Japanese artisanal CVs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

BossGnome -> Japanese artisanal CVs (2/11/2005 4:25:03 PM)

The japs seemed to build their CVs in pairs: Akagi, Kaga; Soryu, Hiryu; Shokaku, Zuikaku, etc. The americans, on the other hand, seemed to figure out a good design and stuck with it, like the Enterprise class and, later, the Essex class. However, the japs seem to vary designs a lot more than the americans: Off the top of my head I can think of about 5-6 types of CVs that they built, not counting the Shinano or any CVLs or CVEs. The americans have 2 or 3 (cant remember if Lexington is its own class). Why did the japs switch designs so often? It would seem to me find the superior design (The Shokaku class) and stick with it. Why did they build their CVs "artisanally" so to speak, while the americans used the smarter method of makin em all the same...



rtrapasso -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/11/2005 4:34:53 PM)

quote:

The japs seemed to build their CVs in pairs: Akagi, Kaga; Soryu, Hiryu; Shokaku, Zuikaku, etc.


Actually, Kaga and Akagi were quite different. One was a converted BB, one a converted BC.

Some of the later classes did have more than 2 CVs allocated - but they never got built because the Japanese economy came to a grinding halt (not to mention the end of the war).

The Japanese just did not have the industrial base to manufacture ships the way the US did. The entire Japanese economy is said to have been about as big as just one US company - General Motors. They just couldn't roll ships out like the US did.

Now that the US is putting out only a few ships/year, its beginning to have ship classes that resemble the IJNs - (at least in subs) - a couple of this class of sub, before switching to something newer.



tsimmonds -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/11/2005 4:54:52 PM)

Many of the CVs the Japanese built were in fact conversions from other hulls: Akagi, Kaga, Shoho, Zuiho, Junyo, Hiyo, Chitose, Chiyoda, and Ryuho all began their lives as other types of ship. Their pre-war carrier fleet of Hosho, Akagi, Kaga, Ryujo, Hiyru, Soryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku is not actually a whole lot less homogeneous than the USA's Langley, Lex, Sara, Ranger, Yorktown, Enterprise, Wasp and Hornet. The designs were basically all experiments, and tonnage was always limited by treaty, both for individual ships and for the fleet overall. Both fleets were trying to squeeze in as much as they could within strict constraints. Well, they were strict anyway if you did not flout them (as the Japanese finally did)! Abandoning the treaty is what allowed them to field the superior Shokaku class. The fact that these were not repeated is probably based in economics; when they did finally select a design for mass-production (Unryu), it had more in common with the earlier, smaller Hiryu, which must have also been far less expensive and demanding to build.



Nikademus -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/11/2005 5:52:57 PM)

Japanese and American carrier development actually developed along very similar lines though there were some key differences. Both sides began with battleship/carrier conversions (excluding the Hosho and Langley from the discussion along with war conversions) for their first big carriers.

Both sides experiemented with a "light displacement carrier" (Ryujo, Ranger). Here development diverged a bit as the Japanese experimented with the cruiser-carrier concept. (Hiryu and Soryu.....little tidbit....they wern't really a "pair" as Hiryu was larger and had other differences...they were at most, half-sisters) while the US went with the Enterprise and Yorktown with Hornet following later

The latter wasn't really an example of "sticking with what worked" but the build pattern went more along Budgetary lines and suplimentary programs. Japan concluded with the excellent Shokaku class while the US returned to the light carrier concept experimenting with Wasp.

The Essex, while they did benefit from prewar construction lessons were more an example of mass building vs "sticking with what worked" Freeman actually considered them to still be somewhat saddled with prewar flaws due to displacement restrictions

Japanese went on to build Taiho but given the need for numbers....returned to the light fleet carrier concept (Unyru's)



DrewMatrix -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/11/2005 9:27:22 PM)

quote:

The latter wasn't really an example of "sticking with what worked" but the build pattern went more along Budgetary lines and suplimentary programs. Japan concluded with the excellent Shokaku class while the US returned to the light carrier concept experimenting with Wasp.

