OT Navies in WWII

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by copeab

This has been touched on a bit in two previous posts, but I'll elaborate on it here: Japan's merchant fleet was inadequate and what she had was improperly used.

This came down to four points:
(1) japan entered the war with too few merchant ships (including those operated by the IJN and IJA)
(2) She inadequately protected the ships she did have (rarely sailing them in convoys or with sufficient escort vessels)
(3) Japan didn't use her ships efficiently. For example, a ship operated by the Army might take a cargo from Japan to Java but return with an empty hold, but a navy ship might sail to Java with an empty hold and return with a full load (this also related to the incredible degree of non-cooperation between the IJA and IJN)
(4) Japan didn't have the resources to fully replace it's merchant shipping losses during the war.

As a result, the Japanese never was able to ship as much men, material and oil and they should have and the situation rapidly declined by the end of the war.

Of all of the stupidity with which the Japanese approached WWII with, the use of her merchant fleet had to be the shining example of how not to fight a modern war. One can only wonder if the war would have lasted into 1945 if the USN had started with a operational torpedo?

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

There is another best selling author that initially impressed me...then he wrote a triology. The final book really destroyed him for me...one of his major battle scenes was an almost line for line description of an older movie called "Zulu". The scene was much better done in the movie.

That sounds all too familiar. I think I read that book which you aren't mentioning and thought the same thing.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Of all of the stupidity with which the Japanese approached WWII with, the use of her merchant fleet had to be the shining example of how not to fight a modern war. One can only wonder if the war would have lasted into 1945 if the USN had started with a operational torpedo?

It's an interesting what if, once they got decent torpedos the American sub fleet became, arguably, the best of the war. The American subs where able to utilise technological advances that the German U-boat fleet just didn't have access to.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

One can only wonder if the war would have lasted into 1945 if the USN had started with a operational torpedo?

I think it wouldn't have made too much difference in how fast we got to Japan. By the time we got to Okinawa, the USN was running out of Japanese targets, especially merchant ones, to hit. They simply lacked the fuel to use their ships, military or civil.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

I think it wouldn't have made too much difference in how fast we got to Japan. By the time we got to Okinawa, the USN was running out of Japanese targets, especially merchant ones, to hit. They simply lacked the fuel to use their ships, military or civil.

America had a real slow start due to the fact that they couldn't interdict Japanese shipping effectively. This hindered the early battles as Japanese positions could receive reinforcement and supplies.

If America had been able to interdict Japanese shipping at an early point in the way then the first, bloody battles would of been shorter and less costly. Early victories would of made "how fast we got to Japan" a moot point as it doesn't matter how or when we get to japan if the Japanese can't hold onto anything beyond the home islands.

At Guadacanal the japanese landed 6000 troops via the "Tokyo" express, utilising Destroyers and Light Cruisers. It can be argued that if America had the capacity to interdict these ships properly then the campaighn would of been far less costly.

[ShadoWarrior]

Destroyers and light cruisers are particularly poor (and dangerous) targets for subs. And the US didn't have all that many subs early on. But the US could have begun crippling the Japanese merchant fleet sooner, had they had properly working torps. Wouldn't have affected Guadalcanal much, but it would have been felt in other areas and it would have lessened the Allied losses in the war. But shortened the war? I don't think so.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Destroyers and light cruisers are particularly poor (and dangerous) targets for subs. And the US didn't have all that many subs early on. But the US could have begun crippling the Japanese merchant fleet sooner, had they had properly working torps. Wouldn't have affected Guadalcanal much, but it would have been felt in other areas and it would have lessened the Allied losses in the war. But shortened the war? I don't think so.

They are only dangerous when the other guy knows how to use them. In a British/American fleet gunning for the destroyers is a good way of commiting suicide.

The Japanese tended to run them in ones and twos, making nice targets for a sub.

[dragoon500ly]

Following Pearl Harbor, the loss of the battle line forced the USN to focus on aircraft carriers as the decisive weapon. Left to fight the surface fight were the heavy and light cruisers. The scale of the surface actions can be judged by this; between 1929 and 1937, 17 heavy cruisers were built, 6 of which were sunk in action.

The Pensacola and Salt Lake City were the oldest of the ships and finished the war with 24 Battle Stars between them. The survived the war, only to be used as target ships for the Bikini nuclear tests and were then used as target ships, finally sinking in 1948. They had thier 8-inch/55 rifles mounted in four turrets, two twin and two triple mounts (with the triple mounts super-imposed over the twin).

The next class were the six cruisers of the Northampton class. Three of the class, the Northampton, Chicago and Houston were sunk in action, the remainder finishing the war and joining the mothballed fleet and finally being scrapped in 1959/60. They pioneered the use of the triple 8-inch mount with two super-imposed forward and one aft, this combination was used by all of the following heavy cruisers.

The Indianapolis class comprised two ships (the other being Portland). Indianapolis was sunk in 1945 (the last major US warship to be sunk). Portland entered mothballs and was scrapped in 1959.

