Unbelievable battles

[Antilogic]

That's one thing that astounded me: at Midway and in later battles, the virtue of radar was demostrated over optics for the purposes of locating enemy ships and coordinating fire from surface vessels. The Japanese, though, never picked up on this. They stuck with primitive sighting equipment, scouting planes, and only the most rudimentary electronic systems. The Americans utilized electronics and radar, which gave them a clear advantage.

Here's an interesting but somewhat unrelated site: The Combined Fleet website, http://www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm. The site is written mostly by what appears to be a Japanese fanboy who longs to see the glorious Japanese navy of 1941 in action, he has an interesting analysis of 7 battleships and rates them in various categories to figure out which is the "best" battleship. Perhaps I should start another thread about that battleship thing...

 

[ParkCungHee]

That's one thing that astounded me: at Midway and in later battles, the virtue of radar was demostrated over optics for the purposes of locating enemy ships and coordinating fire from surface vessels. The Japanese, though, never picked up on this. They stuck with primitive sighting equipment, scouting planes, and only the most rudimentary electronic systems. The Americans utilized electronics and radar, which gave them a clear advantage.

Well its certainly questionable whether the Japanese had the ability to produce radar at any sufficient level.

 

[Adler17]

Japan used RADAR in the later stages of the war. The lead destroyer in the battle of Tassafaronga for example used RADAR.

Adler

 

[ParkCungHee]

Pretty much as I suspected, Radar was state of the art technology, and would have been late coming for the Japanese. Really its simply astounding given their technological and industrial limitations what the Japanese achieved, its truly unbelievable.

 

[budweiser]

So I went back and did some research about the Midway carrier action. It turns out the Americans pretty much launched an all out assault from all three carriers that morning. Because of the distance to the target and fuel constraints the elements had to leave their launch points in succesion or else they would not have had enough fuel to return to their carriers. Add the fact that the Japanese changed course and were not where they were suspected to be. This caused a large portion of the American strike force to miss the battle completely.

Eventually Torpedo bombers found the Japanese first and attacked indivdually with no effect, save to draw the CAP down to sea level. It was finally a force of 37 SBD dive bomber from Enterprise and Yorktown that inflicted the massive damage to three carriers in a span of 5 minutes time.

 

[Antilogic]

Japan used RADAR in the later stages of the war. The lead destroyer in the battle of Tassafaronga for example used RADAR.

Adler

I know they had it figured out to an extent by 1945, but the resolution was never as good as the American technology. Towards the end of the war, the Japanese were catching up with what the Americans had in the beginning/first year of the war.

@ParkCungHee: I have to admit, when I started studying World War II technology, I was stupefied by the backwardness of the Japanese, and found it incredible they lasted as long as they did given they were up against one of the most modern fighting forces on the planet (the Germans were also a top-notch technological powerhouse, but I shouldn't have to say that). Especially given that Frankenstein fleet they assembled of converted monsters, old WW1 ships, and a smattering of more advanced vessels they built themselves.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And then they have the Zero, which is really their one technological marvel, made more incredible considering they lacked simple things like industrialized assembly of them.

 

[Verbose]

I have to admit, when I started studying World War II technology, I was stupefied by the backwardness of the Japanese, and found it incredible they lasted as long as they did given they were up against one of the most modern fighting forces on the planet

I think it's a fact that the Japanese for cultural and social reasons kept fighting way beyond a point where western nations would have thrown in the towel long ago.

I once studied Japanese for a year, and one of my teachers who had been a kid during the war told me that there really wasn't anything surprising about the Japanese public accepting the occupation in 1945, once Japan finally had surrendered — suddenly there was something eat again.

By 1945 everyone in Japan was starving. There's been some outrage about the starving of Dutch, British and US prisoners of war by the Japanse. From the Japanese POV they were treated exactly the same as the average Japanese civilian, i.e. fed next to nothing.

The Japanese airforce by war's end were flying on some crap pressed out of pine tree roots dug up by Japanse school children. You could barely get airborne on this muck, when the US had 100 octane fuel for their planes.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I think it's a fact that the Japanese for cultural and social reasons kept fighting way beyond a point where western nations would have thrown in the towel long ago.

Not Entirely Sure about this. The British were willing to continue to fight the war from India if neccesary, just as Japan was willing to fight from Korea (How they imagined they'd be able to control Korea as a base of operations, never mind defend it, I have no idea), Germany, it could be argued was willing to go much farther then Japan, its very fortunate that their was no attempt to follow Germany's example.

By 1945 everyone in Japan was starving. There's been some outrage about the starving of Dutch, British and US prisoners of war by the Japanse. From the Japanese POV they were treated exactly the same as the average Japanese civilian, i.e. fed next to nothing.

