Comments: 250
Tzoli In reply to ??? [2021-06-08 21:21:53 +0000 UTC]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wiedzemin [2018-04-04 11:23:47 +0000 UTC]
Damn, it is good!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tzoli In reply to Wiedzemin [2018-04-04 15:23:13 +0000 UTC]
Thx
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ijnfleetadmiral [2017-09-04 00:41:14 +0000 UTC]
Is that truly how the Mogamis were to have looked as CVLs, or is that portion purely your own design? Either way, nice work...they would've looked like nice ships.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tzoli In reply to ijnfleetadmiral [2017-09-04 04:53:25 +0000 UTC]
Well as I don't know how they would actually looked like I used elements of the Tone conversion:
i.imgur.com/bb9sfxC.jpg
and the Ibuki because both used the same hull form (Mogami, Mogami/Suzuya, Tone and Improved Tone and Ibuki)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ArmamentDawg [2016-09-08 06:49:12 +0000 UTC]
Good job.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BeignetBison [2016-06-08 18:11:11 +0000 UTC]
Epic work comrade.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FRIEND711 [2016-06-07 02:25:05 +0000 UTC]
colored version is more cool! but too bad Mogami never saw the daies of being an aircraft carrier :3:
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tzoli In reply to FRIEND711 [2016-06-07 14:45:51 +0000 UTC]
Neither Ibuki or any of the post Aoba cruisers
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FRIEND711 In reply to Tzoli [2016-06-08 01:11:16 +0000 UTC]
I honestly think they should have made the Ibuki a heavy crusure, I mean the japanese Navy was going full carrier mode after the lose of the six flag ships, but whats a carrier with out its escort?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Tzoli In reply to FRIEND711 [2016-06-08 14:39:44 +0000 UTC]
She was a heavy cruiser originally when laid down. When the conversion begun the IJN still had enough cruisers. But remember IJN not used heavy cruisers for escorts, they used destroyers and light cruisers for that purpose.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FRIEND711 In reply to Tzoli [2016-06-08 14:42:46 +0000 UTC]
I meant for carriers, they used them for escorting carriers a lot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tzoli In reply to FRIEND711 [2016-06-08 15:22:15 +0000 UTC]
No IJN Heavy cruiser doctrine called for cruiser squadrons harassing enemy cruisers and convoys. Destroyers were the main escorts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FRIEND711 In reply to Tzoli [2016-06-08 15:28:51 +0000 UTC]
But what about Tone and Aoba? They mostly escorted carriers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tzoli In reply to FRIEND711 [2016-06-08 15:39:13 +0000 UTC]
They are designed to be the fleet's eyes providing scouting and observation for the fleet. They are heavy cruisers because of weaponry. And also they are only 2 ships compared to the other 16
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FRIEND711 In reply to Tzoli [2016-06-09 00:16:59 +0000 UTC]
^^" Why didnt they use them for carrier escort?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
FRIEND711 In reply to Tzoli [2016-06-15 02:10:28 +0000 UTC]
Interesting read. I was actually surpised that there wasnt an english version name for 艦隊決戦 I mean yeah, Fkeet battle the work came out but it wasnt the main artical name ^^"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tzoli In reply to FRIEND711 [2016-06-15 14:33:16 +0000 UTC]
I think it's quite accurate both in translation and both what the doctrine created for.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FRIEND711 In reply to Tzoli [2016-06-15 14:53:31 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, mostly I guess.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Tzoli In reply to FRIEND711 [2016-06-09 14:40:38 +0000 UTC]
Doctrine! Different doctrine! The same way USA did not used the Iowas as single ships hunting convoys like the Germans did
Different Operational doctrine.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FRIEND711 In reply to Tzoli [2016-06-10 00:41:37 +0000 UTC]
Of course. its that no big surprise XP
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tzoli In reply to FRIEND711 [2016-06-10 15:21:13 +0000 UTC]
Well you seem quite surprised that the IJN not used their cruisers for escorting duties.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FRIEND711 In reply to Tzoli [2016-06-11 10:31:05 +0000 UTC]
It's just....sometimes I wish I was their naval commander X3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tzoli In reply to FRIEND711 [2016-06-11 13:56:27 +0000 UTC]
And now think it over if you would had been born as a Japanese in the late 1800's! Think of their education system, culture and view of others!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FRIEND711 In reply to Tzoli [2016-06-11 14:00:39 +0000 UTC]
Hahahahahahhahahahahaahahhhhhhhaaa XD I was raised by my great grand father who was an army corple in the Japanese army in WW2, I had no outside connections except maybe tv and VHS videos, besides that I actually fit your discretion XD LOL
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tzoli In reply to FRIEND711 [2016-06-11 14:25:31 +0000 UTC]
Except of having the knowledge of history of the past roughly 80 years!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FRIEND711 In reply to Tzoli [2016-06-11 14:46:11 +0000 UTC]
Even without that though I think I could be a good commander. I mean, gee, the Germans over too France with blits creed in a month, maybe we should adopt that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tzoli In reply to FRIEND711 [2016-06-11 15:02:37 +0000 UTC]
You meant Blitzkrieg???