In 1933, the seven ships of the Astoria class started entering service. Of this class, three were sunk; Astoria, Quincy and Vincennes (all in 1942). The remainder of the class were scrapped in 1959/61.

The last of the pre-war heavies, the Wichita was a single class ship, essentially a 8-inch armed version of the Brooklyn class light cruisers, she survived the war, only to meet her end at the hands of the scrapyard in 1959.

The first of the wartime cruisers were the 29 ships of the Baltimore-Oregon City class (they differ in that Baltimore class had two funnels and Oregon City had one funnel with a more compact superstructure, otherwise they were identical). All survived the war, ending up in mothballs and being scrapped in the 1970-1980s. Several (Boston, Canberra, Albany, Chicago, Columbus and Northampton) were converted into the first guided-missile cruisers and served into the 1980s before being mothballed.

The last and arguably the best of the heavy cruisers were the three ships of the Des Moines class. Built with a new design of 8-inch gun that allowed for much more rapid firing, they were just too late for WWII but provided sterling service in Korea and Vietnam. Two were scrapped in the 1990s and one, the Salem, becoming a museum ship.

No discussion of the heavy cruisers can be complete without mentioning the CB or Large Cruisers. The Alaska and Guam entered service just in time for 1945. They called battlecruisers, but the USN always maintained that this was not thier function. Armed with new design 12-inch rifles they never took part in any anti-ship or bombardments, being used as escorts for the fleet carriers. After serving less than three years on active duty, they entered mothballs in 1947 and were scrapped in 1960/61.

The oldest of the light cruisers were the 10 ships of the 1920-era Omaha class. Outdated before the start of the war, they served in the various sideshow theaters and acted as convoy escorts. All were scrapped in 1946-49. They mounted their six-inch main armament in two twin turrets and 4-8 casemate-mounts.

In 1936, the first of 7 Brooklyn-class cruisers entered service. They mounted the heaviest armament of any light cruiser (five triple 6-inch/47 rifles) and were capable of an astonshing rate of fire (3-5 rounds per gun, per minute). All survived the war and entered service with various South American navies. One, the USS Phoenix entered Argentine service and was renamed the General Belgrano and became the first warship to be sunk by a nuclear submarine during the Falkland Islands campaign.

In 1938, the two sisters St. Louis and Helena entered service, a modified Brooklyn design (different placement of their secondary armament). Helena was sunk in 1943. St. Louis survived to enter service with Brazil.

In 1941, the Atlanta class of four started entering service. These were purpose built antiaircraft cruisers that boosted the heavy armamanet of eight twin 5-inch/38 rifles. The Atlanta and the Juneau were sunk in 1942, the San Diego and San Juan were scrapped in 1960-62.

The Atlanta was such a successful design that two repeats were built, the four ships of the Oakland class and the three ships of the Juneau class. Differing only in the removal of two 5-inch turrets (to make room for smaller AA guns). These seven ships provided sterling service throughout the war. They were scrapped in 1961/62.

The Cleveland-Fargo class of 52 ships provided the USN with its CL force for most of the war. Like the Baltimore-Oregon City class, the Clevelands started out with two funnels and the Fargos went down to one funnel. There were no war losses and most entered mothballs, to be scrapped in 1960-63. Several were converted into guided missile cruisers or fleet flagships, being mothballed in the 1960s. The Clevelands were armed with four triple 6-inch/47 mounts.

The final class of light cruisers were the two ships of the Worcester class. Antiaircraft cruisers armed with new mounts (six twin 6-inch rifles). They entered service in 1947 and soon entered mothballs, being scrapped in the 1960s.

Overall, US cruiser design has handicapped by the pre war naval treaties, suffering from thin armor (one nickname for US CAs were "Tin Clads"). Of all the US cruisers only the Omaha and the Atlanta classes mounted torpedoes during the war. US cruisers had excellent guns and superior fire control. Their major weakness was that pre-war, the USN did not practise night fighting to any real degree. A practise that would bear bitter fruit in the 1942 actions off of Guadalcanal.

[Sanjuro]

I have enjoyed a lot of Turtledove's books; however, like many authors he has written one series based on a Confederate victory in the US Civil War which assumes a British intervention in favour of the Confederacy.
To me this is a quite unbelievable scenario; although the Prime Minister, Palmerston, favoured the Confederacy, the likelihood of Britain going to war in favour of a slave-owning nation, thirty years after slavery was abolished in the British Empire has never seemed great.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

To me this is a quite unbelievable scenario; although the Prime Minister, Palmerston, favoured the Confederacy, the likelihood of Britain going to war in favour of a slave-owning nation, thirty years after slavery was abolished in the British Empire has never seemed great.

Why so unbelievable? This is the same empire that had already fought two wars with Americans in the past 90 years.

