World War II American vs. Japanese ships (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

USN survivability was due as much to changes in Damage Control procedures as the designs themselves. And whilst it is true that Essex class did not sink as a result of combat, one came perilously close, and was not returned to service after the war....effectively a write off....the USS Franklin.

The great success story for the USN were its contstant improvements in DC, and of course radar. If Lexington I had been hit in 1944 instead of 1942, it most likley would have survived.

As a rough generalization, the IJN carriers were better protected against torpedo attack, and less well protected against D/B attack.

USN was uniformly superior to IJN in AA, Radar, Damage Control and aircraft handling. USN lagged badly at the beginning of the war in night combat, torpedoes, and surface battle C&C. There was actually little difference in gunnery. Japan held the lead in amphibious warfare, but were overtaken by the USN by 1943. IJN was hopeless at ASW from start to finish.

Even though USN are rightly proud of their fleet destroyers ...Fletcher and Gearing classes in particular, as pure fleet destroyers, they are not as good as either the post '41 Yugumus or the Shimakaze classes. As Aa platforms, they were only better than the Akitsukis because of their radar fits.

Not possible really to compare USN DEs to their nearest Japanese equivalent....the matsu class. Japanese were were faster, and much more heavily armed.

Also, not possible to compare IJN Light Cruisers with USN CLs. IJN cruisers fulfilled the role of Leaders....part of the torpedo brigade, whilst USN CLs were part of the gunline....a kind of poor mans capital ship.

Heavy cruisers are an intersting category.....I tend to favour the IJN in this category though the Baltimores are potent ships

Intersting anomalies are the Japanese conversions....the Junyos, the Zuihos, and Chiyodas. I think overall, these ships, whilst lash ups, like the Independance class, were better value than the US conversions.

USN held the clear lead in CVE design and construction. They also held the lead in MTBs. I would also give the USN lead in submarine design, though the IJN failure in this regard is more doctrine related than equipment related. Often overlooked is the successes the IJN subs did enjoy....they sank over a million tons of allied shipping and enjoyed a few significant tactical victories as well.....like the sinking of the Wasp....

Dont know about Battleships. Yamatos were more heavily armed, and armoured but slower, less good at AA and lacked good radar. Really not sure

Battlecruisers I would give to the Japanese. Kirishima versus alaska would have been an interesting fight....
 
Hello MacArther
checked, yes the Corsairs were F4U-2(N) Corsairs from VF(N)-101, there should have been 4 of them but probably one was lost before the beginning of Marianas Turkey Shoot.

Juha
 
USN Light cruisers were armed with 6 inch/47 cal rifles that were semi-auto loading with a firing rate of 8-10 rounds per minute that was triple their IJN counterparts which like virtually all naval rifles of 6 or 8 inch caliber were capable of only 3 or so rpm. USN Light cruisers had a total ordnance throw weight twice that of a heavy cruiser! At Cape Esperance and subsequent Solomon Island naval battles the IJN were shocked by USN Machine gun cruisers with an output of nearly 150 rpm collectively from all 5 turrets. With Radar direction and fire controlthe question is really how could the IJN ever beat the USN in any battle day or night? The answer lies clearly in their Long Lance torpedo.

USN carriers rated aircraft loads typically included disassembled aircraft hung from the hanger overhead. They could comfortably operate about 72 aircraft employing a permanent deck park and a hanger capacity about equal to a deck load launch (anywhere from 37 to 60 aircraft depending on ordnance load.
 
During the Doolittle raid in April 1942, the Hornet kept an airwing of about 60 aircraft in her hanger but presumably many aircraft were disassembled and hung from the overhead. It took about 2 days to get the carrier ready to share ASW and search duries with the Enterprise. The Hornet launched a CAP contribution as soon as the B-25's had departed. (Lundstrom's First Team: my major source for almost any question involving CV ops in 1942.)
 
the 6/47 was not semi-auto, has around 2 times of japanese 155 gun. was one with higher rof in 6" categoty but none of this firing 3 rpm
 
Vincenzo, You are correct on both counts.

