Semi OT - Naval Observations

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by wdolson »

About two months ago I scored a 100+ kit collection of ship kits on Ebay for a killer deal. All except one were Japanese waterline 1/700 scale kits from Fujimi, Aoshima, Hasegawa, and Tamiya. I already had most of the carriers and battleships, so there were some duplicates. I've been doing a bit of research to fill in my knowledge blanks.

In my internet searches I came across a table that showed what the two navies have on Dec 6, 1941, what they built during the war, and what they had in August 1945. I have since lost track of the page (should have bookmarked it!), but I recreated it in a spreadsheet, or at least most of it. It really shows how dramatically the US out-built the Japanese.

At the start of the war the two navies were pretty much at parity in cruisers. The US had 18 CAs and 19 CLs, and the IJN had 18 CAs and 20 CLs. Because they fudged on the treaty limits, IJN CAs were heavier built than US CAs at war's start, which was an advantage in early surface conflict. Plus the US didn't really learn to respect IJN torpedo tactics until they had a few scraps.

In CLs the US had an advantage toe to toe with IJN CLs. IJN CLs were built for a different mission than US CLs and were much lighter. Most US CLs were essentially CAs with 6 inch or 5 inch armament. The smallest US CLs, the Atlantas were still bigger than the largest IJN CLs.

Of most ship types, the US more than doubled their pre-war strength. CVs went from 6 to 20, CVLs went from 0 to 8, CVEs went from 1 to 75. At war's end 7 more Essexes, 3 Midways, 2 CVLs, and 10 more CVEs were all finishing construction or were in pre-commission shake down cruises. BB strength wasn't doubled though 2 Iowas were not completed. While CL strength went from 19 to 48, the US only commissioned 11 CAs during the war. That is a bit of a mystery to me considering the CA losses in 1942.

I discussed this with a friend who knows more about naval stuff than I do, and he thought it was just due to a shift in doctrine, but the US had 10 CAs under construction or doing shake down cruises when the war ended. If the doctrine had changed, why complete 10 CAs so late?

Japanese war time construction was rather paltry by comparison. A lot of ships that qualified as war built were laid down before the war like the Yamatos. The IJN did a lot of conversions to carriers, 15 in all, but the only capital ship construction was the Taiho and the 6 Unryu class, of which 3 were never completed and I don't believe two ever left home waters. In DDs, CLs, and CAs, the IJN didn't even complete as many ships as the US did CLs. Only 18 DDs and 5 CLs with no CAs. One of the CLs was completed so late she never really saw service.

On VJ Day the IJN had fewer DDs than the US had CLs. And most surviving Japanese ships were in bad shape. The Nagato was used for the Bikini tests and the repair crews were only able to get 10 knots out of her on the way to the test site and the ship broke down part way there and had to be towed. The two surviving CAs were wrecks that were largely scrapped in place after the war. Only a few of the surviving IJN warships were mobile under their own power. A sad end to a navy that had once challenged the USN on equal terms.

From a modeler's perspective, I think the IJN is a more interesting subject. There is more variety among ships of even the same class. US ships, especially war built tended to be mass constructed and ended up being very similar in layout from one to another. Though US camo patterns are far more interesting and varied. The IJN mostly stuck to a fairly drab paint scheme.

Now I'm trying to understand why nobody has ever made a 1/700 scale Yura, Noshiro, or Sakawa. OK, the Sakawa didn't do much, but the Noshiro and Yura were in the thick of things until their loss. With this collection, I now have every CL, CA, BB, CV, CVL, and almost all CVEs from the IJN except those three CLs. I have a scattering of DDs now too, but I think only a wealthy masochist would want to acquire and build 182 DDs.

