Armchair Dragoons Forums

The Reference Desk => History and Tall Tales => Topic started by: bayonetbrant on September 01, 2018, 01:03:50 PM

Title: Japanese Carrier Production in WWII
Post by: bayonetbrant on September 01, 2018, 01:03:50 PM
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-japan-didnt-go-aircraft-carrier-crazy-beat-america-during-world-war-ii-30292

Does a better production plan really matter in the long run, or was the outcome inevitable?
Title: Re: Japanese Carrier Production in WWII
Post by: mirth on September 04, 2018, 03:40:09 PM
cool read
Title: Re: Japanese Carrier Production in WWII
Post by: BanzaiCat on September 22, 2018, 10:51:10 AM
cool read

+1
Title: Re: Japanese Carrier Production in WWII
Post by: besilarius on December 07, 2018, 07:28:41 AM
Good article.
Here is another appreciation from the folks who gave you Shattered Sword.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
Title: Re: Japanese Carrier Production in WWII
Post by: mirth on December 07, 2018, 08:10:05 AM
Combined Fleet is a great site. Lots of good info there.
Title: Re: Japanese Carrier Production in WWII
Post by: chemkid on December 07, 2018, 08:19:05 AM
shattered sword was kinda an eye-opener, at least for me - i had a plan to enjoy a great solo game of the flat top board-game... and then, after reading the book, all imaginary plans evaporated because American vs Japanese carrier handling was so damn different! does anyone know a game analog or digital that takes these differences to heart and makes playing the Japanese part of carrier operations different from their American counterparts? so, off to reading this article - oh, and i did a whole card-box full of plane and carrier data just to prepare for my flat top endeavor...  anyone likes some of these?! ;)

cheers!
chem!
Title: Re: Japanese Carrier Production in WWII
Post by: bayonetbrant on December 07, 2018, 08:19:25 AM
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-japan-didnt-go-aircraft-carrier-crazy-beat-america-during-world-war-ii-30292 (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-japan-didnt-go-aircraft-carrier-crazy-beat-america-during-world-war-ii-30292)

Does a better production plan really matter in the long run, or was the outcome inevitable?


re-reading this one


here's your craziest quote in here


Quote
During the entire war, Japan commissioned 31 destroyers, while the United States commissioned 365. The Japanese commissioned five light cruisers and no heavy cruisers, while the United States commissioned 46 large, heavy, and light cruisers.
Title: Re: Japanese Carrier Production in WWII
Post by: bayonetbrant on December 07, 2018, 08:23:02 AM
question for some of y'all -

is there a good reference on the differences between

fleet carriers vs escort carriers vs light carriers

heavy cruisers vs light cruisers vs large cruisers
Title: Re: Japanese Carrier Production in WWII
Post by: mirth on December 07, 2018, 08:26:37 AM
shattered sword was kinda an eye-opener, at least for me - i had a plan to enjoy a great solo game of the flat top board-game... and then, after reading the book, all imaginary plans evaporated because American vs Japanese carrier handling was so damn different! does anyone know a game analog or digital that takes these differences to heart and makes playing the Japanese part of carrier operations different from their American counterparts? so, off to reading this article - oh, and i did a whole card-box full of plane and carrier data just to prepare for my flat top endeavor...  anyone likes some of these?! ;)

Shattered Sword was an eye-opener for a lot of people. It really went in-depth into IJN doctrine for carrier ops.


We did a big double-blind game for Coral Sea last year. We used the Flat Top map for plotting searches and moves. Then we used General Quarters III for resolving battles. GQIII doean't really account for doctrinal differences for air ops, but it was still a great game. Doing it double-blind was the key.
Title: Re: Japanese Carrier Production in WWII
Post by: bbmike on December 07, 2018, 09:06:41 AM
...
We did a big double-blind game for Coral Sea last year. We used the Flat Top map for plotting searches and moves. Then we used General Quarters III for resolving battles. GQIII doean't really account for doctrinal differences for air ops, but it was still a great game. Doing it double-blind was the key.

That sounds like something that would be fun at Origins.
Title: Re: Japanese Carrier Production in WWII
Post by: mirth on December 07, 2018, 09:28:58 AM
...
We did a big double-blind game for Coral Sea last year. We used the Flat Top map for plotting searches and moves. Then we used General Quarters III for resolving battles. GQIII doean't really account for doctrinal differences for air ops, but it was still a great game. Doing it double-blind was the key.

That sounds like something that would be fun at Origins.

Yes. I can send you the info so you can run it :P
Title: Re: Japanese Carrier Production in WWII
Post by: bbmike on December 07, 2018, 09:50:02 AM
I suspect if I tried the Kriegspiel guys would probably run a calvary charge at me.
Title: Re: Japanese Carrier Production in WWII
Post by: bayonetbrant on December 07, 2018, 10:44:10 AM
I suspect if I tried the Kriegspiel guys would probably run a calvary charge at me.


hey, a cavalry charge has, in fact, captured a fleet before


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_the_Dutch_fleet_at_Den_Helder
Title: Re: Japanese Carrier Production in WWII
Post by: bbmike on December 07, 2018, 05:38:46 PM
Hey, don't encourage them!
Title: Re: Japanese Carrier Production in WWII
Post by: besilarius on December 08, 2018, 09:23:15 AM
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