The Essex, while they did benefit from prewar construction lessons were more an example of mass building vs "sticking with what worked" Freeman actually considered them to still be somewhat saddled with prewar flaws due to displacement restrictions


I always thought that was the most important lesson of running a war in the post-industrial revolution era.

Which was a better tank, the Sherman or the Pzkw Mk V? Clearly the Sherman. Because you are not fighting a wargame (say Squad Leader) with one tank vs one tank. You are using your industry to attrition there industry. The Sherman could be (and was) made in enormous numbers. Constantly tweaking the design (stopping production for retooling with each tweek) and using scarce resources or technology is a mistake. Huge numbers of "good enough" flooding out of the factories is brilliant design.



2ndACR -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/11/2005 9:30:55 PM)

Sorry, I like my Panthers. Much better IMO than the Sherman. Better armor, better gun.

But I do agree that the constant stopping and re-tooling was stupid. The same as never streamlining their production lines, not going to a war time economy until late 1943/early 44 was Germany's main undoing.



Feinder -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/11/2005 9:45:48 PM)

Awe crap. I can't remember his name. A Panzer Colonel said something to effect of, "I felt really bad for the crews of the American Shermans. With my Panther, I could easily kill 10 Shermans. The problem was that, there was 12 of them..."

-F-



Nikademus -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/11/2005 10:01:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

I always thought that was the most important lesson of running a war in the post-industrial revolution era.



naw, it was build it the most efficiently. If it was 'good enough' then so be it though that was never a universally held maxim (since you mention the Sherman there was always a running battle between those who stressed production over those (including the tankers) who demanded better quality.

In the case of the Essex though, it was the program size that determined it. The Board came up with the design, got it approved and the Gov said. "Great....build 30 of em!"

[X(]



PeteG662 -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/11/2005 10:02:07 PM)

The Panther was one of the most effective designs of World War 2. Great, high velocity gun, good sloping glacis plate, and sound design. There were obvious growing pains when it was introduced prematurely and got ate up! The Sherman had too high a profile, a low muzzle velocity 75mm early on, too thin armor and ran on gasoline which made the thing torch up when hit......hence the derisive nickname "Ronson Lighter".



byron13 -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/11/2005 11:16:28 PM)

Is this what is known as a hijacked thread?

This discussion has been had before - only it was the Sherman v. Mk IV, which was a legitimate debate.

The problem with Beezle's argument from my perspective, is that it is the argument of the bean counters and captains of industry. It does not take into account the horrendous losses suffered by the Allied tankers because they were Ronsons and easily killed. As a former tanker myself, this counts for something. Of course you could say that updating the design would cost more lives in the long-run because there would be fewer tanks in the fight, longer war, blah blah blah. But it was a real shock for Allied tank crews in Normandy when they came up against the high velocity 75mm and 88 mm (remember that few of the crews had any experience from the Med).

There is a rather poor book out called something like "Steel Coffins" or something that was written by an ordinance officer in the 3d AD during the war. He talks about how there was a conference in early '44 where they were debating accelerating the Pershing or pumping out the Sherman in large numbers. According to the author, who claims to have been there (and understand I'm not quoting this as historical gospel) Patton convinced the board not to accelerate the Pershing as it was not designed around the concept of rapid exploitation and pursuit in the enemy's rear. Anyway, the author goes on to talk about the horrendous losses in crew members, of his support battalion having to hose crewmembers out of tanks, repaint them and then send them back to the line. They would change the bumper numbers on the vehicles and send them to a different company so that the new crewmembers would not know that this was the tank that Joe and Smitty were vaporized in. Morale plummeted. Not too far into the campaign, they were drafting cooks and clerks to serve in undermanned tank crews because they'd lost so many tankers. He talks about the desperate attempts to up-armor the Shermans in the field, which he supervised, and some of the other things tried to field a legitimate competitor to the Germans, little of which was successful.

Sherman better than the Panther? Don't think so. It won the war, but that doesn't make it a better tank when the Pershing could have been fielded months earlier. Like the quote about the Panther being the match of 10 Shermans but there were always 12 indicates, life was tough for American tankers. It won the war, but neither I nor Beezle would have wanted to be a crew member on one of the first 10 Shermans to face a Panther.