Oh and another tid bit. Both sides were looking for the perfect naval tactic in a surface fight for many years. The US realized naval gunnery was inaccurate during the Spanish American War and worked to improve it. The Japanese similarly realized naval gunnery could be better during the war with Russia in 1904. The Japanese built a doctrine around torpedoes and first rate optics in their rangefinders. They did make probably the best torpedoes of the era. However, this analysis shows the Long Lance did not really live up to its reputation. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.htm

Ultimately the "killer app" that trumped everything else was radar guided gunfire. When the US surface ships started using it, the IJN couldn't compete. Surgio Strait was sort of a "set up" battle in which the Japanese sailed into a very well laid trap, but the radar guided gunfire didn't even give the IJN a chance. Olendorf pounded the IJN from max range with the old BBs.

One wonders what would have happened if Halsey had read the tea leave correctly and had his fast BBs at the exit of the San Bernardino strait instead of chasing carriers to the north. It may have been a repeat of the Surgio Strait battle from the night before. Ultimately air power was the big trump card by 1944. Leyte Gulf was the last gasp of the dreadnaughts. It's telling that the US fast BBs only had two opportunities to do the job they were designed for and in one of those circumstances the BBs were out of position when the big battle came. Ultimately the Iowa class never fired their guns in anger against another ship.

Not really any point, just spitting out some thoughts bouncing around in my head lately.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
jmalter
Posts: 1673
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:41 pm

RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by jmalter »

hi Bill, I enjoyed reading your thought-collection & wish you joy of your newly-acquired model kits!

my reply (in the spirit of random thoughts):

USN CAs: I don't know their keel dates, but perhaps the armor steel they needed was prioritized to BB/BC construction?

Long Lance: Nice to have, but dangerous to own. They were a truly fearsome weapon, but if an IJ ship took a hit on a loaded torpedo mount, or in the reload store, sympathetic detonation of the LL warheads & oxy flasks could cause massive damage.

IJN/USN ship/sailor quality: by all accounts, the IJN was an elite offensive-minded force w/ some beautiful ship-designs & an 8-days-a-week work ethic. but the avg. IJN CL was closer to a British 'destroyer-sqn leader', not anything that the USN would consider to be a 'true' CL. Meanwhile the USN kept churning out high-quality ships of their own, staffed w/ 90-day-wonder reservist officers & recently-trained newb ratings. Max Hastings' book 'Retribution' pays frequent tribute to these USN sailors.

Surigao Strait: I always get a smile here - 5 of the 6 oldBBs in Oldendorf's battle-line were refloated/repaired/upgraded veterans of the 12/7/41 attack on Pearl Harbor.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by John 3rd »

Bill: Thought you would like to know that we (the whole family) are getting ready to start our third ship and we've decided on your CS Chitose kit. Thanks again for the chance to buy a few of the extras/duplicates!

Like your thinking above. That number of 18 Japanese DDs built during the war seems REALLY low.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by wdolson »

I may be off on my numbers. The USN numbers were easy to find. They were in the appendix in a book I have, but the IJN data was cobbled together from various sources. In any case, the IJN didn't manage to get many warships in the water after the war started.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by John 3rd »

Dull's book puts Japanese construction during the war as:

2 BB
The CVs listed above
0 CA
6 CL
32 DD (defined as 1st Class DDs not the smaller ones)
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by John 3rd »

Ittty bittty numbers compared to America's!
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Bill: Thought you would like to know that we (the whole family) are getting ready to start our third ship and we've decided on your CS Chitose kit. Thanks again for the chance to buy a few of the extras/duplicates!

Like your thinking above. That number of 18 Japanese DDs built during the war seems REALLY low.

Bill -

If you're selling any ships (IJN or otherwise) that were at the naval battles of Guadalcanal, I would definitely be interested. I may be interested in any others you would be selling, if any.


