Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
___V_E_N_O_M___

IJN Chikuma - 4 Forward Turrets

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[CATS]
Players
13,610 posts
10,385 battles

Read the rest of the article.

 

Btw. Tone was already completly modeled and tested by WG.

They just did not find the right way to implement the air arm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
364 posts
2,750 battles

I assume because it is kind of an aviation cruiser: has guns to fight surface targets, but also planes for scouting. It could be added to game with a spotter/fighter plane like any other cruiser, but my guess would be that WG might be waiting for the CV rework to see if they can integrate some kind of UI that allows you to control both main battery guns and a squadron of planes. This would make stiff like a refitted Mogami class, cruiser Gotland and the Ise class viable for WoWs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SOCKS]
Players
675 posts
5,253 battles

 It was kind of a failed design in real life. The IJN placed too much trust in hydroplanes and devoted too many resources to too many ships to carry and tend to them which in the end turned out to be not really that useful. The Tone class was one of the most prominent instances but the large fleet of fleet seaplane tenders the IJN built didn't accomplish much either (other than providing some platforms for conversion into light carriers late in the war) and the Ise conversions achieved nothing but reducing the firepower of the ships by 33% for nothing in return (they never carried the hydroplanes they were supposed to carry)

 

As for WOWS, Tone in particular wouldn't be a very good ship. A lot was sacrificed in that design to achieve it's air capability, something which would be of no consequence in this game.  The whole aft of the ship was pretty huge, and it would be of no use in this game other than as a place to receive hits. 8 guns, half of them with severely restricted gun arcs and no ability whatsoever to fire aft would suck even at tier 6, and this is a ship that was built AFTER the Mogamis and Atagos...

The design is just plain bad because it just doesn't suit the way the game plays.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
364 posts
2,750 battles
On 13/10/2018 at 11:58 PM, RAMJB said:

As for WOWS, Tone in particular wouldn't be a very good ship. A lot was sacrificed in that design to achieve it's air capability, something which would be of no consequence in this game.  The whole aft of the ship was pretty huge, and it would be of no use in this game other than as a place to receive hits. 8 guns, half of them with severely restricted gun arcs and no ability whatsoever to fire aft would suck even at tier 6, and this is a ship that was built AFTER the Mogamis and Atagos...

The design is just plain bad because it just doesn't suit the way the game plays.

Yeah, not great really. Having said that, if WG needed/wanted to make a split Japanese cruiser line, they could create an aviation cruiser line. assuming of course that the CV rework is a success, and that there are enough candidates out there for a line. Maybe a light cruiser line would be simpler, and would allow the return of the Kitakami :Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Sailing Hamster
3,191 posts
3,153 battles
On 14/10/2018 at 12:58 AM, RAMJB said:

 It was kind of a failed design in real life. The IJN placed too much trust in hydroplanes and devoted too many resources to too many ships to carry and tend to them which in the end turned out to be not really that useful. The Tone class was one of the most prominent instances but the large fleet of fleet seaplane tenders the IJN built didn't accomplish much either (other than providing some platforms for conversion into light carriers late in the war) and the Ise conversions achieved nothing but reducing the firepower of the ships by 33% for nothing in return (they never carried the hydroplanes they were supposed to carry)

 

[...]
The design is just plain bad because it just doesn't suit the way the game plays.

 

 

Eh. Define failure. As a complete doctrine, the IJN's inflexible aircraft doctrine was indeed a failure, but Tone and Chikuma were built along that doctrine and as such performed their role adequatly (ie recon being relegated to cruiser aviation instead of part of carrier aviation). 

 

@OP Tone is indeed modelled and kind of ready to go, however afaik she was balanced as a pure gun cruiser, and she is being withheld until at least after the aviation rework. I imagine they are going to test wether her complement of aircraft can have the CV control scheme applied while retaining her gun-cruiser features, which may lead to interesting results. By the same token Oyodo and Mogami 1944 could also appear in the game as aviation cruisers.

 

As for pure gun cruiser premiums, Maya would be a better fit with her last refit 2F2A arrangement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SOCKS]
Players
675 posts
5,253 battles
14 minutes ago, piritskenyer said:

 

Eh. Define failure. As a complete doctrine, the IJN's inflexible aircraft doctrine was indeed a failure, but Tone and Chikuma were built along that doctrine and as such performed their role adequatly (ie recon being relegated to cruiser aviation instead of part of carrier aviation). 

 

2

 

 

Well it's self-explanatory, isn't it?. The doctrine itself was flawed as you well stated. Giving the scout role to a portion of the carrier air wings was both more flexible, simpler, faster (takes less to simply get a plane landing on a carrier than having it landing on the sea, coast to the mother ship, craning it up and storing it), and gave better results (floatplanes had worse performance overall than retracting gear conventional planes).