It's not so much about slavery as other things. The Empire was undisputed master of the seas at the time. it could easily have inflicted some more punishment upon their upstart former colonials, which doesn't seem so far a stretch. It would weaken a rapidly industrializing rival and put Americans "in their proper place".

[dragoon500ly]

Japan fielded some intresting designs for her cruisers during the war.

The two light cruisers of the Tenryu class were Japan's first "modern" designs when they were launched in 1918. Very comparable to the British C-class cruisers they provided good service during the inter war years. By the start of WWII, they were too old for modernization. Tenryu was sunk in 1942. Tatsuta was sunk in 1944. Armed with four single mount 5.5-inch rifles

Starting in 1919, 5 light cruisers of the Kuma class were developed from experience gained from the Tenryu. They started the war with seven single mount 5.5-inch guns and two quad mount 24-inch torpedo tubes. Heavily modernized during the war, two, Oi and Kitakami were armed with four 5.5-inch and ten quad mounted 24-inch torpedo tubes (20 Long Lance torpedoes on the broadside!!!!!). Later modified to carry eight Kaiten suicide submarines. Four of the class were sunk in 1944, the Kitakami survived the war, damaged, and was scrapped in 1947.

The Nagara class of six light cruisers was laid down in 1921. They served as the flagships of destroyer squadrons. They started the war with seven single mount 5.5-inch guns and two quad mount 24-inch torpedo tubes.

As an experiment to mount the heaviest possible armament (two twin and two single mount 5.5-inchers and two twin 24-inch torpedo tubes) the Yubari only displaced 2,890 tons (compared to Nagara's 5,170 tons). Modernized during the war, Yubari was lost in 1944.

The last group of 5,000 ton light cruisers, the three Sendai class ships filled the same role as the Nagaras. They carried the same armament of seven single mount 5.5-inch rifles and two quad 24-inch torpedo tubes. All were lost in 1943/44.

The two Furutake class heavy cruisers took the lessons of the Yubari and applied them to a larger vessel. They mounted three twin 8in rifles and two quad 24-inch torpedo tubes. Both were lost in 1942.

An improved version of the Furutake, the two Aoba class cruisers entered service in 1926. Armed with three twin 8-inch and two quad 24-inch torpedo tubes. They operated with the Furutake class for many years. Kinugasa was lost in 1942 and the Aoba in 1945.

The Myoko class was the first of the 10,000 ton heavy cruisers and set the standard for the following classes. They mounted five twin 8-inch guns and four quad 24-inch torpedo tubes. One were lost in 1944 to US forces, and two were lost in 1945 to the British, the last, Myoko was heavily damaged in 1944 and was scuttled by the British in 1946.

An improved version of the Myokos, the four Takao class ships mounted five twin 8-inch guns and four quad 24-inch torpedo tubes. Made extensive use of light alloys and welding to control their weight. Three were lost in 1944 and the fourth, Takao, was severely damaged in Singapore harbor by the British midget submarines XE-1 and XE-3.

Originally laid down as light cruisers and mounting five triple 6.1-inch guns (in answer to the US Brooklyn class). The four Mogami-class were modified in 1939-1940 into heavy cruisers, mounting five twin 8-inch rifles and four triple 24-inch torpedo tubes. One was sunk in 1942 and the remaining three in 1944.

The two Tone class cruisers were modified Mogamis. Built to carry a larger number of floatplanes and act as fleet scouts. They mounted their four twin 8-inch guns forward of the bridge, they also carried four triple 24-inch torpedo tubes and five floatplanes. The Chikuma was lost in 1944 and the Tone was sunk in Kure harbor and scrapped after the war.

Designed as training ships, the three Katori class light cruisers became destroyer squadron flagships following the start of the war. They mounted two twin 5.5-inch rifles and two twin 24-inch torpedo tubes. One was lost in 1944, another in 1945 and the third, Kashima, survived the war, to be scrapped in 1947.

Designed as replacements for the older Nagaras, the four Agano class cruisers mounted three twin 6.1-inch rifles and two quad-mounted 24-inch torpedo tubes. Two were lost in 1944, a third, Yahagi, was sunk in the Last Sortie with Yamato and the fourth Sakawa, survived the war to be sunk in the Bikini nuclear test.

The last cruiser, the single Oyodo was a modified Agano. Armed with two triple 6.1-inch rifles, she was intended as a flagship for attack groups. In this role she carried six floatplanes. She was sunk in 1945.

Japanese heavy cruisers were powerful designs, built in excess of the pre war naval treaties. Their main armament was laid out in twin turrets, one of which could only fire to port or starboard, restricting their forward firing weapons to four rifles (compared to six on USN cruisers). They also mounted at least two 24-inch torpedo tubes with the deadly Type 93 Long Lance torpedo. In the fighting off Guadalcanal, they were deadly foes.

Their light cruisers were, for the most part, 1919-1920 designs and poorly suited for modern warfare. But they also carried the Long Lance torpedo, giving them the edge in surface actions.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

That sounds all too familiar. I think I read that book which you aren't mentioning and thought the same thing.