I should have specified semi-fixed ammo (shell and single powder cannister) with a semi-auto sliding breech which probably contributed to the high rate of fire. I am not a gunnery expert so these features may be more common in other navies than I recognize. :?:

I rated the USN LC rof only vs the IJN heavy cruiser 20 cm rifles because they were the foe USN light cruisers most commonly faced and neglected to consider that IJN LCs I was ignoring were mainly armed with more rapid firing 5.5 inch weapons. The 15 cm rifle equipped IJN light cruiser seems to have been a rare beast but as you point out, that rifle does indeed appear to have had a rof about half that of the USN counterpart. I also incorrectly assumed the IJN 6 inch rifles possessed the same pre-war rof as their 8 inch counterparts.

It seems the IJN LC were more like destroyer leaders than USN LC's.

I was surprised to learn that later in the war, USN 8 inch rifles were upgraded to a similar high rof. Thanks for the correction. :oops:
 
Last edited:
I am going to say that the Long Lance torpedo multiplied the firepower of the Japanese cruisers to the point that I think they were superior to the American cruisers, both light and heavy.

Any comparison of weight of firepower should include both ship's spread of torpedoes, as demonstrated in several battles off of Guadalcanal.
 
I am going to say that the Long Lance torpedo multiplied the firepower of the Japanese cruisers to the point that I think they were superior to the American cruisers, both light and heavy.

Any comparison of weight of firepower should include both ship's spread of torpedoes, as demonstrated in several battles off of Guadalcanal.

I disagree, one must remember that the downside of the powerful torpedo armament of Japanese cruisers was increased vulnerability, torpedowarheads and airvessels were much poorer protected than ammo magazines and several IJN cruisers were crippled by explositions of their torpedoes when hit. After USN learned the right ways to use radar cruiser torpedos lost much of their utility.

Juha

Juha
 
Generally speaking, the USN in WW2 had ships with more endurance ( longer range) and with more reliable machinery than any other navy. The Pacific Fleet had a chronic shortage of air craft in the early going. Even by Midway, there were not enough fighters to satisfy the needs. That is the reason why you see the low numbers of aircraft embarked on the carriers.

Just rereading Lundstrom, "The First Team" and noticed something I never noticed before. After the engagements near Rabaul ( where O Hare did his stuff) and Lae, Salamaua, the Lexington went into dry dock to have the 8-8 inch guns removed and more A/A installed. I never realised that the Lex or Saratoga saw combat with those guns. I think that Saratoga had those guns removed during the refit just prior to December 7. Removal of those guns must have made a huge difference in top weight and created a lot of space below decks. Installation of 4-twin 5 inch-38s would certainly not make up the difference and fewer personnel would be required also.
 
Am reading a book, "The Twilight Warriors," about the battle for Okinawa. Never knew this but Spruance sent his bombardment unit, some elderly pre war BBs, including his flagship, New Mexico, to intercept the Yamato and it's consorts in case the air groups were unable to make the stop. Would have been most interesting if those old BBs had engaged the giant, modern Yamato.

By the time of Okinawa many of the US carriers were equipped with Corsairs and the versatility of the design was amply demonstrated. Some of the squadrons were designated fighter bomb and would go on strikes against the Japanese home islands or Okinawa loaded with bombs and rockets and after dropping the ordnance reverted to the fighter mode quite effectively. Some were even called into the CAP against kamikazes on the way back to the carriers which in some cases meant missions of as much as 5.5 hours. Interesting that in some cases the CAPs included Corsairs, Hellcats and FM2s. It was a desperate and bloody battle.
 
Generally speaking, the USN in WW2 had ships with more endurance ( longer range) and with more reliable machinery than any other navy. The Pacific Fleet had a chronic shortage of air craft in the early going. Even by Midway, there were not enough fighters to satisfy the needs. That is the reason why you see the low numbers of aircraft embarked on the carriers.