That would not work for Japanese. China and Far East Russia's infrastructure was extremely bad!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FRIEND711 In reply to Tzoli [2016-06-12 01:07:12 +0000 UTC]
What about new Gina or gwadalcanal ? South east Asia? India would have been perfect if they used blitzkrieg(sorry about the poor spelling last time XC )
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tzoli In reply to FRIEND711 [2016-06-12 08:37:55 +0000 UTC]
You mean Papua New-Guinea and Guadalcanal? Those islands have even worse infrastructure then China! Mostly jungles and mountains, both terrains are bad for Blitzkrieg type attack.
India maybe good for it, but best candidate is USA and Australia
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FRIEND711 In reply to Tzoli [2016-06-13 02:51:15 +0000 UTC]
Well I guess when i said blitzskrieg, I mean amored divisions with airial cover, I mean There are huge areas they fought in both islands(Papua New-Ginea is the name of the country ^^ The islands name is New-Guinea)
If the japanese used Tanks and planes to attack the Australians, then thjey would have captured Port Moresby and they could have used that port for a coordinated attack on Guadalcanal, the type 97 Chi-ha tank that has been produced since 1941 can knock out a M4, 500 meters away and the jungle and mountains of both islands were the best battlefield for exactly that. And the type 99 Assult plane could carry four 80 kilo bombs, if they used it for spraying attacks on infanty, hell even on tanks they could have inflected sevire damage, and like the 88mm guns in Europe, they could have been the Allies greatest enemy if the Japanese would use it!
Like we discust earlier the Japanese tactical docteren was out dated and quiet useless.
They forgot why and how we won the battle of the Japanese sea, with state of the art, tactics and weapons, Hell did you know that General Yamasita, the general who defeted the British in Singapore(I hope i spelled it right ^^") He said that Japanese tactics were stupid and old and that they needed an overhall, but nope they just shipped him off somewhere unimportant and when the poop hit the fan they sended him to the Phillipines and said no to basically every tactic this tactical mastermind was giving!
We lost the war by stupidity nothing more or less, Yamamoto should have been the primeminister. not Tojio no show.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FRIEND711 In reply to Tzoli [2016-06-13 15:55:22 +0000 UTC]
Ture. The main aim for blitzkrieg was speed but like I said earlier, my main point when saying blitzkreg was air power and ground power together, speed was not my main point especially with the condition with the island.
But a mechanized decision with Anti tank tanks (Type 97 Chi-ha) with tracked infantry carriers and artillery carriers and anti infantry tanks (type-95) would have been faster then the infantry, not fast like the panzers in Europe, but fast enough. And actually the Japanese tanks are much better in mountain terain then American tanks since they where heavily tested in mountain Terrain, the main test ground for tanks was in Mt.Fuji.
Like Roman infantry fighting the Caltago navy by Turing the naval battle into a infantry battle, Japan should have brought the Australian tanks into the mountains and attacked in close combat and used their feared type 99 assault planes for cover. And use radio! That's important.