And what a terrible ending to an intresting series!

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Destroyers and light cruisers are particularly poor (and dangerous) targets for subs. And the US didn't have all that many subs early on. But the US could have begun crippling the Japanese merchant fleet sooner, had they had properly working torps. Wouldn't have affected Guadalcanal much, but it would have been felt in other areas and it would have lessened the Allied losses in the war. But shortened the war? I don't think so.

In the early war years, US submarines often found themselves with dream shots, only to have their torpedoes fail.

Consider the USS Growler at the Battle of Midway, the only US sub to attack a Japanese warship in the battle, she was able to get close enough to put four torpedoes into one of the carriers, hit the carrier with all four shots, only to have all of them fail to explode! To add insult to injury, the air flask from one of the torpedoes floated to the service and was used by several Japanese sailors as a floatation device....its no wonder that US submariners wanted to travel to the east coast and commit barbarous acts upon the persons of certain officers working with Weapons Development!

What finally conviced the lab rats was a submarine that set up and fired twelve torpedoes (he reloaded!!!) at a stationary target, at the recommended range, using the recommended settings and got to watch all twelve torpedoes hit the target and fail to go off.

It doesn't get much worse than that!

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Why so unbelievable? This is the same empire that had already fought two wars with Americans in the past 90 years.

It's not so much about slavery as other things. The Empire was undisputed master of the seas at the time. it could easily have inflicted some more punishment upon their upstart former colonials, which doesn't seem so far a stretch. It would weaken a rapidly industrializing rival and put Americans "in their proper place".

And don't forget the San Jacinto affair in which a US warship bordered a British flagged merchant vessel and removed two Confederate diplomats. The US position that the Confederates were not diplomats but rebels was weak at beast. But even more damning was that the merchant was in international waters. It was only the personal intervention of Prince Albert that prevented hot heads from ordering the Royal Navy to teach the Americans a lesson.

So yes, I can see such an incident putting the Royal Navy in the position of smashing the blockade, and considering that most of the USN warships were smaller gunboats, the odds were excellent that the RN would succeed in their mission. With one or more Southern ports open to export cotton and tobacco and import military supplies.......

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Oi and Kitakami were armed with four 5.5-inch and ten quad mounted 24-inch torpedo tubes (20 Long Lance torpedoes on the broadside!!!!!).

That's one hell of a broadside. Scary. A single ship that can throw an entire squadron's worth of torps in a salvo.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

That's one hell of a broadside. Scary. A single ship that can throw an entire squadron's worth of torps in a salvo.

Picture Oi at 2nd Guadalcanal, with South Dakota in her sights!!!!

Japanese cruisers and most destroyers carried reload torpedoes....haven't found any mention of them being available on Oi and her sister....but wouldn't that be a nightmare scenario for a Task Group commander.

[Sanjuro]

Why so unbelievable? This is the same empire that had already fought two wars with Americans in the past 90 years.

The unbelievable part would have been getting Parliament to agree with the war; especially after the War of 1812 had led to a stable, mutually-acceptable peace and the longest undefended land border in the world.
Now, if the Confederacy had followed Longstreet's advice (in The Killer Angels anyway) and freed the slaves before attacking Fort Sumter; then I suspect British support would have been forthcoming...

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

The unbelievable part would have been getting Parliament to agree with the war; especially after the War of 1812 had led to a stable, mutually-acceptable peace and the longest undefended land border in the world.
Now, if the Confederacy had followed Longstreet's advice (in The Killer Angels anyway) and freed the slaves before attacking Fort Sumter; then I suspect British support would have been forthcoming...

It's no secret that the British was ready and willing to assist the Confederacy, we had observors on the ground watching how things played out and reporting back on a regular basis.

Slavery was the only thing that kept us out of the war. Politicaly and strategicly a divided North America was in the best interests of the British Empire but as mentioned we could not support a slave-nation, it just wouldn't wash with parliment and at the time we held the position of "good guys" in the same way America does today, it was inportant to maintain a moral high ground.

Had the south freed the slaves I doubt very much that the Union could of prevailed and we';d have a very different history. The long reaching effects of two American states on world history is a fascinating concept when you look at the 20th century.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

The long reaching effects of two American states on world history is a fascinating concept when you look at the 20th century.

Yes, it is. One has to wonder how WW1 would have turned out if there had been no American intervention. Had there been a negotiated peace there would never have been a Nazi Germany to feed off of the resentment of what the Allies forced upon Germany. Without a Nazi Germany how would Europe have fared once Stalin finished screwing up Russia? Would he have attacked westwards without having a hated target like Nazi Germany to focus upon? Japan would likely not have needed to resort to attacking the USA or CSA. Would Stalin, free to devote all his attention to Japan, have left Japan alone to wage war on China? Doubtful.

