parsifal
Colonel
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....
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....