HOME | DD

Tzoli — The Mogami Variants

Published: 2016-03-31 20:44:04 +0000 UTC; Views: 24664; Favourites: 133; Downloads: 479
Redirect to original
Description It's been a while since I draw something just for myself partly because of the requests and mostly because I have less time due to my job. So this time I make something I rarely do, variants. The last time I done this it was for the French Battleship Jean Bart:
tzoli.deviantart.com/art/Jean-…
tzoli.deviantart.com/art/Jean-…

This time I chosen a smaller vessel, the Mogami class cruisers for which I include all (to my knowledge) proposals, refits, rebuilds and conversions.

- Mogami class light cruisers as designed and laid down.
- Mogami class light cruisers (IJN Mogami and Mikuma) as finished
- Mogami class heavy cruisers (IJN Mogami and Mikuma) as refitted
- Mogami class heavy cruiser IJN Suzuya as proposed for anti aircraft heavy cruiser conversion
- Mogami class heavy cruiser IJN Kumano as proposed for anti aircraft cruiser conversion
- Mogami class heavy cruiser IJN Mogami as rebuilt to aviation cruiser
- Mogami class heavy cruisers as proposed to be rebuilt into light aircraft carriers

Note how the aircrafts which was carried changed over time.

More detailed info on the variants:

First variant:
After the sign of the First London Naval Treaty of 1930 Japan reached it's maximum allowed heavy cruiser tonnage by the completion of the 4 units of the Takao class and thus it had to cancel the following improved Takao class heavy cruisers. The tonnage limit for light cruisers too were very close to the set limit but by scrapping 4 pre-WW1 era protected crusiers of the Tone and Chikuma classes (3 ships), and replacement of the Tenryu class (2 ships) and the Kuma class (5 ships) by 1934 and 1937 allowed Japan to build 6 new light cruisers which then became the Mogami and Tone classes.
Originally the Mogami class would displace only 8500tons standard but the requirements of the navy was so similar that of the 10.000ton Takaos that standard displacement risen to 9500tons and different weight saving measures had to be taken to reach this goal and thus Design C-37 was born.
As the drawing illustrates the Mogami class as born was quite different from the ones actually finished. A bridge very similar to the Takao was adopted despite it's large mass resulting top heavy problems, large surface area for enemy fire and wind resistance counterweighted the positive points of centralised placements of fire-control, communications and navigational stations, the quadrupedal foremast was also taken from the Takao class. By reducing the boilers from 12 to 10 a single funnel could be adopted as well. A protected hanger was provided for the seaplanes which was almost identical to that of use on the Takaos. Main armament was chosen to be 15 155mm guns in 5 triple turrets from the very beginning and because they are designed to provide AA fire, the secondary armament was chosen to be only 4 single guns but of new type (12,7cm Type 89). Torpedo armament and placement too was very similarly arranged that of the Takaos.

Second variant:
This is how Mogami and Mikuma was comissioned. After the Tomozoru incident of 14th of March, 1934 plans were created to fix the stability issues of the Mogami class (among other ships of the fleet as well). These plans (unofficially known as the first efficiency or stability improvement works) were completed in June of that year but the first two units were already launched while he other two just laid down. The plan included the strengthening of the transverse bulkheads, replacing the large Takao style bridge with a much smaller one cutting it's weight by 2/3rds, removal of the seaplane hanger and rework of the aft superstructure, reducing their weight by half. Various deck height reductions were included, as well as moving the torpedo tubes further aft, increase the AA guns to 4 twin from 4 single mounts, and reducing the number of boilers from 10 to 8 in the last two units: IJN Suzuya and IJN Kumano.

Third variant:
In 1937, following the denunciation of the 2nd London Naval Treaty of 1936 in the IJN decided to construct new ships and continue to modernize or refit the existing units, including the battlecruiser Hiei and light cruisers of the Mogami and Tone classes. While the barbette diameter of the Tone class was changed during construction there were no problems for them to fit the 20cm twin gun turrets used on the other cruisers but Mogamis was already finished by this time so construction new turrets postponed their refit. This refit (unofficially known as the third efficiency improvement or main gun replacement works) included the change of the 15,5cm triple turret to the 20cm twin ones, replacing the older Type 90 torpedoes with the newer Type 93 ones also known as Long Lances, replacing the seaplane catapult with a heavier and stronger one as well as torpedo-firing command station on top of the mainmast.

Fourth variant:
After the battle of Midway in which Mikuma sunk and Mogami was heavily damaged only 3 operational Mogami class cruisers remained in service. Between late 1942 and early 1943, while Mogami was underwent repair and conversion into an aviation cruiser to increase the fleet's scouting capability, plans were drawn up to convert both Suzuya and Kumano into Anti-aircraft cruisers. The plans included the replacement of all the main 20cm twin turrets to twin 12,7cm DP-AA mounts as well as increase of light AA gun armament. Though original plans included to convert both of the two fully operational cruisers to Anti-aircraft ships, most likely to wartime shortage of 12,7cm guns as well as suitable dockyard capacity, Suzuya would only got her aft guns replaced by the mentioned AA weaponry while still able to provide the same firepower as the Furutaka and Aoba classes.
Sidenote: I've taken the liberty to add more MG director towers knowing the ship's changed purpose to AA instead of surface combat.