[dragoon500ly]

And that's why Turtledove's work holds my attention. It's a well reasoned, carefully thoughout might-have-been.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Yes, it is. One has to wonder how WW1 would have turned out if there had been no American intervention. Had there been a negotiated peace there would never have been a Nazi Germany to feed off of the resentment of what the Allies forced upon Germany. Without a Nazi Germany how would Europe have fared once Stalin finished screwing up Russia? Would he have attacked westwards without having a hated target like Nazi Germany to focus upon? Japan would likely not have needed to resort to attacking the USA or CSA. Would Stalin, free to devote all his attention to Japan, have left Japan alone to wage war on China? Doubtful.

America's involvement in WW1 has always been over-estimated. By the time America entered the war, Germany had shot her bolt. America helped make the Germans realise this but even without the Americans WW1 would not of lasted past 1919 at best.

However the concept of a negotiated peace is interesting. Without America to drive the final nail into Germany's coffin they may of been able to negotiate, considering they had already finished their war on the Eastern front. Hitler could not of risen to power without the humiliation of Germany, a negotiated peace without the crippling war indemnity that came from the post-war treaty may of turned Germany into a post-war democracy similar to France and the UK.

WW2 may well of been an alliance of Germany, France and the Uk against Stalin. Without a Japanese attack to push either American state into armed conflict they probably wouldn't bother getting involved at all, taking a wait and see approach to the continent.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

America's involvement in WW1 has always been over-estimated. By the time America entered the war, Germany had shot her bolt. America helped make the Germans realise this but even without the Americans WW1 would not of lasted past 1919 at best.

America's military contribution wasn't so great. Its keeping England from going bankrupt, however, should not be underestimated.

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

However the concept of a negotiated peace is interesting. Without America to drive the final nail into Germany's coffin they may of been able to negotiate, considering they had already finished their war on the Eastern front. Hitler could not of risen to power without the humiliation of Germany, a negotiated peace without the crippling war indemnity that came from the post-war treaty may of turned Germany into a post-war democracy similar to France and the UK.

WW2 may well of been an alliance of Germany, France and the Uk against Stalin. Without a Japanese attack to push either American state into armed conflict they probably wouldn't bother getting involved at all, taking a wait and see approach to the continent.

I see that there is something that you and I can agree upon.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Of all of the stupidity with which the Japanese approached WWII with, the use of her merchant fleet had to be the shining example of how not to fight a modern war. One can only wonder if the war would have lasted into 1945 if the USN had started with a operational torpedo?

Its often been said that American submarines succeeded in doing to Japanese shipping in the Pacific, to what Germany's submarines failed to do to Allied shipping in the Atlantic. In fact Allied shipping losses from the end of 1941-45 were more then twice in tonnage to what the Japanese lost in the Pacific, and in 1942 Allied shipping losses were six times greater in tonnage in the Atlantic alone to Japanese losses in the Pacific.

Japan actually produced as many submarines as Britain in WW2 (167), although this pales in comparison to Germany who producing twice as much as the rest of the world combined. German submarine technology and tactics progressed rapidly throughout the war.

They were the first to fit the Dutch Snorkel design into their submarines. The Germans also made rapid progress in the development of battery capacity, sonars, homing torpedoes, and fitted hydraulic torpedo loaders onto the Type XXI which gave them the ability to fire 18 torpedoes in under 20 minutes. The Type XXI was considered revolutionary, being able to remain submerged almost all of the time and also faster than all previous designs worldwide, due to the improved streamlining of their shape, batteries with larger capacity and the snorkel, which allowed diesel engines to be used while submerged. Streamlined and hydrodynamically clean hull design allowed later war German submarines to have high submerged speed, being able to outrun many surface ships while submerged, combined with improved dive times, making it much harder to chase and destroy. Yet they lost 785 submarines.

The reason being the Allies, the British in particular, recognised from the outset the danger of the submarine to not only naval shipping but commerce. In addition to the convoy and escort system, Allied anti-submarine weapons and counter-measures kept pace with and even surpassed German submarine developments and tactics, to the point that Allied shipping losses in the Atlantic declined from 6.1 million tonnes in 1942, to 500,000 tonnes in 1944. Geman submarine losses rose from 87 in 1942 to 242 in 1944.

Unlike Britain the Japanese failed to make provisions to protect their shipping until it was way too late, and it was far to little to stop American submarines from choking Japanese imports and resupply to outlying bases and garrisons. Initially it was probably out of arrogance due to their early successes, but they were hoplessely outclassed by Allied technology as the war progressed. Japan also failed to properly utilise its large submarine fleet from the start of the war. They had 63 operational submarines in December 1941 which were as good as what the US Navy had, with better torpedoes. Yet until later in the war when they were on the retreat they largely ignored Allied shipping and went looking for warships. In 1942 Japan lost a million tons of shipping and sunk 7 American submarines. In 1944 Japan lost nearly 4 million tons of shipping and sank 20 American submarines, and lost 56 of her own submarines.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

I see that there is something that you and I can agree upon.

