Jutland campaign AAR

[grumbler]

The American Naval Aviators couldn't hit a barn from the inside in May -41. Now the torpedoe planes they had in May -41 would have been shot up by the flak quite badly. Now before you say that the Swordfish was worse, consider that the Swordfish had to take a direct hit to the engine or pilot to stop flying, quite hard with flak, while the TBD Devastators, slow and wallowing pigs, that the US Nave toted around in May -41 was easy to hit with flak.
The torpedoe hit on Bismarck IRL was a once in a lifetime hit and the only real damage to the ship was to it's rudders.

I am curious as to the source of your information for this rather phenomenally inaccurate post.   The TBD was no more vulnerable to flak than the Swordfish (and I don't know of any shot down by shipboard flak) and US torpedo tactics were good, and the crews well-trained.  At Coral Sea there were some problems with inter-squadron coordination, so that the torpedo bombers attacking Shokaku had to launch from astern at long range, but against the heavily maneuvering Shoho they hit with 7 of 9 torpedoes. 

The single torpedo hit on Bismarck was once-in-a-lifetime of you mean that the fact that only one hit was near-miraculous.

And do anyone know if the American airborne torpedoes had the same problems as the Submarine or destroyer launced torpedoes?

They had the same trigger problems (as did many other countries early in the war), but not the submarine torpedo's depth control problems.

[Neil]

Carriers are morally wrong.

Assuming that is related to killing a man from a distance where he cannot fight back, that would apply in most instances to battleships as well.

Admit it, you yearn for the period when fighting was up close and personal, when even spears were considered a bit "wishy-washy" and a true man used a sword or an axe...

Not at all.  I simply prefer the hierarchical, status-based model of warfare, where dreadnought fights dreadnought.  The predatory warfare that aircraft and submarines represent is morally reprehensible.

[Neil]

I am curious as to the source of your information for this rather phenomenally inaccurate post.   The TBD was no more vulnerable to flak than the Swordfish (and I don't know of any shot down by shipboard flak) and US torpedo tactics were good, and the crews well-trained.  At Coral Sea there were some problems with inter-squadron coordination, so that the torpedo bombers attacking Shokaku had to launch from astern at long range, but against the heavily maneuvering Shoho they hit with 7 of 9 torpedoes. 

The single torpedo hit on Bismarck was once-in-a-lifetime of you mean that the fact that only one hit was near-miraculous.

Really, the TBDs were faster, although the Swordfish were more maneuverable.  However, the bad rap on the Dauntless came mainly out of Midway, and it's not like the Swordfish would have done any better attacking the Japanese fleet without fighter cover.

Besides, Bismarck was hit twice, and the Shoho was an absolute pig when it came to maneouvering.

[Alcibiades]

The design of Akagi and Hiryū carriers, with the command superstructure on port side, sucked Chinese Korean monkey balls.

Please discuss.

Since the only effect of the design change on the superstructure was probably to increase the number of crashes due to pilot error, then indeed this one part of these ships "sucked monkey balls". I wouldn't condemn the entire ship based on such a minor flaw, however. Akagi in particular as rebuilt was a fine carrier.

What was the reasoning for changing it, and what was so bad about putting the superstructure on the opposite side,or is it just because it WAS changed is why it's bad?

[Viking]

The Swordfish flew too slow and too low for the Bismarck's anti aircraft guns to shoot anything but too far ahead and too high. Had those advanced Japanese bombers been used maybe the Bismarck's AA could have shot at them?

[Agelastus]

What was the reasoning for changing it, and what was so bad about putting the superstructure on the opposite side,or is it just because it WAS changed is why it's bad?

The reasoning was that Akagi and Kaga, and also Hiryu and Soryu, could then operate in parallel with their recovery patterns not overlapping (one pattern with aircraft banking in from the left, the other with them banking in from the right.)

Unfortunately, when pilots make a mistake on approach, they tend to try and recover by going left, rather than right, so putting Hiryu's and Akagi's islands on the port side caused far more crashes during aircraft recovery. This became apparent so quickly that Shokaku and Zuikaku were designed from the start as a standard pair of starboard island carriers.

