OT Navies in WWII

[dragoon500ly]

This has been touched on a bit in two previous posts, but I'll elaborate on it here: Japan's merchant fleet was inadequate and what she had was improperly used.

This came down to four points:
(1) japan entered the war with too few merchant ships (including those operated by the IJN and IJA)
(2) She inadequately protected the ships she did have (rarely sailing them in convoys or with sufficient escort vessels)
(3) Japan didn't use her ships efficiently. For example, a ship operated by the Army might take a cargo from Japan to Java but return with an empty hold, but a navy ship might sail to Java with an empty hold and return with a full load (this also related to the incredible degree of non-cooperation between the IJA and IJN)
(4) Japan didn't have the resources to fully replace it's merchant shipping losses during the war.

As a result, the Japanese never was able to ship as much men, material and oil and they should have and the situation rapidly declined by the end of the war.

Of all of the stupidity with which the Japanese approached WWII with, the use of her merchant fleet had to be the shining example of how not to fight a modern war. One can only wonder if the war would have lasted into 1945 if the USN had started with a operational torpedo

[ShadoWarrior]

There is another best selling author that initially impressed me...then he wrote a triology. The final book really destroyed him for me...one of his major battle scenes was an almost line for line description of an older movie called "Zulu". The scene was much better done in the movie.

That sounds all too familiar. I think I read that book which you aren't mentioning and thought the same thing.

[95th Rifleman]

Of all of the stupidity with which the Japanese approached WWII with, the use of her merchant fleet had to be the shining example of how not to fight a modern war. One can only wonder if the war would have lasted into 1945 if the USN had started with a operational torpedo

It's an interesting what if, once they got decent torpedos the American sub fleet became, arguably, the best of the war. The American subs where able to utilise technological advances that the German U-boat fleet just didn't have access to.

[ShadoWarrior]

One can only wonder if the war would have lasted into 1945 if the USN had started with a operational torpedo

I think it wouldn't have made too much difference in how fast we got to Japan. By the time we got to Okinawa, the USN was running out of Japanese targets, especially merchant ones, to hit. They simply lacked the fuel to use their ships, military or civil.

[95th Rifleman]

I think it wouldn't have made too much difference in how fast we got to Japan. By the time we got to Okinawa, the USN was running out of Japanese targets, especially merchant ones, to hit. They simply lacked the fuel to use their ships, military or civil.

America had a real slow start due to the fact that they couldn't interdict Japanese shipping effectively. This hindered the early battles as Japanese positions could receive reinforcement and supplies.

If America had been able to interdict Japanese shipping at an early point in the way then the first, bloody battles would of been shorter and less costly. Early victories would of made "how fast we got to Japan" a moot point as it doesn't matter how or when we get to japan if the Japanese can't hold onto anything beyond the home islands.

At Guadacanal the japanese landed 6000 troops via the "Tokyo" express, utilising Destroyers and Light Cruisers. It can be argued that if America had the capacity to interdict these ships properly then the campaighn would of been far less costly.

[ShadoWarrior]

Destroyers and light cruisers are particularly poor (and dangerous) targets for subs. And the US didn't have all that many subs early on. But the US could have begun crippling the Japanese merchant fleet sooner, had they had properly working torps. Wouldn't have affected Guadalcanal much, but it would have been felt in other areas and it would have lessened the Allied losses in the war. But shortened the war I don't think so.

[95th Rifleman]

Destroyers and light cruisers are particularly poor (and dangerous) targets for subs. And the US didn't have all that many subs early on. But the US could have begun crippling the Japanese merchant fleet sooner, had they had properly working torps. Wouldn't have affected Guadalcanal much, but it would have been felt in other areas and it would have lessened the Allied losses in the war. But shortened the war I don't think so.

They are only dangerous when the other guy knows how to use them. In a British/American fleet gunning for the destroyers is a good way of commiting suicide.

The Japanese tended to run them in ones and twos, making nice targets for a sub.

[dragoon500ly]

Following Pearl Harbor, the loss of the battle line forced the USN to focus on aircraft carriers as the decisive weapon. Left to fight the surface fight were the heavy and light cruisers. The scale of the surface actions can be judged by this; between 1929 and 1937, 17 heavy cruisers were built, 6 of which were sunk in action.