Debate enough subjects, long enough and common ground is reached sooner or later.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by RN7

The reason being the Allies, the British in particular, recognised from the outset the danger of the submarine to not only naval shipping but commerce. In addition to the convoy and escort system, Allied anti-submarine weapons and counter-measures kept pace with and even surpassed German submarine developments and tactics, to the point that Allied shipping losses in the Atlantic declined from 6.1 million tonnes in 1942, to 500,000 tonnes in 1944. Geman submarine losses rose from 87 in 1942 to 242 in 1944.

We already had a taste of what subs could do back in WW1. While often slow to learn, this was an education we took to heart when WW2 broke out. Even so, it took us a while to get our shit together and run convoys. During the early stage of the Atlantic war it was open season on merchant shipping.

[ShadoWarrior]

Oddly enough, and very fortunate for the UK (and the rest of the world), Germany failed to learn the lesson of their own success with U-boats in WW1.

When World War II started, Germany only had 65 U-boats, with just 21 of those at sea, ready for war. During the war the Germans sank 5,150 allied ships displacing 21.57 million tons. Of this, the U-boats were responsible for 2828 ships of 14.69 million tons. To place this in perspective, the Germans sank the equivalent of the entire British merchant fleet at the start of the war. Additionally, submarines destroyed 187 warships, including 6 aircraft carriers and 2 battleships.

WW2 U-boat production:

1935 (14)
1936 (21)
1937 (1)
1938 (9)
1939 (18)
1940 (50)
1941 (199)
1942 (237)
1943 (284)
1944 (229)
1945 (91)

Total: 1153

Imagine what would have happened if Germany had used a different Z-plan, one in which resource-intensive dinosaurs like the cruisers and battleships whose keels were laid down prior to the outbreak of war had been deferred to later in the plan in favor of truly massive U-boat construction. How many U-boats could Germany have built in place of the Bismark and Tirpitz? As it was, Germany came close to bringing England to its knees, even with a late start at ramping up U-boat production. Let's suppose that Germany had built 200 U-boats in 1939 and another 200 in 1940. (That's moving the historical production ahead by just 2 years, which is not unreasonable.) Germany succeeds in forcing England to sue for peace by the Spring of 1941. With no threat in the Mediterranean from England, Germany has no need to intervene on Italy's behalf in Greece. The west flank is secure and Operation Barbarossa can begin on its original schedule and with more power as Germany no longer needs to tie up large numbers of men, tanks, and planes in the west. Six weeks more time allows Germany to take Moscow long before the fall rains turn everything into a muddy morass. Leningrad falls soon thereafter. Even if Stalin doesn't sue for peace (which is unlikely, and it's equally unlikely that Hitler would have accepted even if Stalin offered), by the time the Siberians arrive they'd find the Germans already hunkered down in Moscow and Leningrad. Their counteroffensive would have limited effect. With reduced winter losses, and starting positions further east, Germany is more likely to succeed in the Caucasus operations of 1942. If they capture the oilfields (likely in this alternate history), that's pretty much it for any chances of the Soviets ever being able to throw the Germans back on the defensive. Best case for the Russians is that things settle into years of bloody stalemate on the Eastern front. Worst case? Japan attacks a fatally weakened Russia in late 1942 and it's the Russians that have to fight a two-front war, and do so without any lend-lease from the UK or the US.

And speaking of the US, with England at peace with Germany, the Germans never declare war on the US. The French are FUBAR. There will never be a "second front". The US concentrates all its might on Japan. The Pacific war probably ends in late 1944 or early 1945, and without atomic weapons, which are not fast-tracked into development because the US is never threatened by Germany. The invasion of Japan is horrendously bloody.

Germany completes the Final Solution. Germany also, eventually, either gets Turkey to join the Axis, or conquers it. After which Germany sweeps through the Middle East, swallowing up Arabia and Persia.

Two superpowers arise from WW2: the US and Germany, with the Third Reich as the largest empire the world has ever known, having conquered nearly all of Europe, and a substantial portion of Asia.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by RN7

Japan also failed to properly utilise its large submarine fleet from the start of the war.

In particular, it was the doctrine of the IJA for submarines to go after surface warships first, merchant shipping second. With the exception of aircraft carriers, this was a backwards strategy. Sinking a battleship doesn't harm the enemy as much as an equivalent tonnage of freighters and tankers.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Germany completes the Final Solution. Germany also, eventually, either gets Turkey to join the Axis, or conquers it. After which Germany sweeps through the Middle East, swallowing up Arabia and Persia.

This is one of the obvious historical changes in my weird WWII campaign, the result of Russia attacking Germany in 1941 and getting crushed (a major factor in Turkey not joining the Axis was fear of being attacked by Russia; with Russia out of the way, Turkey's neutrality becomes less certain).

