Scraps of Paper: The Disarmament Treaties Between the World Wars

[MakeeLearn]

Darn, I want to talk about the modern day politics of Croatia...

[MakeeLearn]

From the !920s treaties, the great advantage to Japan, and disadvantage to US, was that the US agreed not to further fortify any holdings west of Hawaii.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

Darn, I want to talk about the modern day politics of Croatia...

warspite1

Beeeewbs

[LargeSlowTarget]

Well, I hope it will not spoil your viewing pleasure when I point out that well-shaped lady is not the Croatian president Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic, but Nicole "Coco" Austin, the wife of Ice-T.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Kolinda looks charming, but my vote goes to Coco

[MakeeLearn]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Well, I hope it will not spoil your viewing pleasure when I point out that well-shaped lady is not the Croatian president Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic, but Nicole "Coco" Austin, the wife of Ice-T.

SHHHHH....The truth should not get in the way of Boobs.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Well, I hope it will not spoil your viewing pleasure when I point out that well-shaped lady is not the Croatian president Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic, but Nicole "Coco" Austin, the wife of Ice-T.

warspite1

Seriously? Oh man... Just as I was starting to really dig the Croatian political scene. Oh well, back to following the Russian political milieu instead.

[Lecivius]

I luv how the answer around here is always 'Boobs'. Keeps the heated rhetoric to a minimum [:D]

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I luv how the answer around here is always 'Boobs'. Keeps the heated rhetoric to a minimum [:D]

+1. Cool boobs stand out better ...

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

From the !920s treaties, the great advantage to Japan, and disadvantage to US, was that the US agreed not to further fortify any holdings west of Hawaii.

I would actually take the inverse of this.

The USA gained so much due to Washington--London Treaties. In signing them, they scrapped a Fleet that no one seriously wanted to build, allowed for the advent of American CVs and all the revolutionary thinking they would provoke, and--with the non-Fortification Clause--made the Americans come up with some sort of method for driving all the way across the Pacific (think Marine Corps, Fleet Train, and War Plan Orange).

Sure, the Japanese benefited significantly as well but still remained mired in the Decisive Battle Strategy in a Battleship Centric mentality. Though the USN was not nearly as far along as imagined in this area (read The Fast Carriers) we were far more mentally prepared for the massive change of airpower then were the Japanese.

Despite the well documented Japanese abuses of Treaties, the Treaties stopped a potential Naval Arms Race (similar to what led into the Great War), allowed for exploration of new technologies (CVs/SS/etc...), and set-up the recipe for the eventual American victory. I'd say they worked quite well for the US of A.

[MakeeLearn]

with the non-Fortification Clause--made the Americans come up with some sort of method for driving all the way across the Pacific (think Marine Corps, Fleet Train, and War Plan Orange).

The ways and means to drive across the Pacific would have been needed without or with a build up of the western US held areas. As with those who wanted to fortify Manila and the Bays, the increase in fortifications was to allow for a hold out until relieving forces could arrive something that was expected to take months. The treaty ran out in '38 and opposition still prevented any fortifying that was urgently being called for; especially Guam and the Philippines

"Left virtually undefended. The failure to fortify Guam, like the refusal to strengthen the forces in the Philippines, reveals strikingly the dilemma of America's position in the Pacific and Far East. National policy dictated the defense of an insular position which, in the opinion of the military planners, could not be defended with existing forces. The ORANGE plan of 1938, with the compromise between an offensive and defensive strategy, was merely a reflection of this contradiction between American interests and commitments in the Pacific. The nation would not abandon the Philippines but neither would it grant the Army and Navy funds to ensure their defense."

Despite the well documented Japanese abuses of Treaties, the Treaties stopped a potential Naval Arms Race (similar to what led into the Great War), allowed for exploration of new technologies (CVs/SS/etc...), and set-up the recipe for the eventual American victory. I'd say they worked quite well for the US of A.

I'am not understanding that, "allowed for exploration of new technologies (CVs/SS/etc...)" is that not a "soft" arms race, which was going on by all sides regardless of the treaty, and WW2 still happened. A treaty can be just a passive aggressive way of waging war. It's as if the treaty gave some US politicians a reason not to send money on projects they were against and to remain isolationist.

I'd say they worked quite well for the US of A.

Having Guam and the Philippines in the position to resist a Japanese take over, being a barrier instead of a bump may have insured a shorter war in favor of the Allies.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: spence

"Shattered Sword" points out that both Mogami and Mikuma got hit by a bomb midships that started a fire in the vicinity of the torpedo mounts: the DCA on Mogami jettisioned his torpedoes, the DCA on Mikuma didn't. The original hit didn't inflict severe damage to the ship. But which one sank?

spence

lol. totally right. Those poor dumb Japanese! you tell em Spence!

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: spence

The original hit didn't inflict severe damage to the ship. But which one sank?

I suspect the two bombs that started the fire in the vicinity of the torpedo tubes did actually do quite a bit of other damage and I'm not sure they
should be viewed in isolation from the other three bomb hits that occurred around the same time.

