|
Bismark could also have used filling up it's fuel tanks. And hey, Tripitz lasted most of the war.
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:10 |
|
|
A White Guy posted:Overweight? Not really, the Bismarck was actually a bit smaller than the Iowa-class battleships that the US put in the water. Overweight is a function of design, not tonnage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Overweight? Not really, the Bismarck was actually a bit smaller than the Iowa-class battleships that the US put in the water. Its one of those interesting what ifs - what if the materials and time spent on the German battleships/pocket battleships had been spent on more subs - would it have made a difference at the start of the war?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Its one of those interesting what ifs - what if the materials and time spent on the German battleships/pocket battleships had been spent on more subs - would it have made a difference at the start of the war? Well, bear in mind that if Germany does that, the UK probably in response builds less capital ships and more destroyers and seaplanes. It's not like they didn't know subs were a threat from World War I.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Its one of those interesting what ifs - what if the materials and time spent on the German battleships/pocket battleships had been spent on more subs - would it have made a difference at the start of the war? The Nazi leadership in general and Hitler in particular were generally the Allies' greatest assets against Nazi Germany. "We shouldn't assassinate Hilter, someone competent might take charge" wasn't just a flippant comment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Its one of those interesting what ifs - what if the materials and time spent on the German battleships/pocket battleships had been spent on more subs - would it have made a difference at the start of the war? If they'd spent it all on modern landing craft, things could have been more interesting. Or they'd just have all died as well. Good little BBC thing about the Coastal Forces and their suicide boats published today. Focuses a bit more on the WW1 coastal motor boats rather than the WW2 MLs and MTBs. RN command weren't quite doing the human torpedo thing but they were not loving around. quote:Restrictions on space and weight meant torpedoes had to be launched tail first from the back of the boat, which itself then had to swerve out of the way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
   60kg bombs are not going to get us anywhere fast!  Torpedoes will though.  Operations continue to clean up these small bases.   The Indians make another week attack here.   Our forces for the Suva assault are concentrating now, but planning it still in the 20-30's, so we need a couple more week minimum to get that up higher. I'm not to worried as the Butai's are doing a nice raiding job, and I'm sure we can draw out some more allied carrier.  We see a few more ships trickle in to the kill board.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
The American Legion which sunk today was actually a very interesting ship in real life. Originally designed as a World War I troop transport, the war ended before she was laid down in early 1919 and so she was initially converted for civilian service, a role she filled until November 1939 when she was transferred back to the War Department for use as a troop transport. After spending a few months ferrying troops between the Eastern Seaboard, Puerto Rico, and the Panama Canal Zone, the American Legion was given a special mission in August 1940. She made a round trip to Petsamo, northern Finland, where she embarked 897 refugees from various European countries including Crown Princess Märtha of Norway and her three children. As a secret part of her mission, the American Legion also took onboard a Bofors 40mm antiaircraft gun which had been transported the entire length of Sweden by truck to reach Petsamo. The American Legion left Petsamo on 16 August 1940 and was the last neutral ship allowed out of the port. The secretly transported Bofors gun would be analyzed, reverse-engineered, and eventually adopted by the United States Navy (domestically produced, of course) for use on its own ships from late 1942 onward. The American Legion continued her role as a troop transport afterwards, ferrying troops, planes, and supplies to the Panama Canal Zone and Reykjavik, before being commissioned as a Navy ship in August 1941, after which time she continued to play a role in the Battle of the Atlantic. She was transferred to the Pacific Theatre in April 1942. The American Legion took part in the invasion of Guadalcanal, evacuated survivors after the Battle of Savo Island, spent a year making supply runs to various South Pacific islands, and finally took part in the invasion of Bougainville. She returned to the mainland US at the end of 1943 and became an amphibious training ship at Coronado, California until the end of the war. The American Legion earned two battle stars for her service, was decommissioned in March 1946, and was sold for scrap in February 1948.  USAT American Legion entering San Juan Bay, 1940
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
goatface posted:If they'd spent it all on modern landing craft, things could have been more interesting. Or they'd just have all died as well. If they'd tried invading Britain half would've gotten sunk and the troops massacred, bottled up and eventually surrendering. How about an amphibious surprise attack on St Petersburg though?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 11:21