Oh, and the Russian invasion was partly the PCs fault. In December 1940 they made sure the Russians knew the Nazis were in Switzerland trying to recruit the dragons there burn down Moscow, among other places ...

[dragoon500ly]

On December 7, 1941, the USN had 171 destroyers in commission.

One third of these were of World War One vintage, the famous "Liberty" or "flush-deck class of which 272 had been built. Between the wars 12 had been lost and 93 had been scrapped under the terms of the London Naval Disarmament Treaty of 1930. An additional 46 were serving in subsidary duties and 50 had been traded to the Royal Navy in 1940. Leaving 71 in service.

The remaining ships were all built after 1932.

One feature of US destroyers was that they were built for a Pacific War. The scarcity of land bases meant that some means of overcoming the vast distances involved had to be found. One solution was the development of the fleet train that allowed the USN to strike anywhere in the Pacific. Another was building extended ranges into their ships. For example, a contemporary British F-class destroyer had a range of 6,000 miles at 15 knots. The US Craven-class destroyer had a range of 9,000 miles at the same speed. All US destroyers were equipped to refuel at sea.

Allen-class. Sole survivor of the pre-flush deck destroyers. Spent the war at Pearl Harbor as a training vessel and scrapped in 1946.

Clemson-class; also known as the Liberty or Flush-Deck class. Displacement ranged from 1,090 to 1,190 tons. Armed with four 4-inch/50 rifles and a single 3-inch/23 AA gun and four triple torpedo mounts. Spent most of the war as convoy escorts or modified into fast landing ships or minesweepers. During 1941-42, they fought against terrible odds in the Philippines and Java. One, the USS Stewart was captured in dry dock and served the war with the IJN. Recovered after the war, she was sunk as a target in 1946. Eighteen were sunk.

Farragut-class. A group of 8 built in 1934. Displacement of 1,395 tons. Introduced the 5-inch/38 DP gun and quad mounted tubes. Initially mounted five 5-inch/38s and two quad mount torpedos. One 5-incher was removed to make room (and weight) for increased AA armament. Three were sunk during the war.

Porter-class. A class of 8 built in 1935 and designed as squadron leaders. Introduced the twin 5-ich/38 mount. Fitted with 4 twin gun mounts and two quad mount torpedoes. Displaced 1,850 tons. Later modified with one twin 5-inch being replaced with a single mount and increased AA armament. One was lost.

Mahan-class. Entering service in 1935, this class of 18 was initially armed with 5 single mount 5-inchers and three quad mounted torpedoes. Later modified with the removal of one 5-incher and two torpedo mounts to allow for increased AA armament. Displaced 1,500 tons. Five were sunk.

Somers-class. Built in 1937, this class of 5 were improved Porters. Displaced 1,850 tons. Started with four twin 5-inch mounts and three quad torpedoe tubes. Later lost one quad mount in favor of increased AA armament. One was lost.

Craven-class, also known as the Gridley-class. Entering service in 1936, this was a class of 22. Displaced 1,500 tons. Armed with four 5-inch single mounts and four quad torpedo tubes. Little changed during the war, although two torpedo mounts were replaced with AA guns. Four were sunk.

Sims-class. Entered service in 1938 as a class of 12 ships. Improved Benham-class armed with five single mount 5-inch/38s and three quad mounted torpedo tubes. Later lost one torpedo mount in favor of AA guns. Displaced 1,570 tons. Five were sunk during the war.

Benson-Livermore-class. Entered service starting in 1939, these two classes totaled 96 vessels (32 Benson and 64 Livermore). Bensons displaced 1,620 tons and Livermores displaced 1,630 tons. Differed only in minor details. Armed with four single 5-inchers and one quintuple torpedo mount. Some were built with two torpedo mounts, but this was quickly removed. Fourteen were lost in the war.

Fletcher-class. This class of 179 started entering service in 1942. The mainstay of the US Pacific Fleet for most of the war. Displaced 2,050 tons and armed with five single mount 5-inch/38s and two quituple torpedo mounts. Towards the end of the war, one torpedo mount was removed in favor of increased AA armament. Twenty were sunk.

Allen M. Summers-class. Entering service in 1943 as a class of 58. These were improved Fletchers armed with three twin 5-inch/38s and two quintuple torpedo mounts. Later lost a torpedo mount, replaced with additional AA guns. Displaced 2,200 tons. Not consider to be successful due to weight problems. Four were sunk.

Gearing-class. Entered service in 1945 as a class of 105. Displaced 2,425 tons. Armed with three twin 5-inch/38s and two quintuple torpedo mounts, later reduced to one torpedo mount and additional AA guns. None were lost.

US destroyers were powerfully armed with dual purpose guns and a strong torpedo armament. As the war progressed, torpedoes were replaced with larger numbers of 40mm and 20mm mounts. They were also noted for an excellent ASW capability with one of the best sonars of the war as well as a heavy depth charge (and later Hedgehog) armament.