But I digress from the CV topic of which I know nothing.



Nikademus -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/11/2005 11:22:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: byron13

Is this what is known as a hijacked thread?



It only becomes one when people let it. [;)]



byron13 -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/11/2005 11:25:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Sorry, I like my Panthers. Much better IMO than the Sherman. Better armor, better gun.

But I do agree that the constant stopping and re-tooling was stupid. The same as never streamlining their production lines, not going to a war time economy until late 1943/early 44 was Germany's main undoing.


Panther v. Sherman. Ask 2nd ACR whether he'd rather be in one of the fewer M1s in the desert or one of the more numerous Iraqi tanks. Ask him what how he thinks Iraqi morale held up.

Heck, I served in M60A3s, and I can tell you that even we'd outnumbered the Soviets 5 or 10:1, I still wouldn't want to go into battle in that thing. Like the Sherman, it was too tall and the armor not up to current standards. One hit and you were vaporized. It's not a good feeling going into combat knowing that the only thing that will keep you alive is not so much your own skill, but the lack of skill of the other guy; you're just hoping the other guy can't aim worth a hoot. And hoping the findings made public to Congress weren't true that the 105mm wouldn't penetrate the frontal armor of a T-72 beyond 750 meters.



timtom -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/12/2005 12:03:39 AM)

Another reason American tankers were saddled with the Sherman was US armoured doctrine. According to this, US tanks weren't supposed to fight enemy tanks. Hence there was no need to design and built a tank that could take on the mid/late-war generation of German tanks, or at least there was considerable systemic resistance to this.

In American thinking, the tank served two purposes: Exploitation and infantry support, and the Sherman sufficed in both roles. Engaging enemy armour was the role of the TD's. The armoured division was essensially viewed as the modern cavalry division, it's role to exploit breakthroughs punched by the Infantry. McNair, fx, cited El Alamein as the model operation with regards to the use of armour. This is also the reason the US armoured division was somewhat short on combat power compared with that of the Germans - on paper anyway.

Incidentally, reading the Green Books doesn't leave me with the impression that the Americans were wildly at a disadvantage in Europe in terms of armour. If the official history is anything to go by, tank losses were about 1:1, and the tank/TD combo (as it became) in fact acquitted itself well, at least on the defensive, which was often, given the German penchant for tactical counter-attack. Artillery was also quite effective in destroying, damaging and/or driving off enemy tanks, it seems. In fact, my overarching impression is of the paucity of German armour/AT assets in the ETO.

Of course, it only takes a single well-placed shell to spoil your day...



Mike Scholl -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/12/2005 12:23:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

The Panther was one of the most effective designs of World War 2. Great, high velocity gun, good sloping glacis plate, and sound design. There were obvious growing pains when it was introduced prematurely and got ate up! The Sherman had too high a profile, a low muzzle velocity 75mm early on, too thin armor and ran on gasoline which made the thing torch up when hit......hence the derisive nickname "Ronson Lighter".


Where the Sherman had EVERY German tank design beaten was automotively..., the darned things ran and ran and ran. Once the fight was a mobile one, the German's lost
as many tanks to mechanical breakdowns as to Allied Action. A Sherman would "run the treads off" any Axis tank.



2ndACR -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/12/2005 12:44:45 AM)

I would take a Bradley over any Iraqi tank.[:'(]

Yes, the Panther had automotive problems, but IIRC most of these problems were corrected in the "G" model. It was then that the Panther became the best tank in my opinion. Alot will say that the T34 was the best tank of WW2, but even a Panther could kill it.

If I was a tanker in WW2 and had a Sherman, I would bride the nearest infantry unit to capture me a German tank ASAP. I would promise them the moon to get that wish. Or I would join the infantry. They had better odds of survival.



Subchaser -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/12/2005 1:02:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Japanese went on to build Taiho but given the need for numbers....returned to the light fleet carrier concept (Unyru's)

Yes and no...I have to be more specific here..

