Rn vs IJN

[Thumpalumpacus]

Can't say I'll miss him. I used to find his posts interesting but his habit of escalating exchanges into name calling became tedious and I stopped reading most of his posts. I was never personally offended, in fact the one time I recall him mocking me was actually funny. On the other hand I found some of what he said to others to be appalling. If you think someone is an idiot don't call him that, prove it. As far as I'm concerned if someone insults me I've won the argument.

He could be hard to take at times, and I had a rhubarb or two with him myself, and being on the receiving end of his slags. I do think he brought a bit to the table and I certainly learnt stuff from his posts. It's a shame he couldn't find a happy medium.

 

[special ed]

All I saw was, he would get a new book, which most of us already have, and post pages of it, as if he was an authority.

 

[SaparotRob]

..and would promise to return with more info later!

 

[Reluctant Poster]

When you look at the RN (of 1941-42) and IJN it seems like combining the two would make for an awesome fighting machine.

British: air intercept and gunnery radar, FDO, fighter coordination and radio communications, convoy and ASW expertise, damage control and AA
Japanese: Torpedoes and torpedo doctrine, both from surface ships and aircraft, naval aviation, land-based torpedo bombers, long range ops expertise, larger carriers

Imagine Yamato chasing Bismarck in the Denmark Srt. And the USN's submarines might not have a field day with Japanese shipping if its covered by British-level ASW and convoy techniques.

Actually the Japanese long range torpedo doctrine was RN in origin. The RN developed the concept of "browning shots" before the Great War.

Naval Gazing Main/Battleship Torpedoes Part 1

www.navalgazing.net

 

[Admiral Beez]

The most impressive British torpedo tech I've ever seen is at the Hong Kong Museum of Coastal Defence. They have a Victorian-era wire guided torpedo station.

Lei Yue Mun Brennan Torpedo Station • Defence of British Ports

The Lei Yu Mun Brennan Torpedo Station was built between 1892 and 1894. The Station supported coastal defence batteries and minefields.

pinkroutes.com

Brennan torpedo - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In 2005 I accompanied Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin on a trade mission to China. I got bored of the meetings, so skipped out and went to the fort. I think I spent four hours there, and I was the only person there - clearly the locals have little interest in British military history.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

How much enemy fighter operation did the Swordfish ever face? Not much. At Coral Sea, when they put a few F4F's down on the deck with the TBD's they not only got some hits but did not lose a single torpedo bomber.

The RN carrier Glorious had Swordfish when its captain ordered a bombing attack on Norwegian shore installations occupied by the Germans. The squadron replied that was a suicde mission, such slow biplanes against the AAA. The carrier capatin was so infuriated that he requested that teh ship proceed back to Scapa Flow so a court martial board could be convened ASAP. The Glorious departed, with no air patrols and only a single destroyer for escort. Both RN ships were sunk by the German battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, with heavy loss of life. If the Glorious had TBD's they could have done high altitude level bombing attacks with a pretty good chance of survival.

The hits the TBDs achieved at Coral sea were against the completely overmatched Shoho, which had one Zero and Two Type 96 fighters in the air when the SBDs started their attack. After battling the SBDs the two type 96s tried to attack the TBDs but were driven off. The TBDs were not facing a serious defense. The Shoho had already been crippled by the SBDs before TBDs scored their hits.
The Shoho did mange to launch 3 Zeros before her flight deck was obliterated but these went after the SBDs.
Two obsolete fighters and one Zero were facing 10 F4Fs, 25 SBDs and 12 TDBs in the first wave alone. Obviously over whelming odds.
On the second day the odds were more even and the F4Fs did defend the TBDs but on the other hand the TBDs failed to score a single torpedo hit,

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The hits the TBDs achieved at Coral sea were against the completely overmatched Shoho, which had one Zero and Two Type 96 fighters in the air when the SBDs started their attack.

While Shoho was certainly overmatched in aircraft carriage, according to Jon Parshall she was a pretty maneuverable ship, which would appear to fit in with IJN doctrine of using maneuver to defend against aerial attack.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

While Shoho was certainly overmatched in aircraft carriage, according to Jon Parshall she was a pretty maneuverable ship, which would appear to fit in with IJN doctrine of using maneuver to defend against aerial attack.

Maneuver alone can't defend against aerial attack.

 

[Glider]

While Shoho was certainly overmatched in aircraft carriage, according to Jon Parshall she was a pretty maneuverable ship, which would appear to fit in with IJN doctrine of using maneuver to defend against aerial attack.

Personally I was amazed they were still using Type 96 fighters, I assumed that they had all been replaced by then.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Maneuver alone can't defend against aerial attack.

It's a good thing I never said it could!

 

[Greg Boeser]

Personally I was amazed they were still using Type 96 fighters, I assumed that they had all been replaced by then.

There were still a handful at Rabaul, too.

 

[ThomasP]

My understanding is that relative to CAP the Japanese and US carrier doctrines were almost the same pre- and early-war. Both Navies carried about the same number of fighters (somewhere around 18-24) as standard, with the rest of the air group made up of attack aircraft. Both Navies would use CAP when possible, and always use evasive maneuver on the part of the carrier to increase the odds of the enemy missing.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

My understanding is that relative to CAP the Japanese and US carrier doctrines were almost the same pre- and early-war. Both Navies carried about the same number of fighters (somewhere around 18-24) as standard, with the rest of the air group made up of attack aircraft. Both Navies would use CAP when possible, and always use evasive maneuver on the part of the carrier to increase the odds of the enemy missing.

American carriers used evasion less, though. They relied on a ring of AAA from themselves and supporting vessels. They did use maneuver, true (see that footage of Enterprise dodging bombs at [I think] Santa Cruz), but not to the extent the IJN did doctrinally.

 

[Shortround6]

American carriers used evasion less, though. They relied on a ring of AAA from themselves and supporting vessels. They did use maneuver, true (see that footage of [iEnterprise[/i] dodging bombs at [I think] Santa Cruz), but not to the extent the IJN did doctrinally.

Well, the Japanese ship captains were depending on 13.2mm and 25mm Hotchkiss AA guns so maneuver (dodging) was more attractive than maintaining a stable firing platform
Japanese Light AA needed to climb several rungs on the ladder to reach dismal.

 

[WARSPITER]

Japanese escort destroyers / light cruisers were to be built at around four per carrier during the war
but the ship building capacity wasn't there to build the projected carriers and the escorts.

As noted re the AA capability escort vessels would not have been a great add on anyway.