All-in-all, well capable of fighting the Pacific War.

[dragoon500ly]

Japanese destroyers in WWII earned a reputation for being deadly anti-ship platforms, due to their heavy torpedo armament, especially the Type 93 Long Lance, arguably the best torpedo of the war. Another, little known capability, was the detroyers carriage of reload torpedoes (not just 1 or 2, but enough to reload all of their tubes) and the provision of rapid reloading gear. A IJN destroyer could fire all of its torpedoes in one salvo and have its tubes reloaded within six minutes. This capability was a deadly surprise to the USN during the battles off Guadacanal.

Momi-class. In service from 1919. Displacing 770 tons. The first IJN destroyers built that did not show the influence of British design. 25 were built. One was lost to a pre-collision, 3 were scrapped, 9 were reclassied and rearmed as patrol boats, 5 became training ships and 7 remained as destroyers. Armed with three single mount 4.7-inch rifles and two twin 21-inch torpedeo tubes. Three were sunk, two were removed in 1939 and one was scrapped in 1947.

Minekaze-class. A class of 13 that entered service in the 1920s. Displaced 1,215 tons and were armed with four single mount 4.7-inch rifles and three twin 21-inch torpedo tubes. 8 were sunk during the war, 3 were scrapped in 1947/48, one was scuttled in 1947 and one was turned over to China in 1947.

Wakatake-class. A class of 6 that entered service in the 1920s. Displaced 820 tons and armed with three single 4.7-inch and two twin 21-inch torpedo mounts. One sank in 1932 and five were sunk during the war.

Kamikaze-class. Entering service in 1922, this class of 9 displaced 1,270 tons. Armed with four single mount 4.7-inchers and three twin 21-inch torpedo tubes. Seven were sunk and two were scrapped in 1947.

Mutsuki-class. A class of 12 that entered service in 1926. Displacing 1,313 tons and armed with four single 4.7in rifles and two triple 24-inch torpedo tubes. All twelve were sunk during the war.

Fubuki-class. Entered service in 1930 with 20 ships.. The first modern IJN destroyers, they displaced 2,090 tons and were armed with three twin 5-inch/50 rifles and three triple 24-inch torpedo tubes. During the war, they lost one 5-inch mount, replaced by additional AA guns. Nineteen were sunk during the war and one was scrapped in 1947.

Akatsuki-class. A class of 4 that service in 1932. Displacing 2,090 tons and armed with three twin 5-inch/50 and three triple 24-inch torpedo mounts. Later lost one 5-inch mount in favor of additional AA guns. Three were sunk and one went to Russia in 1947.

Hatsuharu-class. A class of 6, entering service in 1934. Displaced 1,715 tons and armed with two twin and one single 5-inch/50 and two triple 24-inch torpedo mounts. The single gun mount was replaced with AA guns. All were lost during the war.

Shiratsuyu-class. Entered service in 1935 as a class of 10. Displaced 1,580 tons and armed with two twin and one single 5-inch/50 and two quadruple 24-inch mounts. Like the Hatsuharu, the single gun mount was replaced by AA guns. All were lost during the war.

Asahio-class. A class of 10 that entered service in 1937. Displaced 1,961 tons and armed with three twin 5-inch/50s and two quadrule 24-inch torpedo mounts. Like other destroyers, one gun mount was replaced with AA guns. All were lost during the war.

Kagero-class. A class of 18 that entered service in 1939. Considered to be the ultimate in IJN destroyer design, all subsequent classes differed only in minor details. Displaced 2,033 tons and armed with three twin 5-inch/50s and two quadruple torpedo mounts. Later had one gun mount replaced with extra AA guns. Seventeen were lost during the war and one went to CHina in 1947.

Yugumo-class. A class of 20 that entered service in 1941. Displaced 2,077 tons and armed with three twin 5-inch/50s and two quadruple torpedo mounts. Later had one gun mount replaced with extra AA guns. All were lost during the war.

Akitsuki-class. A class of 12 that entered service in 1941. Designed to meet the need for AA screening vessles for the carriers. Displaced 2,701 tons and armed with four twin 3.9-inch/70 rifles and one quadruple 24-inch torpedo mount. Six were sunk, one went to Russia, another to China and four were scrapped in 1947/48.

Shimakaze. A single ship that entered service in 1942. Displaced 2,567 tons and armed with three twin 5-inch/50s and two quadruple torpedo mounts. Later had one gun mount replaced with extra AA guns. SUnk in 1944.

Matsu-class. A class of 41 that entered service in 1944. Displaced 1,262 tons and armed with one twin and one single 5-inch mount and one quadruple 24-inch torpedo mount. Designed as ASW ships. Nine were sunk, three to China, four to Russia and the remainder scrapped in 1947.

Japanese destroyers were initially designed for the anti-ship role. As Allied airpower became more threatening, they were heavily modified for AA use. IJN DDs were considered to be poor ASW platforms.