Also, thanks for that post. Lots of little tidbits I didn't know, and thanks for counting up the numbers and putting them in one place to compare. It's always been a bit of a mystery to me why the Japanese didn't build any ships during the war. IJA dominance over affairs (they wanted the war to begin with while the IJN didn't), or simply poor planning?
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Dull's book puts Japanese construction during the war as:

2 BB
The CVs listed above
0 CA
6 CL
32 DD (defined as 1st Class DDs not the smaller ones)

I wonder how they came up with 6 CLs? The only ones I know of are the 4 Aganos and the Oyodo. The 5th Agano was converted to a CVL, but never finished. It would have been a tiny CVL. The Aganos were bigger than the 5500 ton CLs, but they were still much smaller than the Clevelands the Independence class were built on.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
LargeSlowTarget
Posts: 4800
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France

RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by LargeSlowTarget »

ORIGINAL: wdolson
Ultimately the Iowa class never fired their guns in anger against another ship.

Iowa sank training cruiser Katori during Operation Hailstone (carrier strike on Truk). New Jersey sank a trawler and helped to sink DD Maikaze in the same action.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by wdolson »


ORIGINAL: wdolson
Ultimately the Iowa class never fired their guns in anger against another ship.
ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
Iowa sank training cruiser Katori during Operation Hailstone (carrier strike on Truk). New Jersey sank a trawler and helped to sink DD Maikaze in the same action.

Didn't know that. Not that it was much of a fight. sort of like using a sledge hammer to break eggs.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by Q-Ball »

The other problem for Japan, which the book KAIGUN goes into detail, was that Japan often wasted what limited ship building resources she had, compounding an already bad situation.

Among other items, going from memory:

OYODO: Flawed concept
CS UNITS: Ditto; more useful in WITP than IRL
SUBS: Criminal; the IJN sub doctrine and mission list was a mish-mash that produced a different type for seemingly every mission, instead of settling on one type. The result was inefficient building program that expended alot of resources for minimal results
DDs: IJN DDs were excellent, but were contracted out to several different yards for political reasons, diluting any benefit from a standard type. Meanwhile, in the US, 2 yards cranked out most of the Fletchers, one after another, in assembly-line fashion, from modular designs
MINELAYING CRUISERS: Need I say more?

Not to menion the Yamatos, but they were at least uber-cool

I can go on, but in addition to being completely outproduced, Japan was often wasting what little resources she had

Can you name a single USN shipbuilding program that was as wasteful as these here? Maybe the Alaskas, but that's all I can think of, and they were very useful AA platforms anyway

User avatar
oldman45
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 4:15 am
Location: Jacksonville Fl

RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by oldman45 »

Bill if you do have an extra BB kit, I am always on the look out for them.

You do make good points, where I always looked at the disparity between axis and allies, the number of planes built by the US. It is staggering.
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

I read somewhere that the US stopped building CA because their 6' CLs were ballistically equivalent with better rate of fire

I might be wrong, but the USN certainly did not miss CAs for finishing the war
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

The other problem for Japan, which the book KAIGUN goes into detail, was that Japan often wasted what limited ship building resources she had, compounding an already bad situation.

Among other items, going from memory:

OYODO: Flawed concept
CS UNITS: Ditto; more useful in WITP than IRL
SUBS: Criminal; the IJN sub doctrine and mission list was a mish-mash that produced a different type for seemingly every mission, instead of settling on one type. The result was inefficient building program that expended alot of resources for minimal results
DDs: IJN DDs were excellent, but were contracted out to several different yards for political reasons, diluting any benefit from a standard type. Meanwhile, in the US, 2 yards cranked out most of the Fletchers, one after another, in assembly-line fashion, from modular designs
MINELAYING CRUISERS: Need I say more?

Not to menion the Yamatos, but they were at least uber-cool

I can go on, but in addition to being completely outproduced, Japan was often wasting what little resources she had

Can you name a single USN shipbuilding program that was as wasteful as these here? Maybe the Alaskas, but that's all I can think of, and they were very useful AA platforms anyway


The concept of using CLs as Destroyer leaders was kind of wasteful too. The US solution was to build a class of larger DDs, though by the time the Fletchers came along all were bigger than the specifically built DD squadron leaders and the concept of a separate class was dropped.