QFT, because this is something overlooked. I remember watching a History Channel special on a death march in Borneo, when the narrator casually mentioned that only half the Japanese soldiers survived the march either, but of course abandoned this fact and any of its significance as quickly as it mentioned it.

 

[Verbose]

Not Entirely Sure about this. The British were willing to continue to fight the war from India if neccesary, just as Japan was willing to fight from Korea (How they imagined they'd be able to control Korea as a base of operations, never mind defend it, I have no idea), Germany, it could be argued was willing to go much farther then Japan, its very fortunate that their was no attempt to follow Germany's example.

It's less a question of where the fight would go on from, than the conditions under which fighting on would have been expected, I think.

The British fighting of from India in the case of an invasion of the Mother Land at least expected to have access to petrol for the machines and food for its people, no? The Japanese fought on with nearly feck all for either.

 

[Evie]

It should be noted that, as far as "the virtues of radar over optical observation" go, it was not so cut and dry in 1942.

Optical observation up until late 42 under proficient watchman was generally able to keep up with radar, which as a new technology introduced plenty of confusion and was generally poorly handled. See Savo, among others, where Japanesse watchmen completely outperformed the US radar-equipped ships.

 

[Antilogic]

And then they have the Zero, which is really their one technological marvel, made more incredible considering they lacked simple things like industrialized assembly of them.

Frankly, I'm not an admirer of the Zero. It was a good plane, but not a great one. No rubber self-sealing fuel tanks to prevent explosions the moment a bullet nicked the tank, very short on the armor, only two guns compared to the American standard of six, the list goes on. It was an interesting idea for a plane, to win the close-in turning fight, but as history shows, clever tactics prevented the Zero from accomplishing this aim. It was wildly successful against underpowered American planes from the 1930's, but against Hellcats and Corsairs, more modern aircraft, it was a dismal failure. The Hellcat had a 19:1 kill rate against the Zeros, if I recall a "Dogfights" episode correctly.


@Oda Nobunaga: Yes, Savo Island was a victory for the Japanese. But look just a little later in the battle of Guadalcanal, during November 14-15. US destroyers were sunk, but the US battleships Washington and South Dakota were still in the fight and prowling for enemies. The Japanese were unaware of the Washington's presence until it was able to fire at close range (for a battleship, which is still an incredible distance of a couple miles). Within a short span of time, the Kirishima fires on the spotlight-enhanced and easy target of the South Dakota, and the Washington fires on the Kirishima using its radar assist with targetting of the main guns.

The result was devastating--the South Dakota is hit by a single large-caliber shell. The Kirishima, in one broadside, takes at least 9 direct hits from large caliber guns, and is a lost cause--it can't even retaliate effectively against the Washington. Ouch. Guadalcanal indicates to me that although the Americans hadn't ironed out all the details yet of using radar over optics, there was definitive proof that it was a highly effective tool in sinking enemy vessels. I will admit the well-trained Japanese handled the night fighting at Savo very well, though.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Frankly, I'm not an admirer of the Zero. It was a good plane, but not a great one. No rubber self-sealing fuel tanks to prevent explosions the moment a bullet nicked the tank, very short on the armor, only two guns compared to the American standard of six, the list goes on. It was an interesting idea for a plane, to win the close-in turning fight, but as history shows, clever tactics prevented the Zero from accomplishing this aim. It was wildly successful against underpowered American planes from the 1930's, but against Hellcats and Corsairs, more modern aircraft, it was a dismal failure. The Hellcat had a 19:1 kill rate against the Zeros, if I recall a "Dogfights" episode correctly.

Well of course the Hellcat and Corsair were superior aircraft, they entered production two years after the Zero. But at the time it was introduced, it was arguably the best fighter aircraft in the world, and inarguably the best carrier-based aircraft. This was the first carrier-based aircraft that could match a land based aircraft in combat, most of those underpowered American planes were top of the line when the Zero was introduced. Its more fair to compare the Zero to the P-39 Airacobra which still was introduced a full year after the Zero, yet lagged far behind it. But the great technological leap the Zero made was in its range. The real limiting factor on long range missions for the Zero wasn't the limitations of the Aircraft, but the pilot. This aircraft could fly almost exactly 2000 miles, completely outstripping any enemy aircraft.
In the initial months of the war, the Allies overestimated Japanese airpower greatly, because fighters could be brought from bases so far away for any one operation, it seemed that they had much greater numbers.

 

[ulsterman88]

the title for most unbeleivable war defintiely goes to the 6 day war. I cannot recall another nation standing alone against so many enemies and coming out the better for it. Wellington had many victories against overwhelming odds in the peninsular campaign.