The Pensacola and Salt Lake City were the oldest of the ships and finished the war with 24 Battle Stars between them. The survived the war, only to be used as target ships for the Bikini nuclear tests and were then used as target ships, finally sinking in 1948. They had thier 8-inch/55 rifles mounted in four turrets, two twin and two triple mounts (with the triple mounts super-imposed over the twin).

The next class were the six cruisers of the Northampton class. Three of the class, the Northampton, Chicago and Houston were sunk in action, the remainder finishing the war and joining the mothballed fleet and finally being scrapped in 1959/60. They pioneered the use of the triple 8-inch mount with two super-imposed forward and one aft, this combination was used by all of the following heavy cruisers.

The Indianapolis class comprised two ships (the other being Portland). Indianapolis was sunk in 1945 (the last major US warship to be sunk). Portland entered mothballs and was scrapped in 1959.

In 1933, the seven ships of the Astoria class started entering service. Of this class, three were sunk; Astoria, Quincy and Vincennes (all in 1942). The remainder of the class were scrapped in 1959/61.

The last of the pre-war heavies, the Wichita was a single class ship, essentially a 8-inch armed version of the Brooklyn class light cruisers, she survived the war, only to meet her end at the hands of the scrapyard in 1959.

The first of the wartime cruisers were the 29 ships of the Baltimore-Oregon City class (they differ in that Baltimore class had two funnels and Oregon City had one funnel with a more compact superstructure, otherwise they were identical). All survived the war, ending up in mothballs and being scrapped in the 1970-1980s. Several (Boston, Canberra, Albany, Chicago, Columbus and Northampton) were converted into the first guided-missile cruisers and served into the 1980s before being mothballed.

The last and arguably the best of the heavy cruisers were the three ships of the Des Moines class. Built with a new design of 8-inch gun that allowed for much more rapid firing, they were just too late for WWII but provided sterling service in Korea and Vietnam. Two were scrapped in the 1990s and one, the Salem, becoming a museum ship.

No discussion of the heavy cruisers can be complete without mentioning the CB or Large Cruisers. The Alaska and Guam entered service just in time for 1945. They called battlecruisers, but the USN always maintained that this was not thier function. Armed with new design 12-inch rifles they never took part in any anti-ship or bombardments, being used as escorts for the fleet carriers. After serving less than three years on active duty, they entered mothballs in 1947 and were scrapped in 1960/61.

The oldest of the light cruisers were the 10 ships of the 1920-era Omaha class. Outdated before the start of the war, they served in the various sideshow theaters and acted as convoy escorts. All were scrapped in 1946-49. They mounted their six-inch main armament in two twin turrets and 4-8 casemate-mounts.

In 1936, the first of 7 Brooklyn-class cruisers entered service. They mounted the heaviest armament of any light cruiser (five triple 6-inch/47 rifles) and were capable of an astonshing rate of fire (3-5 rounds per gun, per minute). All survived the war and entered service with various South American navies. One, the USS Phoenix entered Argentine service and was renamed the General Belgrano and became the first warship to be sunk by a nuclear submarine during the Falkland Islands campaign.

In 1938, the two sisters St. Louis and Helena entered service, a modified Brooklyn design (different placement of their secondary armament). Helena was sunk in 1943. St. Louis survived to enter service with Brazil.

In 1941, the Atlanta class of four started entering service. These were purpose built antiaircraft cruisers that boosted the heavy armamanet of eight twin 5-inch/38 rifles. The Atlanta and the Juneau were sunk in 1942, the San Diego and San Juan were scrapped in 1960-62.

The Atlanta was such a successful design that two repeats were built, the four ships of the Oakland class and the three ships of the Juneau class. Differing only in the removal of two 5-inch turrets (to make room for smaller AA guns). These seven ships provided sterling service throughout the war. They were scrapped in 1961/62.

The Cleveland-Fargo class of 52 ships provided the USN with its CL force for most of the war. Like the Baltimore-Oregon City class, the Clevelands started out with two funnels and the Fargos went down to one funnel. There were no war losses and most entered mothballs, to be scrapped in 1960-63. Several were converted into guided missile cruisers or fleet flagships, being mothballed in the 1960s. The Clevelands were armed with four triple 6-inch/47 mounts.

The final class of light cruisers were the two ships of the Worcester class. Antiaircraft cruisers armed with new mounts (six twin 6-inch rifles). They entered service in 1947 and soon entered mothballs, being scrapped in the 1960s.