US DDs never quite reached the tonnage of Japanese CLs, but the Gearings came close to the smaller Japanese CLs and they probably packed a better punch than the IJN CLs.

The Japanese also wasted a lot of resources converting surface ships into sips that could carry float planes. The Ise and Hyuga were rebuilt to handle a plane that never reached production.

Japanese production planning was pulled in too many different directions by too many different players. The US was generally more focused, though there were some oddities like the Ranger and the short ranged subs built in the 30.

I thought the US had a multitude of yards building Fletchers, but I may be misremembering what I read. I do recall reading that when the government spread out construction for political reasons, many of the new yards didn't have the staff to draw up their own plans, so all of the smaller yards used the same design house which resulted in a standard design built across many shipyards. The US was also innovative in modular ship design. That was a new concept in the 1940s.

The level of standardization among US aircraft was also revolutionary. I recall reading a passage of a British mechanic who was introduced to an American built plane for the first time. He was used to using files and other tools to make spare part fit. The American factory rep pointed out that none of that was necessary, the American spare parts were exactly the same size as the originals, which made replacing parts about three times faster.

I've also read about the difference between Rolls Royce and Packard built Merlins. The RR built Merlins were hand made and everything was hand fitted, so the engines ran very smooth. The Packard Merlins were mass produced and didn't fit as well, so they ran rougher. But Packard Merlins were easier to repair.

Back to ships, the rate at which the US could produce ships was staggering. Henry Kaiser got contracts to build merchant ships and CVEs in the Bay Area and later in Vancouver, WA. He cranked out the ships faster than the war planning board thought they could be built. The shipyard in Vancouver, WA was built from the ground up and was cranking out ships in an amazingly short amount of time.

The Vancouver shipyard is completely gone now. On the site are condos and some restaurants. Hard to believe that more deck capacity was built on that site than the entire IJN built in its entire history. CVEs 55-104 were built here.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by John 3rd »

Kaigun argues that standardization was POSSIBLE for Japan but even that would only have added a small amount of increased production compared to what the US did. RA tries to take what Kaigun argues and APPLY it.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
capthook
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:55 pm

RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by capthook »

A very interesting post wdolson.

I only have two models under my belt: My father's ship, a little DE, and my father-in-law's plane, a PB4Y. I envy your collection.
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by Barb »

Actually Fletchers were built in 11 diferent shipyards:
Fletchers
Image
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by dr.hal »

Unless you're the egg, then it was one H#*l of a fight!
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by dr.hal »

The BCs. Alaska and Guam.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Semi OT - Naval Observations

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: wdolson
Ultimately the "killer app" that trumped everything else was radar guided gunfire. When the US surface ships started using it, the IJN couldn't compete. Surgio Strait was sort of a "set up" battle in which the Japanese sailed into a very well laid trap, but the radar guided gunfire didn't even give the IJN a chance. Olendorf pounded the IJN from max range with the old BBs.

I know the big guns of Oldendorf's TF got a lot of praise for avenging Pearl Harbor and all, but I don't believe this was the big killer in Surigao. True, the battlelines brutalized a damaged Yamashiro with their accurate naval gunnery. But the real killers were functioning American torpedoes deployed by well-trained destroyer crews.

Desron 56's (and 24) accounted for Fuso blowing up and sinking immediately, Yamashiro lurching out of line with torpedo damage and 2 (or 3?) Japanese DDs sunk. It was probably the greatest torpedo sortie since Savo.

In terms of outsized impact on the battle, there is no comparison. 6 BBs hammering an already crippled Yamashiro with varying success (3 of the BBs fared poorly with their older radar gun control) versus a handful of DDs getting out their long knives.

So, the killer app for the USN? Functional torpedoes! Guns schmuns!
Image
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”