In Europe its speed, but in the pacific it's how to use time. And that's why I want to be a commander in ww2, if I led the army through New-Guinea, I would capture the island and use Port Moresby for the combine fleet for Guadalcanal.
And yes, he was, they both were. Did you know that Yamamoto didn't want to go to war with the U.S. yet he masterminded Pearl harvor. That takes some guts to do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tzoli In reply to FRIEND711 [2016-06-13 17:08:52 +0000 UTC]
What you want is Combined arms together with air support. Blitzkrieg (Which means Thunder war) is not feasible on the pacific. Infiltration and guerilla warfare yes, armed warfare not much. The dense trees of the jungles, it slows the tanks down too much! Yes in plains and on the beach they are for good use, but then you need infantry and engineers to clear the path for them.
Type 99??? You mean the Mitsubishi Ki-51 Sonia Light/Dive Bombers?
The Type 97 Chi-Ha was not a vehivle designed against tanks. The Type 1 Chi-He was designed against Tanks though The Chi-Ha-Kai with it's 47mm was better then the standard Chi-Ha.
Of course Yamamoto designed the attack plan but the IJN practising and playing with the idea of attacking Pearl Harbour since the 1920's! And yes he was against the plan to attack USA
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FRIEND711 In reply to Tzoli [2016-06-14 02:48:34 +0000 UTC]
Yes. that is exactly what I Wanted to say, a coordinated force with air and land, that would have helped. And not like in Europe where rows of tanks, I was thinking more like ten-twenty tanks in a devision, spread out in the jungle as they approch their target, Tanks were like buldozers, it would be slow but they could still go through faster then infantry and the soldiers wont be tired as well.
And Type 97 Chi-ha is the one with the 45mm, the Chi-ha is the bname for the heavier terroret. and Yes Type99 assult plane is its real name. sonia is cool to though...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tzoli In reply to FRIEND711 [2016-06-14 14:42:42 +0000 UTC]
Tanks were not bulldozers! The heavier ones like the T-34 and Tiger could plow over brick walls, family buildings and single trees, but the medium and light tanks the Japanese used were not that strong to go through thick jungle. Sorry but I cannot see how Tanks (which consume precious oil and fuel, more supplies and ammo) are better for jungle warfare then specially trained infantry who only need less supplies, food and ammo.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FRIEND711 In reply to Tzoli [2016-06-15 02:41:46 +0000 UTC]
Okay, granted they cant pave the jungle like a bulldozer, but they can still move in small coloms and the battlefield of New Giana, unlike other places, was next to japanese oqupied oil plants. meaning that they could bring and supply oil easily.
And actually its been proven countless times that even within the jungle when your trying to take a position, having armored vihicles for direct fire infantry support gives you a huge advantige, and like I said the Australian army had M3s and M4s. But mostly the light M3s meaning the type97 Chi ha could open them up like a can opener and helped the japanese take control of the island.
And close quorter bombing by Type 99 assult planes would have helped a lot too. and unlike their planes, japanese tank used dezzle, so not that much of a lighhter effect, however the M3s using gassalin were.
And the most important part is troops riding vihicles can fight better since they are not tired, tired soliders are almost usuless in the battlefield. and the psychological warfare. showing the alies that the japanese army was more modern then they thought and the Japanese soldiers themselves will have that we can beat the allies morale boost.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
TheAbyssalSamurai In reply to FRIEND711 [2016-06-08 11:04:00 +0000 UTC]
And what if there was no carrier to begin with? XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FRIEND711 In reply to TheAbyssalSamurai [2016-06-08 12:10:52 +0000 UTC]
No Carrier? Dude, the stupidest thing the Japanese navy did was make six aircraft carriers and have no aircraft! I mean even in July of 1945, we had four operational carriers, F**king Four! And another 2 was over 80 percent complete. We had 6000 suicide aircraft for the home invasion, but no carrier hold able planes?