Overall, US cruiser design has handicapped by the pre war naval treaties, suffering from thin armor (one nickname for US CAs were "Tin Clads"). Of all the US cruisers only the Omaha and the Atlanta classes mounted torpedoes during the war. US cruisers had excellent guns and superior fire control. Their major weakness was that pre-war, the USN did not practise night fighting to any real degree. A practise that would bear bitter fruit in the 1942 actions off of Guadalcanal.

[Sanjuro]

I have enjoyed a lot of Turtledove's books; however, like many authors he has written one series based on a Confederate victory in the US Civil War which assumes a British intervention in favour of the Confederacy.
To me this is a quite unbelievable scenario; although the Prime Minister, Palmerston, favoured the Confederacy, the likelihood of Britain going to war in favour of a slave-owning nation, thirty years after slavery was abolished in the British Empire has never seemed great.

[ShadoWarrior]

To me this is a quite unbelievable scenario; although the Prime Minister, Palmerston, favoured the Confederacy, the likelihood of Britain going to war in favour of a slave-owning nation, thirty years after slavery was abolished in the British Empire has never seemed great.

Why so unbelievable This is the same empire that had already fought two wars with Americans in the past 90 years.

It's not so much about slavery as other things. The Empire was undisputed master of the seas at the time. it could easily have inflicted some more punishment upon their upstart former colonials, which doesn't seem so far a stretch. It would weaken a rapidly industrializing rival and put Americans "in their proper place".

[dragoon500ly]

Japan fielded some intresting designs for her cruisers during the war.

The two light cruisers of the Tenryu class were Japan's first "modern" designs when they were launched in 1918. Very comparable to the British C-class cruisers they provided good service during the inter war years. By the start of WWII, they were too old for modernization. Tenryu was sunk in 1942. Tatsuta was sunk in 1944. Armed with four single mount 5.5-inch rifles

Starting in 1919, 5 light cruisers of the Kuma class were developed from experience gained from the Tenryu. They started the war with seven single mount 5.5-inch guns and two quad mount 24-inch torpedo tubes. Heavily modernized during the war, two, Oi and Kitakami were armed with four 5.5-inch and ten quad mounted 24-inch torpedo tubes (20 Long Lance torpedoes on the broadside!!!!!). Later modified to carry eight Kaiten suicide submarines. Four of the class were sunk in 1944, the Kitakami survived the war, damaged, and was scrapped in 1947.

The Nagara class of six light cruisers was laid down in 1921. They served as the flagships of destroyer squadrons. They started the war with seven single mount 5.5-inch guns and two quad mount 24-inch torpedo tubes.

As an experiment to mount the heaviest possible armament (two twin and two single mount 5.5-inchers and two twin 24-inch torpedo tubes) the Yubari only displaced 2,890 tons (compared to Nagara's 5,170 tons). Modernized during the war, Yubari was lost in 1944.

The last group of 5,000 ton light cruisers, the three Sendai class ships filled the same role as the Nagaras. They carried the same armament of seven single mount 5.5-inch rifles and two quad 24-inch torpedo tubes. All were lost in 1943/44.

The two Furutake class heavy cruisers took the lessons of the Yubari and applied them to a larger vessel. They mounted three twin 8in rifles and two quad 24-inch torpedo tubes. Both were lost in 1942.

An improved version of the Furutake, the two Aoba class cruisers entered service in 1926. Armed with three twin 8-inch and two quad 24-inch torpedo tubes. They operated with the Furutake class for many years. Kinugasa was lost in 1942 and the Aoba in 1945.

The Myoko class was the first of the 10,000 ton heavy cruisers and set the standard for the following classes. They mounted five twin 8-inch guns and four quad 24-inch torpedo tubes. One were lost in 1944 to US forces, and two were lost in 1945 to the British, the last, Myoko was heavily damaged in 1944 and was scuttled by the British in 1946.

An improved version of the Myokos, the four Takao class ships mounted five twin 8-inch guns and four quad 24-inch torpedo tubes. Made extensive use of light alloys and welding to control their weight. Three were lost in 1944 and the fourth, Takao, was severely damaged in Singapore harbor by the British midget submarines XE-1 and XE-3.

Originally laid down as light cruisers and mounting five triple 6.1-inch guns (in answer to the US Brooklyn class). The four Mogami-class were modified in 1939-1940 into heavy cruisers, mounting five twin 8-inch rifles and four triple 24-inch torpedo tubes. One was sunk in 1942 and the remaining three in 1944.