|
|
|
I was thinking more in their general survival and expedience of the Norwegian campaign. Though that probably would have been helped more by some additional heavy and light cruisers to pad out the Kriegsmarine and let them soak the losses they took.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:How about an amphibious surprise attack on St Petersburg though? It was mined to hell and there were two battleships trained at the possible route of German advance on the city. I don't think so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It was mined to hell and there were two battleships trained at the possible route of German advance on the city. I don't think so. Dieppe really showed that one of the major points for amphibious assaults is "Do Not Attack Fortified Ports Head On"
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:If they'd tried invading Britain half would've gotten sunk and the troops massacred, bottled up and eventually surrendering. The Gulf of Finland, by the end of Summer 1941, was so of the most densely mined waters in the world. Ignoring this, St.Petersburg itself was defended by the island fortress of Kronstadt, which was modern compared to other coastal fortresses of the era, with reinforced concrete pillboxes, a series of defensive fortifications, and most importantly, a number of absolutely massive 30.5cm guns which would've sunk even the most modern German battleship. The Germans had already showed that they had serious issues attacking even coastal batteries from the prior century during the Invasion of Oslo. An amphibious assault on St.Petersburg would've ended with a one-sided slaughter of the German attackers. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Dieppe really showed that one of the major points for amphibious assaults is "Do Not Attack Fortified Ports Head On" Basically this. Amphibious invasions are *hard*. D-Day, which was against comparatively lightly defended fortifications, cost the lives of around 12,000 men.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
goatface posted:I was thinking more in their general survival and expedience of the Norwegian campaign. Though that probably would have been helped more by some additional heavy and light cruisers to pad out the Kriegsmarine and let them soak the losses they took. Not really. The heavy losses in cruisers they took was more due to horrific planning than lack of numbers. You do not try and sail cruisers past a fortress through an extremely narrow straight that offers no room to maneuver. A White Guy posted:The Gulf of Finland, by the end of Summer 1941, was so of the most densely mined waters in the world. Ignoring this, St.Petersburg itself was defended by the island fortress of Kronstadt, which was modern compared to other coastal fortresses of the era, with reinforced concrete pillboxes, a series of defensive fortifications, and most importantly, a number of absolutely massive 30.5cm guns which would've sunk even the most modern German battleship. The Germans had already showed that they had serious issues attacking even coastal batteries from the prior century during the Invasion of Oslo. An amphibious assault on St.Petersburg would've ended with a one-sided slaughter of the German attackers. ...Um, no, 30.5 cm guns aren't massive. At all. That's a 12" gun, which would have been relatively ineffective against either the Scharnhorst-class or Bismarck-class. Not to say that a naval invasion wouldn't have been suicidal, but trying to say a few 12" guns would have been incredibly dangerous to modern battleships is just plain wrong. Can they do damage? Of course, but barring truly large numbers of hits, or incredibly lucky ones, they're not a particular threat. Incredibly dangerous to transports of course, but they're hardly the only reason why said amphibious assault would have been insane. For point of reference, the US was generally using 14" or 16" guns in important coastal artillery emplacements.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:D-Day, which was against comparatively lightly defended fortifications, cost the lives of around 12,000 men. >10,000 casualties of all types for the Allies. <5,000 dead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 20:03
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Whether the coastal defenses could have destroyed a battleship squadron or not is a secondary concern. There were literally thousands of smaller guns and machine gun nests emplaced to protect the naval base of Kronenstadt, manned by several dozen brigades and regiments of infantry, and unless the Germans managed to suppress a majority of them - presumably through air power - the invasion would have been drowned in blood (and ocean) even if we discard minefields and naval guns of Leningrad. And frankly the Germans never managed to achieve the sort of battlefield suppression despite their best efforts, as evidenced by the fact Leningrad held out against the Nazi siege.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Dieppe really showed that one of the major points for amphibious assaults is "Do Not Attack Fortified Ports Head On"
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Also, for comparison, even with the advantage of two-three years of island warfare, the Allied navy suppressed Iwo Jima for a MONTH with fleet and air assets. And still had to fight for every inch of it against the Japanese. St Petersberg had a LOT shorter supply lines than that battle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
