Chemkid, if you really want a nuts and bolts view of the differences between the IJN and USN, one thing that is only lightly covered is fleet Anti-Aircraft doctrine.
Shattered Sword touches on the Japanese. Which was extremely rudimentary. They relied on the individual ship's firepower and maneuverability.
Considering how weak their AA guns were, this made a certain amount of sense. In order to enhance their maneuverability, they often moved the escorting ships away from the carriers to give the carrier captain as much freedom to maneuver as possible.
The american approach was the total opposite.
The USN from the start put in a lot of effort into developing AA weapons, and the suites of weaponry on their carriers. Even before the proximity fuse was developed, Japanese aviators were shocked at the volume and density of fire that they had to fly through in their attacks.
A US task force sailed with the carrier in the center (designated ZuluZulu), a ring of cruisers at around1,000 yards or more, and an outer ring of destroyers.
Under aerial attack, they pulled in closer to the carrier. The concept was to have the attackers go through successive rings of defensive fire, which were close enough to combine the totality of their firepower.
This tactical difference is never recognised in game designs.
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/a/antiaircraft-action-summary.html
"These things must be done delicately-- or you hurt the spell." - The Wicked Witch of the West.
"We've got the torpedo damage temporarily shored up, the fires out and soon will have the ship back on an even keel. But I would suggest, sir, that if you have to take any more torpedoes, you take 'em on the starboard side." Pops Healy, DCA USS Lexington.
Topic: Japanese Carrier Production in WWII (Read 13916 times)