[Neil]

The Swordfish flew too slow and too low for the Bismarck's anti aircraft guns to shoot anything but too far ahead and too high. Had those advanced Japanese bombers been used maybe the Bismarck's AA could have shot at them?

I rather doubt that the Swordfish were flying at an altitude of less than ten meters.  Mind you, the 105mm wasn't a very good AA gun anyways.

[Agelastus]

I believe the theory is that the Bismarck's fire control was at fault, rather than the guns themselves; the Swordfish flew below the minimum speed the fire control was able to cope with.

[Neil]

I believe the theory is that the Bismarck's fire control was at fault, rather than the guns themselves; the Swordfish flew below the minimum speed the fire control was able to cope with.

Ah, well that's alright then.  Still, it's not like the Bismarck's AAA suite was the best there was anyways.  It would be ironic if the Germans coupled slow-firing, slow-traversing weapons (which would really only be useful against the slowest, most sluggish or most stupid of aircraft) with a fire control system that could only target fast, modern aircraft.

[grumbler]

The Swordfish flew too slow and too low for the Bismarck's anti aircraft guns to shoot anything but too far ahead and too high.

Source?

[grumbler]

The reasoning was that Akagi and Kaga, and also Hiryu and Soryu, could then operate in parallel with their recovery patterns not overlapping (one pattern with aircraft banking in from the left, the other with them banking in from the right.)

Unfortunately, when pilots make a mistake on approach, they tend to try and recover by going left, rather than right, so putting Hiryu's and Akagi's islands on the port side caused far more crashes during aircraft recovery. This became apparent so quickly that Shokaku and Zuikaku were designed from the start as a standard pair of starboard island carriers.

You are correct in that the opposite-sided islands (and patterns) were designed for dual-CVBG operations, but I think mis-state the reason the experiment was abandoned.  Pilots when making mistakes on approach do not tend to recover by going right or left; they try to recover by going in the direction they were trained to go in.  Having carriers with different islands, patterns, and danger bearings required that pilots be trained extensively for the carrier they were to operate from.  I have never seen any data supporting the suggestion that Akagi and Hiryu suffered more aircraft accidents than Kaga and Soryu.  What I have seen is data to support the idea that the Japanese realized that modern AA considerations forced carriers to operate far enough apart that patterns didn't overlap even with the islands on the same side, and so, for ease of construction and training, Zuikaku and Shokaku were designed as sisters.

I would be glad to be proven wrong, though (using actual data, though, not message board opinions).

[Berkut]

This thread is making we want to go play WitP again.

However, I am confident that feeling could be squashed by going and playing WitP again.

[Ed Anger]

This thread is making we want to go play WitP again.

However, I am confident that feeling could be squashed by going and playing WitP again.

I thought about buying Shrapnel's War Plan Pacific. Then I couldn't find their download policy and said fuckitall.

[Berkut]

I am playing Empire of the Sun tonight.

[Ape]

The TBD was no more vulnerable to flak than the Swordfish (and I don't know of any shot down by shipboard flak) and US torpedo tactics were good, and the crews well-trained.

...and how many torpedo hits did the US naval aviators score within the first six months they were involved in against ships fully maneuverable? With their good tactics and well-trained crew?

At Coral Sea there were some problems with inter-squadron coordination, so that the torpedo bombers attacking Shokaku had to launch from astern at long range, but against the heavily maneuvering Shoho they hit with 7 of 9 torpedoes. 

That's ignorant at best, dishonest at worst. Shoho was a burning wreck from several bomb hits when the Lexington's torpedo squadron made their run. 1st hit was by Lt.Cmd Robert Dixon from Lexingoton's Scout bomber Sq. that hit Shoho in the middle of the flight deck with a 500-pound bomb. Shoho recieved two more 500-pound bombs from that 5-plane squadron, after which the regular dive-bombar squadron hit the Shoho with several 1000-pound bombs that turned Shoho into a burning wreck. THEN the torpedo-squadron ripped her apart....

They had the same trigger problems (as did many other countries early in the war), but not the submarine torpedo's depth control problems.

You forgot to mention the Mk.13's tendancy to run to deep  In fact, the naval aviators at Coral Sea found that their 'good' tactics coupeled with the problems with their torpedoes made them unable to hit a maneuvearable target, and when they hit their torpedoes failed to detonate.