And don't give me that we didn't have fuel bulls**t, the carrier Katulagi and Amagi were used number of times for troop transport from China to Japan after the Yamato went out and got sunk like road kill on I-95! If we had enough fuel to do that, we could have use that to remake the surface carrier force! Christ, they could have sent them to the Brithish off the Sakisima island and destroy their fleet and go to Malaysia, why Malasyia? Because they A. Have more fuel there and B. Could have made half the U.S fleet go to another battlefield while the Kamikaze fought the other half.
Think about it if the U. S had to split its fleet then Okinawa would have been 50 percent more volnerable for the Kamikazes.
Hell, the last navel battle in the pacific was fought near Malasyia, and the Japanese did do more damage then the kamikazes at the time!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TheAbyssalSamurai In reply to FRIEND711 [2016-06-08 12:19:02 +0000 UTC]
Well then there is also the fact that
A) US were bombing like crazy and destorying the factories and shipyards
B) Even if they did rebuild the surface fleet, what good would it do against the overwhelming US naval power at the time? It would be a lot wiser to focus on land based airpower, esspecially since the fighting was closer to Japanese lands
C) The design of the carriers. The Unryu class carriers were just not up to dealing with the Essex class and, if the war dragged out long enough, the Midway class. Thinly armoured and couldn't carry a lot of planes, they were inferior of the Essex class.
Im not saying the Japanese couldn't rebuild their carrier fleet. It's just that they would never be able to take back control of the skies before the US came and invaded using the atypical mass production of ships and planes
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FRIEND711 In reply to TheAbyssalSamurai [2016-06-08 13:42:08 +0000 UTC]
Well. A. American bombings didn't start until December of 1944, meaning that the "bombing like crazy" only lasted for Nine months such an ironic number if you ask me.
B. You're right, it wouldn't turn the tie of war, but it would have killed more American soldiers. Yes, I know how that sounds but bare with me. The amazing thing about Germany is that ther Germans were suppost to win WW2, even in May of 1945 they still destried more then 400 tanks from the UK and US alone, in just for days they destroyed 400 tanks! Maybe doable or triple including the amount they destroyed fighting with the USSR, it told the German people that they didn't lose in skill or technology, it told them they lost because of the nazi ideology, that hating every ethnic group was bad, it thought them something which the Germans still hold deer today, racism is bad.
But in Japan's case? We don't question our technology but we sure as hall say, you know what? Kamikaze was stupid. If we weren't overly obsessive in sinking carriers or tell our soldiers that their lives mean nothing if they don't sink a carriers, maybe soldiers should have hidden behind tanks while they attacked Henderson instead of going in head on while yelling like a Moran. Then maybe we could have won the war. A lot of people honestly believe that and you know what, I don't blam them, they make a point, a very good point. Japan mainly lost because of stupid leaders.
I honestly think Yamamoto saw no future in the empire, and that's why he half assed later on in the war.
But if they changed their ways of fighting and actually do some damage then maybe we would start to think that maybe the main reason we lost was we were racist a**holes.
If they remade the the carrier fleet and attacked the British first, then they could have an even match. The British had four carriers and two battle ship in their pacific fleet, and only twelve kamikazes attacked and they damaged Four Carriers and two battleship! And a couple escorts but you get the picture. If they were able to have kamikaze pilots do that, imagine what 90 attack planes could do, teach them to attack small ships first and then isolate the big ships, maybe the Yamato could have actually faught a King Gorge V class battleship and won. That news gose to the US fleet and do you think they are ganna leave them alone?
They will fallow them to Malasyia and the fleet could give a couple of surprising attacks to the US fleet. It could have given the US a larger casualty and maybe let future Japanese people say skill wasn't the problem, it was our mindset.
Im not saying that the carrier force would win back the skies, nothing will at that time.
Germany lost with a bang, they faught until the end and they lost because they didn't have the ammo for the job.
Japan....just lost. I mean we lost with a bank....two of them mind you but what did it teach us?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TheAbyssalSamurai In reply to FRIEND711 [2016-06-08 20:52:43 +0000 UTC]
Men don't do much good dead and racism gets you nowhere. This applies to both sides of the spectrum.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>