By 1943 construction of IJN carriers had settled down to 3 main types: 1st - large fleet carrier type with armored flight deck, good underwater protection and with well-balanced air group (which could not be as large as on USN carriers due to the weight balance issues), Taiho obviously was of this type; 2nd - medium fleet carrier type with relatively small air group and less adequate protection, here is Unryu class, 3rd type – taejoku, this is very close to escort carrier, but since IJN did not use this term, light carrier term can also be used… tactical conception for this type was provided by IJN aeronautical department (infamous Kaigun Koku Hinbu) already in august ’42, but their basic design was quickly given up due to unexpectedly fast worsening war situation, originally these were supposed to be purpose-built warships, there were no plans to convert merchant vessels to light carriers.

New Taiho class was regarded suitable for any fleet operation, Unryu class was regarded suitable only for strikes against convoys protected by cruisers and escort carriers

Interesting fact about IJN carrier doctrine and building programs discussed in mid ’43 is that decisive battle was still the keystone of IJN strategic conception, which was somewhat modified however, air carrier, instead of battleship, was now main naval unit. New tactics was adopted, carriers should operate in lines. The protected air carriers of the 1st line should operate in the front and unprotected carriers of the 2nd line should stay in the rear. When enemy was detected 1st line units should reduce the distance and attack while 2nd line should stay outside of enemy aircraft range. The protection of the 1st line units should be heavy enough to let ships retain their combat value after inevitable attacks of enemy aircraft during the opening phase. The 1st line carriers should also be used as secondary station ships and combat control centers for aircraft launched from the 2nd line carriers (1st line units should have an ability to rearm’n’refuel the number of aircraft twice bigger than organic airgroup… that’s why Taiho carried so much ordnance, hosts were really huge, only Shinano had more). With 1st line carriers operated in effective range of enemy aircraft and 2nd line units operated beyond that range, it became possible to supply new air units during the battle, in the words of Yamaoka Mineo “warrior with impenetrable shield and with two swords”. Interesting tactics, but it had some flaws… and IJN, of course did not have enough resources to build enough 1st line units, cost of single Taiho class units was 105 millions of yen. However with this new doctrine adopted by IJN or without it, Taiho was very good class, in my opinion better than Essex in many aspects.

aha… I now see this thread is about tanks, sorry I was confused by title - Japanese artisanal CVs, thought it’s about carriers… ducking for cover
[:(]



tsimmonds -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/12/2005 2:52:16 AM)

Screw the bloody tanks, or at least keep them in a thread that is so obviously about tanks that I'll know which one to avoid. They're so boring it makes me cry. I know, the Pacific War was all about M4s and PzKwIVHs; just call me a crank.[;)]



tsimmonds -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/12/2005 3:27:35 AM)

quote:

Taiho was very good class, in my opinion better than Essex in many aspects.

Excepting, perhaps, ventilation and fire protection.[;)]

I like your new avatar btw.



byron13 -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/12/2005 3:34:35 AM)

Well, the Taiho was separate and distinct from blah blah Akagi and Kaga blah blah. On the other hand, the Enterprise, Yorktown, and Hornet blah blah Essex Class.

Furthermore:
quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

Incidentally, reading the Green Books doesn't leave me with the impression that the Americans were wildly at a disadvantage in Europe in terms of armour. If the official history is anything to go by, tank losses were about 1:1, and the tank/TD combo (as it became) in fact acquitted itself well, at least on the defensive, which was often, given the German penchant for tactical counter-attack. Artillery was also quite effective in destroying, damaging and/or driving off enemy tanks, it seems. In fact, my overarching impression is of the paucity of German armour/AT assets in the ETO.



Not sure where the 1:1 comes from. Maybe total tank losses. If so, you have to consider the significant losses to the Germans from Tac Air - especially during the Falaise period and throughout the summer and fall. Plus there is the arty, as you mention.

I think the best measure is tanks killed by tanks and anti-tank guns. Allied armor was decimated by both in the hedgerows and around Caen. Same thing punching through the Siegfried line. As mentioned, U.S. tanks were manned by cooks well before the Ardennes offensive due to crew losses (though tanks could be recovered) (I'd be curious whether tanks recovered and placed back in service with a new crew count as a tank loss for the histories). On the other hand, the U.S. 57mm was useless, and the 76mm hard to come by. The TDs acquitted themselves well, but as was shown in the Ardennes, there were not enough of them when a counterattack was more than anything local; commanders were screaming for TDs even though they had Shermans. On an overcast day, put me in a Panther anytime.