Just rereading Lundstrom, "The First Team" and noticed something I never noticed before. After the engagements near Rabaul ( where O Hare did his stuff) and Lae, Salamaua, the Lexington went into dry dock to have the 8-8 inch guns removed and more A/A installed. I never realised that the Lex or Saratoga saw combat with those guns. I think that Saratoga had those guns removed during the refit just prior to December 7. Removal of those guns must have made a huge difference in top weight and created a lot of space below decks. Installation of 4-twin 5 inch-38s would certainly not make up the difference and fewer personnel would be required also.
I read Stanley Johnsons book "Queen of the Flat-tops" when I was a boy. He was onboard during the last cruise of the Lexington. I recall something about a near miss from a Japanese bomb that would have taken out the bridge were it not for those 8" turrets being gone!
 
As has been said before (and from all i have read, i agree with), the USN had better battle damage control (it was good and got much better), better range, and very reliable equipment. USN CVs being able to carry more planes early in the war might have to do with the fact that the F4F was not big and even smaller with the wings folded. The IJN had good fire control, but lacked good radar, probably the best torpedoes in the war, and tough capital ships (they seemed to take a lot of extra punishment to get them to sink).

CV's - edge to the US. The IJN CVs had issues with the smoke stacks not clearing the smoke away from the CV. The airwings favor the US. Maybe not in 1941-42, but once the F6F and Avengers came on board... It goes without saying that the IJN pilot shortage and/or lack of quality doomed the effectiveness of their CVs.

BB's - hard to say, the IJN had only 2 modern BB's, while the USN had 4 and up to 6 pretty quickly. The two night time BB vs BB battles had USN radar pummeling the IJN BB(s). The old USN BBs that were sunk on 12/7/41 were mostly rebuilt (5 of 7 IIRC), a testament to their design? Or lucky enough to be sunk in shallow waters with just enough damage to sink them? Personally i think that the IJN just did not know what to do with their BB designs. Huge pagoda masts/towers (imagine a few rounds hitting one of those...), going for the biggest design ever (biggest guns, tonnage, armor), then rebuilding 2 into quasi CVs...

CAs - The IJN CA's were fast, well armored, and very well armed. Not having kept to the treaty restrictions helped a lot. Most of their classes seemed very similar on paper (the Aoba class with 6 X 8in being the odd duck). The Mogami's started as CLs so as to stay within the # of ships that the Treaty dictated, they were built to be CAs. The USN Treaty CAs where pretty fast, okay armed and so-so armored. The Pensacola's had poor protection, the NHs just a bit better. The NOs class were good ships, but looking at the loss ratio would make you think otherwise... One wonders how the Wichita would have fared in the Guadalcanal campaign. The Baltimore's were built with a whole new look into design constructions. The IJN did not build any new CAs during the war.

CLs - different ideas of use and design. You can't really compare the two. The Helena class are essentially CAs with 6in guns. I don't recall if they were build within the parameters of the Treaty or not. Other than the main guns, USN CAs and CLs did not have much to fall back on (until the 5/38 dual purpose guns came on board). The USN build some bigger DD's to be leaders (Porter class IIRC). These also do not compare to the IJN CLs. Take away the IJN long lance from their CLs and they become a lot less effective. I like to think that their CAs would still do fine in the daylight, but their CLs...

DD's - different ideas of design and use (though not as much as with the CLs). Most of the IJN DDs had 8 or 9 long lances. Many had reloads for them as well. That ties up a lot of your design to just that weapon. They also often had 6 X 5in guns. Early in the war the USN new DD was armed with just 4 X 5in and 5 smaller torpedoes with reloads. In playing the old PC game "Warship" with my brother, i would always wish i had IJN DD's and i was glad to have some RNethN or RN DD's (just to have some working torpedoes). It seems like USN DDs were built to be jack of all trades (vs. air, sea, and undersea targets) whereas the IJN DDs were mainly designed to kill surface ships with the long lance and preferably at night.

Imagine if the mk.14 detonator and depth control would not have been an issue. Imagine if a few of the battles during the Guadalcanal campaign would have been fought in the day light. Imagine the IJN not starting on the Yamoto class and instead some more CAs and CVs. Yes, the Long Lance was a CA killer, but would a IJN CA have handled a hit from them any better? Ah to ponder what could have been.

(all of the above is quoted directly from memory, so feel free to correct me where my brain has faltered).
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back