 

[privatehudson]

Israel's victory in the 6 day war was quite an achievement but I wouldn't say in any greater degree than in 1973. In the 73 war Israel faced primarily just 2 main enemies (supported marginally by other arab forces) but didn't have the benefit of suprise and faced opponents with superior equipment and organisation to the previous war. The fact that they took the mess of the first few days and turned it into the stunning victory is every bit as hard to believe as the sucess of 1967.

Well hard to believe that is until you realise the motivation and skills the IDF and their colleagues posess. In fact by 1967 or 73 the world knew only too well Israel's quite astonishing capacity for winning difficult conflicts.

In the 1948 war Israel faced more opponents than in 67 with an armoured corps that was a ragtag mix of repaired Shermans, stolen Cromwells and acquired Hotchkiss tanks (brought in despite a blockade). Many of their infantry had only a minimal amount of experience and there was virtually no homegrown tank crewman (nor for that matter was there many trained pilots from that area). The airforce was equipped at the start with light aircraft that was almost completely unsuited to aerial combat, and the few fighters it did get during the war were either flown there by stripping them of virtually everything, in very small numbers or bad copies of an original making them poor substitutes (the Avia s199, a copy of the ME109). Their enemy armies on the other hand did contain experienced soldiers, set organised formations and good, not to mention relatively standard equipment.

Given that Israel and her armed forces didn't have a track record before this war, and the circumstances they fought it in I'd say their victory was even more unbelievable than the latter sucesses.

 

[Emperor2]

A great example of an unbelievable battle (in this case, battles/campaign) is the Long March. As much as I hate the devil-ordained Mao, he was a brilliant military strategist (will use his tactics when I launch a Chinese Democratic Revolution).

 

[onejayhawk]

Well of course the Hellcat and Corsair were superior aircraft, they entered production two years after the Zero. But at the time it was introduced, it was arguably the best fighter aircraft in the world, and inarguably the best carrier-based aircraft. This was the first carrier-based aircraft that could match a land based aircraft in combat, most of those underpowered American planes were top of the line when the Zero was introduced. Its more fair to compare the Zero to the P-39 Airacobra which still was introduced a full year after the Zero, yet lagged far behind it. But the great technological leap the Zero made was in its range. The real limiting factor on long range missions for the Zero wasn't the limitations of the Aircraft, but the pilot. This aircraft could fly almost exactly 2000 miles, completely outstripping any enemy aircraft.
In the initial months of the war, the Allies overestimated Japanese airpower greatly, because fighters could be brought from bases so far away for any one operation, it seemed that they had much greater numbers.

Even the Wildcat was better than the Zero. The American problems early in the war had more to do with training and experience than with hardware. Once the USN developed a decent doctrine, and the cream of the Japanese fighter corps had died in combat, even numbers of F4F's and Zeroes was a mismatch--against the Japanese. Between Coral Sea and Midway the Japanese lost their entire edge in pilot experince, never to be recovered.

J

 

[ParkCungHee]

Even the Wildcat was better than the Zero. The American problems early in the war had more to do with training and experience than with hardware. Once the USN developed a decent doctrine, and the cream of the Japanese fighter corps had died in combat, even numbers of F4F's and Zeroes was a mismatch--against the Japanese. Between Coral Sea and Midway the Japanese lost their entire edge in pilot experince, never to be recovered.

J

I would certainly say the Zero was technically superior to the Wildcat. First of all, in the Zeros greatest strength, its combat range, it completely outpaces the F4F. while the Zero could travel 2,000 miles, the F4F could only go 770. This was critical in the pacific theatre. During early operations, the Japanese were genuinely confused at why fighters disapeared over the East Indies once they were captured. They didn't realize that American fighters couldn't fly cover over the East Indies flying from Australia. Zeros had no trouble doing the inverse.
Now lets compare the two, even when based on the Zeros traditional weak points: Firepower, Maximum Speed, and rate of climb.
The Zeros rate of climb was 3,100 ft/min, compared to 1,950 ft/min for the F4F, The Zero is slightly faster being able to reach 331 MPH versus 320 for the F4F. Even in firepower, they Zero can match the F4F, if not best it.
I think its fair to say that when it entered service, the Zero was the best carrier based fighter in the world, if not the best fighter in the world.

 

[budweiser]

I disagree. The Zero and the F4F were equal, each with their own advantage that canceled the other. The zero had range and maneoverability, but lacked self sealing tanks and heavy armor. Obviously a trade off for its range. The Wildcat had firepower, speed in a dive and sturdy construction. You just need to look at the historical outcomes of the battles to realize parity.

 

[carmen510]

If the Zero had better armor, and Japan had mass production, the Zeros would probably kick ass until perhaps 1950. (Or maybe in 1945 if the US used the A-bomb and Japan surrendered like in OTL)