   We are in bomber range now.  While they are not a massive threat, we have seen how dangerous weight of bombs can be.  Our fighters and flak do a good job though.  Another supply run tries to land at Akyab.   Clunk!  The Allies try and march back into that base again. I'm not falling for that one twice! Bugger off back into the Jungle!  No kills for the Butai's today, but at least we know they only have level bombers in Suva – they can be a pain for unloading troops, but I'm hoping they will be quickly taken out on the ground. We did a good number on their bombers however, and we are close to having killed more planes that we have lost!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Evasive manoeuvres! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
Were Japanese carriers attacked by heavy bombers other than at Midway? It's the only example I can think of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Kind of strange that they got downed by flak, though. Historically, Japanese flak ranged from awful to merely mediocre.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Kind of strange that they got downed by flak, though. Historically, Japanese flak ranged from awful to merely mediocre. Japanese heavy flak was mostly bad because of low shell velocity from the dual 5-inch mounts and the fact that they didn't have proximity fuses. Bringing in level bombers at 11,000 ft probably negates some of these disadvantages because level bombers tend to fly straight and are pretty large targets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Triggerhappypilot posted:Japanese heavy flak was mostly bad because of low shell velocity from the dual 5-inch mounts and the fact that they didn't have proximity fuses. Bringing in level bombers at 11,000 ft probably negates some of these disadvantages because level bombers tend to fly straight and are pretty large targets. More importantly, the IJN had awful fire control for their flak, did not prioritize flak on their destroyers and other escort ships, and their carriers tended to have very poorly positioned heavy flak on the carrier's structure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:More importantly, the IJN had awful fire control for their flak, did not prioritize flak on their destroyers and other escort ships, and their carriers tended to have very poorly positioned heavy flak on the carrier's structure. The more I learn about WWII the more I find out the Japanese didn't do anything well. Bad depth charges, bad damage control, bad flak, bad army/navy murder, bad industry management, bad tanks, bad ASW doctrine, bad submarine doctrine, bad fleet doctrine, bad transport convoy doctrine... Did they do anything well? I guess the Long Lance but otherwise?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
At the start of the war, Japanese fighter pilots were superior in skill and experience to American and other pilots in the theater, and they made excellent use of the superior maneuverability of the Zero. Japanese troops were fearsome and determined combatants. ...that's all I can think of
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
  New Caledonia has some air support it seems.  Their level bombers continue to try and kill our carriers.  I'm getting no closer to Suva, as I expect they have a large number of torpedo and dive bombers there.  Even this attack costs us valuable planes and pilots.  Fighting continues over Akyab.  Our pilots continue to increase in experience.  A lot of planes lost on both sides today. We came off a lot worse however.  Akyab continues to be a graveyard.  New plan for the south, flood the bases I already hold with bombers and fighters, then invade Efate before pushing on to more dangerous targets. This will be a long term op, but if I can base my carriers out of Rabaul for now, I can respond to the Allies sending in the odd carrier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:The more I learn about WWII the more I find out the Japanese didn't do anything well. Great fire control and gunnery on their actual big guns, some incredibly innovative aircraft and weapons, pioneering the entire concept of a carrier task force and transforming the carrier and naval aviation from curiosities into serious weapons of war, expert use of destroyers as offensive weapons (compared to their more defensive role in the USN), a lot of truly brilliant creative tactical ideas (see the modification of their torpedoes for Pearl Harbor and how they took Singapore), and a masterful use of strategic and tactical initiative during the early phases of the Pacific War that let Japan hit far above the weight class it would seem to be relegated to. Make no mistake, the Japanese military did some truly impressive things with what it had to work with. Had WW2 been the kind of war the Japanese military leadership expected to fight - and until Midway believed they were fighting - the Japanese military would have been very successful and well-regarded. Unfortunately, a great many if not most of Japan's military problems in WW2 boiled down to the fact that WW2 was not the kind of war their military leadership expected to or indeed believed they were fighting. The Europeans in the Pacific could and probably would have been brought to the bargaining table in 1942 or 1943 in Russo-Japanese War 2: Pacific Boogaloo. China, the United States, arguably Australia and perhaps India proper, and later the Soviet Union were entirely different matters capable of fighting an entirely different kind of war which is exactly what they did. It