the sea is full of ships but not in most circumstances. If at much less distances was possible to escape fast torpedos at double distance and not double speed it would be easier to escape the LL. The LL at 12km(when other torpedo models speeds is around 30kt) it needs 8 min to travel. In 8 min a ship or a fleet can do many things and one of them is changing course and speed if in battle. It is a bit like having a naval gun with 50km range. Does it matter? can it hit a ship at that distance ?

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 8:28:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili quote: At battle ranges of 7-15,000 yards, where other nation's torpedoes had to use their "slow" setting (or were out-of-range altogether), the Japanese still had a 50-knot torpedo. That's a big advantage... But how many times that happened and what was the success rate ? a hit at 45kyds is a lucky hit nothing more.I can see their specific characteristics have some effect at 10km distance if the sea is full of ships but not in most circumstances. If at much less distances was possible to escape fast torpedos at double distance and not double speed it would be easier to escape the LL. The LL at 12km(when other torpedo models speeds is around 30kt) it needs 8 min to travel. In 8 min a ship or a fleet can do many things and one of them is changing course and speed if in battle. It is a bit like having a naval gun with 50km range. Does it matter? can it hit a ship at that distance ? Where did I say anything about 45,000 yards? That's the kind of range the Kitakami and Oi were designed for (in the "Decisive Battle" strategy), and why they were never brought into the Solomans fighting and eventually converted again. I was describing "Normal Battle Ranges of 7-15,000 Yards". This is where the performance of the Long Lance was truely superior to everybody else's torpedoes.

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 8:34:15 PM)
long lance was probably the best torpedo ever made, also helps that long lances worked and USN torpedoes didn't (for the first 2 years) Santa Cruz USN: doh.. we're trying to sink the hornet.. [:(] IJN: we're here to help [:D] USN: thanks [;)]

Dili -> RE: Kitakami and Oi: How effective? (2/21/2012 11:44:49 PM)
mike scholl 1 this is the relevant part of what i wrote quote: I can see their specific characteristics have some effect at 10km distance if the sea is full of ships but not in most circumstances.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.78125