Shattered Sword, pages 370-371:-

"As Mikuma came out of her starboard turn, the first hit was delivered against the roof of the No. 3 main turret, directly in front of the bridge. The
explosion shattered the turret, blowing a sheet of lethal fragments across the front of the ship’s superstructure. Several officers, including the
commander of the starboard AA guns, were killed outright. Worse, this initial hit coincided precisely with Captain Sakiyama’s sticking his head out
a manhole cover on the top of the bridge. Severely wounded, he lost consciousness immediately and slumped backward into the bridge. Commander
Takashima Hideo, Mikumas executive officer, leapt to take charge. But two more bombs slammed home, blasting through the decks to shatter the
starboard forward engine spaces. Great blasts of smoke and fire boiled up, and Mikuma was staggered. Bombs were still coming down, crashing into
the sea and drenching the ship with towering columns of water.

Takashima tried to increase speed and evade, but his efforts were cut short abruptly. Even before the last of Short’s SBDs had dropped, two
more bombs blasted the aircraft deck and tore down into the port aft engine room, exploding with devastating force. Immediately, a huge
fire broke out in the vicinity of the torpedo tubes. Mikuma quickly slobbered to a halt. She had been crushed by at least five direct hits
and two close near misses (and possibly more)."

Overall, the Mikuma had likely already taken severe damage without the torpedoes that exploded an hour later being factored in. I thought
this was worth mentioning as from the time she "slobbered to a halt" from the devastating bomb damage, she would have only two hours to get
her fires under control (and not all were from the torpedo room fire), restart her two remaining engines (if they turned out to be fully operable)
and then get underway again with sufficient speed and manueverability to survive the final day's strike by 23 SBDs, most armed with 1000lb
bombs and with orders to concentrate on what the USN thought was a damaged battleship (Mikuma).

According to the reports from that final strike, it was only the devastated visual condition (post torps going off) of Mikuma that led many of the
SBDs to instead switch their attacks to the Mogami and the two accompanying destroyers.

So perhaps the answer to your question of which one sank may always have been Mikuma, regardless of what her DCO did or did not do with her
torpedoes.[:)]

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: Zorch
Elsewhere on this site I recommended 'The Washington Conference, 1921-22: Naval Rivalry, East Asian Stability and the Road to Pearl Harbor (Diplomacy & Statecraft)'.

+1

[BBfanboy]

The famous picture of Mikuma dead in the water shows torpedoes hanging out of their tubes as though someone did try to jettison them. I could imagine the compressed air tanks were damaged resulting in partial launch.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

I suspect the two bombs that started the fire in the vicinity of the torpedo tubes did actually do quite a bit of other damage and I'm not sure they
should be viewed in isolation from the other three bomb hits that occurred around the same time.

Hi,

Yes they did. In fact I'd say all the hits did significant damage. The first hit wiped out Turret 3 and also took out the ship's CO. #2 and #3 took out the Starboard Fwd Engine room and caused major fires. 4 and 5 brought the ship to a halt and wrecked the Port-Aft Engine room and causing more fires. Certainly, i would not classify the overall damage level as "not severe" I'm not using SS as the primary reference but even Parshalls' description is fairly graphic.

The decision to not jettison torpedoes prior to the air attack can be seen as a mistake in hindsight, but it was understandable at the time. When a direct threat was posed, jettisoning was as standard as flooding a threatened shell magazine and there were including Mogami a half dozen instances where this was done when faced with a threat of increased damage. The interesting question, which you have alluded too, would indeed be: would the absence of a warhead explosion have made a difference in Mikuma's survival. (or Mogami's) A 2nd attack was on it's way and the ship was dead in the water. Alot of what ifs.

[Admiral DadMan]

I think this book is required reading for anyone writing an alt-history scenario. Fascinating stuff.

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

From the !920s treaties, the great advantage to Japan, and disadvantage to US, was that the US agreed not to further fortify any holdings west of Hawaii.

I would actually take the inverse of this.

The USA gained so much due to Washington--London Treaties. In signing them, they scrapped a Fleet that no one seriously wanted to build, allowed for the advent of American CVs and all the revolutionary thinking they would provoke, and--with the non-Fortification Clause--made the Americans come up with some sort of method for driving all the way across the Pacific (think Marine Corps, Fleet Train, and War Plan Orange).

Sure, the Japanese benefited significantly as well but still remained mired in the Decisive Battle Strategy in a Battleship Centric mentality. Though the USN was not nearly as far along as imagined in this area (read The Fast Carriers) we were far more mentally prepared for the massive change of airpower then were the Japanese.

Despite the well documented Japanese abuses of Treaties, the Treaties stopped a potential Naval Arms Race (similar to what led into the Great War), allowed for exploration of new technologies (CVs/SS/etc...), and set-up the recipe for the eventual American victory. I'd say they worked quite well for the US of A.

John,

Here's a non-treaty 1921 39,000 ton carrier for you:

[DOCUP]

What book are you talking about Admiral? Some interesting carrier designs in the that spring styles. TTs on a carrier that's interesting. 9 8 in guns on one of the 1923 studies.

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

What book are you talking about Admiral? Some interesting carrier designs in the that spring styles. TTs on a carrier that's interesting. 9 8 in guns on one of the 1923 studies.

Sorry, I was referring to the book "Scraps of Paper" in my original post.

The plans above I got from here: UNITED STATES NAVY DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR / BUREAU OF SHIPS "SPRING STYLES," 1911-1925 AND 1939-1944.