Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Mountain InfantryPandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Japanese 40MM?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Japanese 40MM? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Japanese 40MM? - 3/11/2013 7:12:42 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2515
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sandman455
For one, they held very different tactical doctrines with regard to TF ship deployment. The IJN favored maneuverability over close in AA support. Probably because they feared torpedoes above all else. Pretty logical when you consider their torps worked rather well. Yet this tactical doctrine was at the detriment to DB attacks where concentrating heavy AA around the high value unit was the best way of disrupting the DB's performance. Given the poor quality of USN torpedoes it is clear that the IJN would have been better off adopting the USN CVTF deployment doctrine.


A very belated answer, I know, but I have to say this is incorrect. Japanese tried to use tight TF orders for AA protection early in the war, abandoned them, as it seems, after the Battle of Coral Sea, because AA guns on their escorting ships were too few in numbers to make much of a differense, and returned to them in 1944.

Also, tight TF orders were primarily useful against low-level attacks, considering practical realities of Japanese anti-aircraft armament throughout 1942 (no real DP guns on destroyers, existing DP guns lacking ballistics to effectively engage divebombers), so a loose formation was the most effective countermeasure to divebombers Japanese had until late 1944.



_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to sandman455)
Post #: 61
RE: Japanese 40MM? - 3/11/2013 7:20:54 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2515
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I think you just agreed with me, even though your opening says you do not. Thanks.

I certainly don't agree with you that Japanese lacked technology to build auto-served weapons, because they did. I also don't agree with some of your other assessments (for example, belt feed systems were terrible for naval guns, due to reliability problems, so Japanese just applied common sense in not developing them once they have abandoned the Vickers gun).

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 62
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Japanese 40MM? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.063