Anyway, Irrelevant is right. You guys need to quit hijacking this thread. The U.S. tended to build "classes" of ships more than the Japanese.



tsimmonds -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/12/2005 3:45:40 AM)

That was a very interesting post about tanks, as posts about tanks go. Right after my yawning subsided, I realized that I agreed with it.[;)]



DeepSix -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/12/2005 3:58:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

Another reason American tankers were saddled with the Sherman was US armoured doctrine. According to this, US tanks weren't supposed to fight enemy tanks. Hence there was no need to design and built a tank that could take on the mid/late-war generation of German tanks, or at least there was considerable systemic resistance to this.

In American thinking, the tank served two purposes: Exploitation and infantry support, and the Sherman sufficed in both roles. Engaging enemy armour was the role of the TD's. The armoured division was essensially viewed as the modern cavalry division, it's role to exploit breakthroughs punched by the Infantry. McNair, fx, cited El Alamein as the model operation with regards to the use of armour. This is also the reason the US armoured division was somewhat short on combat power compared with that of the Germans - on paper anyway.


That's almost exactly what I was going to say. The U.S. designed the Sherman as an infantry component, and planned to use TDs (Tank Destroyers) to take on enemy armor. I don't know how often the ground pounders were actually able to implement that plan (probably not too often I would guess), but that's what the plan was.

[Edit: My apologies for helping continue the hijack...]



tsimmonds -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/12/2005 4:06:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeepSix

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

Another reason American tankers were saddled with the Sherman was US armoured doctrine. According to this, US tanks weren't supposed to fight enemy tanks. Hence there was no need to design and built a tank that could take on the mid/late-war generation of German tanks, or at least there was considerable systemic resistance to this.

In American thinking, the tank served two purposes: Exploitation and infantry support, and the Sherman sufficed in both roles. Engaging enemy armour was the role of the TD's. The armoured division was essensially viewed as the modern cavalry division, it's role to exploit breakthroughs punched by the Infantry. McNair, fx, cited El Alamein as the model operation with regards to the use of armour. This is also the reason the US armoured division was somewhat short on combat power compared with that of the Germans - on paper anyway.


That's almost exactly what I was going to say. The U.S. designed the Sherman as an infantry component, and planned to use TDs (Tank Destroyers) to take on enemy armor. I don't know how often the ground pounders were actually able to implement that plan (probably not too often I would guess), but that's what the plan was.

[Edit: My apologies for helping continue the hijack...]

I think I'll head over to the Battles in Normandy forum, maybe they have a thread running there about aircraft carriers....



rtrapasso -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/12/2005 6:01:18 PM)

quote:

I think I'll head over to the Battles in Normandy forum, maybe they have a thread running there about aircraft carriers....


LOL[sm=00000289.gif]



byron13 -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/14/2005 8:50:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

I think I'll head over to the Battles in Normandy forum, maybe they have a thread running there about aircraft carriers....


Hey! This thread was officially hijacked. As an announced hijacker, the hijacker may take the thread wherever he or she wants to.



drstat -> RE: Japanese artisanal CVs (2/14/2005 9:11:51 PM)

While it is true that Japan spent much of their time experimenting with different designs (and, in many cases, skirting the treaty restrictions), there was some method to the madness. Case in point was the "port side" islands on Akagi and Hiryu, as discussed in the old set of "Evolution of Aircraft Carriers" articles by Scot MacDonald in Naval Aviation News:

"...the startling innovation was the introduction of small islands on the port side of the carriers Akagi and Hiryu. The remaining carriers had islands on the starboard (standard) side -- of those that had them at all. Strategists planned to use these carriers in a formation that was unique. The lead carriers in the basic formation were to be the port-sided Hiryu and Akagi, followed by the Soryu and Kaga. This would supposedly allow for a more compact formation with non-conflicting aircraft traffic patterns. This formation was used in the Battle of Midway."



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.96875