The two Tone class cruisers were modified Mogamis. Built to carry a larger number of floatplanes and act as fleet scouts. They mounted their four twin 8-inch guns forward of the bridge, they also carried four triple 24-inch torpedo tubes and five floatplanes. The Chikuma was lost in 1944 and the Tone was sunk in Kure harbor and scrapped after the war.

Designed as training ships, the three Katori class light cruisers became destroyer squadron flagships following the start of the war. They mounted two twin 5.5-inch rifles and two twin 24-inch torpedo tubes. One was lost in 1944, another in 1945 and the third, Kashima, survived the war, to be scrapped in 1947.

Designed as replacements for the older Nagaras, the four Agano class cruisers mounted three twin 6.1-inch rifles and two quad-mounted 24-inch torpedo tubes. Two were lost in 1944, a third, Yahagi, was sunk in the Last Sortie with Yamato and the fourth Sakawa, survived the war to be sunk in the Bikini nuclear test.

The last cruiser, the single Oyodo was a modified Agano. Armed with two triple 6.1-inch rifles, she was intended as a flagship for attack groups. In this role she carried six floatplanes. She was sunk in 1945.

Japanese heavy cruisers were powerful designs, built in excess of the pre war naval treaties. Their main armament was laid out in twin turrets, one of which could only fire to port or starboard, restricting their forward firing weapons to four rifles (compared to six on USN cruisers). They also mounted at least two 24-inch torpedo tubes with the deadly Type 93 Long Lance torpedo. In the fighting off Guadalcanal, they were deadly foes.

Their light cruisers were, for the most part, 1919-1920 designs and poorly suited for modern warfare. But they also carried the Long Lance torpedo, giving them the edge in surface actions.

[dragoon500ly]

That sounds all too familiar. I think I read that book which you aren't mentioning and thought the same thing.

And what a terrible ending to an intresting series!

[dragoon500ly]

Destroyers and light cruisers are particularly poor (and dangerous) targets for subs. And the US didn't have all that many subs early on. But the US could have begun crippling the Japanese merchant fleet sooner, had they had properly working torps. Wouldn't have affected Guadalcanal much, but it would have been felt in other areas and it would have lessened the Allied losses in the war. But shortened the war I don't think so.

In the early war years, US submarines often found themselves with dream shots, only to have their torpedoes fail.

Consider the USS Growler at the Battle of Midway, the only US sub to attack a Japanese warship in the battle, she was able to get close enough to put four torpedoes into one of the carriers, hit the carrier with all four shots, only to have all of them fail to explode! To add insult to injury, the air flask from one of the torpedoes floated to the service and was used by several Japanese sailors as a floatation device....its no wonder that US submariners wanted to travel to the east coast and commit barbarous acts upon the persons of certain officers working with Weapons Development!

What finally conviced the lab rats was a submarine that set up and fired twelve torpedoes (he reloaded!!!) at a stationary target, at the recommended range, using the recommended settings and got to watch all twelve torpedoes hit the target and fail to go off.

It doesn't get much worse than that!

[dragoon500ly]

Why so unbelievable This is the same empire that had already fought two wars with Americans in the past 90 years.

It's not so much about slavery as other things. The Empire was undisputed master of the seas at the time. it could easily have inflicted some more punishment upon their upstart former colonials, which doesn't seem so far a stretch. It would weaken a rapidly industrializing rival and put Americans "in their proper place".

And don't forget the San Jacinto affair in which a US warship bordered a British flagged merchant vessel and removed two Confederate diplomats. The US position that the Confederates were not diplomats but rebels was weak at beast. But even more damning was that the merchant was in international waters. It was only the personal intervention of Prince Albert that prevented hot heads from ordering the Royal Navy to teach the Americans a lesson.

So yes, I can see such an incident putting the Royal Navy in the position of smashing the blockade, and considering that most of the USN warships were smaller gunboats, the odds were excellent that the RN would succeed in their mission. With one or more Southern ports open to export cotton and tobacco and import military supplies.......

[ShadoWarrior]

Oi and Kitakami were armed with four 5.5-inch and ten quad mounted 24-inch torpedo tubes (20 Long Lance torpedoes on the broadside!!!!!).

That's one hell of a broadside. Scary. A single ship that can throw an entire squadron's worth of torps in a salvo.