was that kind of war - a war of grinding attrition where Japan's sharply limited resources (both in raw material and manpower) were woefully unequal to their enemies - that Japan could not afford to fight and had very low odds of winning. Unfortunately for the Empire of the Rising Sun, that is precisely the kind of war they got and however impressive their moments of glory were, they were simply not enough. Cythereal fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Aug 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:At the start of the war, Japanese fighter pilots were superior in skill and experience to American and other pilots in the theater, and they made excellent use of the superior maneuverability of the Zero. The Type 89 Grenade Discharger "Knee Mortar" was really good because it could give mortar support easily without requiring extra men. Some late-war planes were good, but get a bad rap thanks to a decline in pilot skill and the loss of air superiority. And while Japanese aircraft are typically known for their lack of protection, the distance they could fly as a result was a net positive for the amount of area they could cover. The Type 99 Arisaka was a good bolt-action rifle, but suffered a decline in quality thanks to how the war progressed. The eventual rise and mass-deployment of semi-automatic rifles, followed by the development of assault rifles, also didn't help.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
P-43 Lancers. That's scraping the barrel a bit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Where are GH's Betties? I remember those being a big factor for the Japanese in the original LP but we haven't seen them doing much so far. I asked this a little while ago and I think the answer was they were mysteriously not flying sorties. I guess that's still going on?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Is this push part of a larger goal of striking shipping lanes in the South Pacific? Or are you going for an invasion of Fiji as well? Is it viable to set up a well stocked air base in this area and pick off allied war ships efficiently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:At the start of the war, Japanese fighter pilots were superior in skill and experience to American and other pilots in the theater, and they made excellent use of the superior maneuverability of the Zero. Their navy was good at night fighting?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:Their navy was good at night fighting? They were. Until the Americans got radar and proficient at using it. The only battleship-on-battleship engagement of the Pacific - I think of WW2 entirely - was a night fight between the Japanese and Americans. The Americans won.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:They were. Until the Americans got radar and proficient at using it. The only battleship-on-battleship engagement of the Pacific - I think of WW2 entirely - was a night fight between the Japanese and Americans. The Americans won. There was another BB on BB engagement at Guadalcanal along with plenty in the Mediterranean. Also the Americans won the Guadalcanal BB fight. Also at night.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:Their navy was good at night fighting? The Japanese had a distinct advantage in night fighting, in that their torpedoes ran on compressed oxygen(no bubble trail) and had a ludicrous range compared to their American counterparts. Consequently, a lot of American destroyers/cruisers got acquainted with Japanese torpedos simply because they had no way to see them until it was too late. Aside from that advantage, more than a few night battles were confused messes where the Japanese and the Americans happened to run into each other and just started dumping spreads in the water hoping things would work out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Did they do anything well? I guess the Long Lance but otherwise? They built good fighter planes even though the engines weren't very powerful, and they reverse engineered the Nazi rocket powered planes from photographs and manuals. Also they built pretty good ships and did plenty of innovative strategic and tactical things, and probably ended up doing better than you'd have expected from the comparative Japanese and Allied positions at the beginning. Maybe (apart from not being Aryan) Japan is more qualified for the 'superior German engineering' title than the Germans; at least Japan built some things that were useful and innovative.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:reverse engineered the Nazi rocket powered planes from photographs and manuals I'm not sure if "built knockoff me-163s" should be something counted in their favor, frankly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:They built good fighter planes even though the engines weren't very powerful, and they reverse engineered the Nazi rocket powered planes from photographs and manuals. Also they built pretty good ships and did plenty of innovative strategic and tactical things, and probably ended up doing better than you'd have expected from the comparative Japanese and Allied positions at the beginning. Half-tracks, Panther Tank, MP44, MG34/42, Me-262, Night-Fighters in general, radios in every tank, the leIG 18 infantry gun, Panzerfausts, Panzershreks, the 88mm Flak 36, the Ju-88, the Me-323, the Fw-189, the Fw-190...
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:10 |
|
|
The StuG is not on your list and so it is incomplete. StuG Lyfe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 01:07
|
|