Fifth variant:
While IJN Suzuya would only got half the AA gun replacement that was proposed, IJN Kumano could had received the full conversion creating a potent AA platform rivalling even that of the USN's Atlanta class Anti-aircraft light cruisers. Other changes likely would be included the replacement of the main gun rangefinder with High-angle one as well as more Machine-gun director towers for controlled AA fire.

Sixth variant:
After the battle of Midway Mogami was heavily damaged and between late 1942 and early 1943, she underwent repair and conversion into an aviation cruiser to increase the fleet's scouting capability. This time the entire aft section of the ship rebuilt removing the both turrets (one was heavily damaged) and their ammo storage rooms was modified to hold gasoline, bombs and other ammunition. The aircraft deck extended to the stern with a rail system to move the designed complement of 11 Aichi E16A Zuiun floatplanes though at first she carried a mix of Mitsubishi F1M Pete and Aichi E13A Jake floatplanes. Her light AA armament also increased with associated directors as well. After the conversion was finished her main role as frontline combatant changed to a more supportive role to provide reconnaissance and scouting for the fleet with the ability to launch all her planes in roughly half an hour.

Seventh variant:
Shortly after the battle of Midway at the end of June 1942 proposals were made to quickly replace the carrier losses of this devastating battle. As no new fleet aircraft carrier to be excepted operational at least until 1944, conversion plans were made for all the cruisers and battleships of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Soon the Furutakas and Aobas were ruled out as considered too small and the Yamatos were not just new but too important for conversion.
The conversion of the battleships (4 Kongo, 2 Ise, Fuso and Nagato) would take 18 months and would result in vessels with around 210-220m x 34m flight deck and an aircraft capacity of roughly 54 planes. In the end the Kongos were ruled out because with their high speed they could escort the carriers, while the Nagato's 410mm cannons were still considered a powerful armament, this lead to the decision of the Fuso and Ise classes with Hyuga's aft turret damaged this made the decision straight: Ise, Hyuga followed by Fuso and Yamashiro.
As for the cruisers (4 Myoko, 4 Takao, 3 Mogami and 2 Tone), the conversions would took around 8 months to finish and would result in light carriers with 195-200m x 23,5m flight deck and an aircraft capacity of roughly 30 planes. In the end only the partially completed Ibuki was chosen to be finished as such a carrier, but even her was not finished in time.
My drawing represent the Mogami class conversion into CVL, though I do not have any drawings of the plans I do have access to the Tone's similar conversion and the Ibuki from which I've created this.


And Finally finished with the drawings of these ships!
I'm sorry for the long delay in the drawings but work and thus with less free time meant I had less time, opportunity and energy to draw.

For those who are interested in the Tone class (IJN Chikuma to be precise) original sketch drawing showing her converted form, you can find it here:
i.imgur.com/bb9sfxC.jpg
Related content
Comments: 250

Tzoli In reply to ??? [2021-06-08 21:21:53 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

thanh18ktml1c In reply to Tzoli [2021-06-09 14:28:10 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to thanh18ktml1c [2021-06-09 20:16:15 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

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

ijnfleetadmiral In reply to Tzoli [2017-09-04 20:39:01 +0000 UTC]

Ah.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ArmamentDawg [2016-09-08 06:49:12 +0000 UTC]

Good job.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to ArmamentDawg [2016-09-08 15:25:17 +0000 UTC]

thx

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BeignetBison [2016-06-08 18:11:11 +0000 UTC]

Epic work comrade.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Tzoli In reply to BeignetBison [2016-06-08 19:13:34 +0000 UTC]

Thx!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

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

Tzoli In reply to FRIEND711 [2016-06-09 14:43:34 +0000 UTC]

Read these:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantai_K…
and the pdf in the first find:
www.google.hu/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ij…

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

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

Tzoli In reply to FRIEND711 [2016-06-13 15:34:11 +0000 UTC]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkri…
Yes Blitzkrieg used the combination of tanks and light bombers (Close air support aircraft) but that was not the main element of the tactic. The main element are speed and fast powerful strikes which tanks and motorised (wheeled) and mechanised (Tracked or half-tracked) infantry are the best kind of units for the job.
Now while at the islands armoured vehicles are used together with aerial support the terrain did not allowed such quick movements. Dense jungle forests, hills and mountains are not ideal for Tanks, hell even deserts were not the best environment as they were designed for muddy or plain grassland terrain.
The Japanese tanks are more like light armoured fast vehicles designed for infantry support role and not for fighting other tanks, and in the role of support they were quite good! If you face an incoming enemy force which includes tanks but you lack AT weaponry that will surely quickly demoralise your forces.

As for doctrines, yes they were the relics of previous age, the WW1 and pre WW1. Japan did not fought land warfare in WW1 and the Chinese troops in both the 1st and 2nd Sino-Japanese War was under equipped and under trained so they could not get the bloody experience the Europeans lived through in the 4 years of WW1.
General Yamashita Tomoyuki As for Yamamoto Isoroku, you are correct, but he lacked the ambition or skills to get into the higher circles or politics. If the Americans did not shoot down his aircraft, Japan could had survived with less damage as he envisioned a plan of defensive barrier around the islands of Japan, he was a great man!

👍: 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

FRIEND711 In reply to TheAbyssalSamurai [2016-06-09 00:03:52 +0000 UTC]

True.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheAbyssalSamurai In reply to FRIEND711 [2016-06-09 00:46:35 +0000 UTC]

Indeed

👍: 0 ⏩: 1


| Next =>