Yamato & Mushasi

[Antoni Chmielowski]

I am playing UV : Decision in the South Pacific scenario against kilroy :bow: and I am playing as the Japanese.:)

Just got these two super battleships released to me and thought lets use them.:chin:

So I created a task force and sent them on their way - then realised they went through fuel quicker than an alcoholic in a brewery.

I now think the Americans did the Japanese by sinking them as it relieved the IJN of an enormous fuel burden.

Personally I would have scrapped them and built carriers like the USA did with the Essex Class.

[Iwo Jim]

Personally I would have scrapped them and built carriers like the USA did with the Essex Class.
[/quote]

Hi Antoni,

I believe the Japanese did just that with the 3rd ship in class called the Shinano it was slated to be a Battleship as well but seeing the need for carriers they built it as a carrier instead, I think it was their largest somewhere I have a book that tells the story of the U.S. sub that stalked and sunk it but I can't remeber the name of it

[Mike Abberton]

I believe it was Archerfish that sank Shinano on a fitting out cruise. Supposedly the watertight bulkheads were not finished and therefore the ship sank quite easily for a Yamato hull.

I have seen several reports that Shinano had a small hanger size for her displacement and was intended to be used more to replenish other carriers or to stage land based airplanes for long range flight. Something like that.

[cavalry corps]

Correct she was going to be a support carrier BUT could have been a fleet carrier with 110 planes or similar .
Remember its good pilots Japan needs and without those the carriers mean little . Yam and Mush are great ships and also good flak machines later to go with your slower CV TF .
My experience in WITP

[jonnymacbrown]

"Yam and Mush are great ships and also good flak machines later to go with your slower CV TF."

Yes, that's what BBs are good for (and bombardment). However, I'm wondering, operating out of Truck in 1942, fuel shouldn't be a factor, or???
Remember my dear Antoni, that the object of fleet operations is to support operations on land. If you sent a Yamato task force out looking for trouble, it should have been in conjunction with some land operation, then the fuel would have been used purposefully. von ege :smoke:

[HirooOnoda]

They should have scrapped them, yes, but CVs no.

The IJN needed DDs and DEs more than CVs. Had they been able to put a dent in the US Sub fleet with DD/DE hunter killer groups like the British did, they would have lasted longer and put up a better fight.

But the BB club in the IJN held the day, much to the dismay of the Japanese armed forces.

Hiroo

PS We shouldn't call them "Japs" as it is very offensive, don't you think?

[Mike Abberton]

The IJN needed DDs and DEs more than CVs. Had they been able to put a dent in the US Sub fleet with DD/DE hunter killer groups like the British did, they would have lasted longer and put up a better fight.

PS We shouldn't call them "Japs" as it is very offensive, don't you think?

Of course they would have needed better ASW doctrine to go along with it. The IJN never really devoted much thought to ASW. Hell, they didn't even realize that their depth charges couldn't be set as deep as the US subs could dive, until a US Congressman (or Senator) let it slip out. Before that, once a US sub got deep enough, he could just ride out the depth charge attacks in safety until the IJN DDs gave up.

And yes, it is a derogatory term that should probably be avoided. It's generally considered a no-no on the Matrix boards, I think.

[HirooOnoda]

Agreed on the need for a more sophisticated doctrine, but if they were going to scrap those two ships for all those DD's one would assume they were doing so b/c they would realize the degree of the threat.

[jonnymacbrown]

Re: IJN destroyers.

I've done some research on this topic, and it seems to me that the Japanese couldn't have done any better than they did do, even with a shift in priorities. For example, in the Guadalcanal Campaign, from August 6 until November 15, 1942, the Americans lost 15 destroyers to Japan’s 11. However, at the same time, the USN commissioned 62 destroyers to Japan’s 7! It seems that they just didn't have the shipyards to do the job. It wasn't a question of resources, i.e. build 15 destroyers instead of one carrier, but rather that the shipbuilding facilities just weren't there. When the Guadalcanal campaign was over at the end of 1943, the IJN lost 40 destroyers, which was 2/5 of the prewar inventory. Construction could not make up for these losses, as in the whole of 1943 the Japanese launched only 15 new destroyers! Finally, most of the Japanese losses in destroyers came from the decision to use these ships for fast transport. von ege

[Mike Abberton]

They could certainly never match the US production potential, but they could have made more DDs than they did. From what I have read, there were DD-sized construction slips lying dormant in 1942-3. And patrol craft/DE sized ships could probably have been constructed at merchant shipyards with a little effort.

I think the IJN just could not get over the concept of using "warriors" to guard "merchants", so they only built enough DDs to support the battle line. The freighters and tankers were left to their own for the most part until it was way too late.