On top of that you didn't have to build extra auxiliary ships that wouldn't be needed otherwise, or compromise designs of surface combatants to also take that role while penalizing their other roles. Needless to mention you didn't need the air manufacturers distracting themselves with scout floatplane models for those ships either, which in a country with the limited manufacturing capabilities of Japan would've been a positive change.

It's a natural thing that ships built with design sacrifizes in order to act upon a flawed doctrine were going to be inherently flawed as a result, even if, within that doctrine, they accomplished the tasks they were supposed to do. The Tone class is a clear example of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Sailing Hamster
3,191 posts
3,153 battles
4 minutes ago, RAMJB said:

 

 

Well it's self-explanatory, isn't it?. The doctrine itself was flawed as you well stated. Giving the scout role to a portion of the carrier air wings was both more flexible, simpler, faster (takes less to simply get a plane landing on a carrier than having it landing on the sea, coast to the mother ship, craning it up and storing it), and gave better results (floatplanes had worse performance overall than retracting gear conventional planes).

On top of that you didn't have to build extra auxiliary ships that wouldn't be needed otherwise, or compromise designs of surface combatants to also take that role. Needless to mention you didn't need the air manufacturers distracting themselves with scout floatplane models for those ships.

It's a natural thing that ships built with design sacrifizes in order to act upon a flawed doctrine were going to be inherently flawed as a result, even if, within that doctrine, they accomplished the tasks they were supposed to do. The Tone class is a clear example of it.

 

 

I mostly agree with what you said there, however I'd like to point out that their system had some advantages as well: carrying a large proportion of planes in cruisers means that if you want to deploy an aerial reconaissance screen from a battlegroup that has no carriers, you can do so from your specialised cruisers with more aircraft that a US group could. It's a slim advantage, but an advantage nevertheless.

 

My main gripe with IJN aircraft doctrine is their inflexibility in the actual carrier air groups, where the CV and the airgroup were considered and employed as a single unit, while the allies had separated the two and could redeploy a carrier wing to another carrier almost instantly if they needed to. 

 

I'm not questioning that the Tones, Oyodo, Mogami and Ise wouldn't have been built and employed in any other navy, but I think that with a little more flexibility, the extensive airgroup on a reconnaisance cruiser could have had merit elsewhere too (especially before the advent of long-range surface search radars) just based on their capacity to cover more area in a given time.

 

Also, I'd like to point out that while floatplanes have unquestionably worse performance when it comes to speed and aerodynamics, they usually had greater endurance and longer flight times. 

 

Overall the US/UK approach is better, especially considering that their shipborne floatplanes could be actually armed offensively and deployed in attack roles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
364 posts
2,750 battles
On 10/17/2018 at 7:39 PM, piritskenyer said:

My main gripe with IJN aircraft doctrine is their inflexibility in the actual carrier air groups, where the CV and the airgroup were considered and employed as a single unit, while the allies had separated the two and could redeploy a carrier wing to another carrier almost instantly if they needed to. 

I always thought that it was a bit strange how the Fleet Air Arm kept moving squadrons around between carriers (in the Med, for example), but I suppose it makes perfect sense. If you CV gets incapacitated (like Illustrious, Indomitable etc.) you can simply send the squadron ashore and redeploy on the next carrier that needs its air group topping up. But then it is pretty easy for the RN to do this in the Med, Atlantic or Indian Ocean, as there are nearby land bases in all of them for the FAA to use: Ceylon, Malta, Gibraltar, Scapa Flow, in fact the whole of the British Isles for the Atlantic. I suppose the Japanese had much farther to go to a land base in the Pacific, especially after the US started to take islands back. Maybe they viewed them as one unit because of some "carriers are unsinkable" mentality, or simply the IJN had no faith that they could replace lost CV's, so moving aircraft around was a waste of time if no new ships were to become available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Sailing Hamster
3,191 posts
3,153 battles
4 hours ago, Centurion_1711 said:

I always thought that it was a bit strange how the Fleet Air Arm kept moving squadrons around between carriers (in the Med, for example), but I suppose it makes perfect sense. If you CV gets incapacitated (like Illustrious, Indomitable etc.) you can simply send the squadron ashore and redeploy on the next carrier that needs its air group topping up. But then it is pretty easy for the RN to do this in the Med, Atlantic or Indian Ocean, as there are nearby land bases in all of them for the FAA to use: Ceylon, Malta, Gibraltar, Scapa Flow, in fact the whole of the British Isles for the Atlantic. I suppose the Japanese had much farther to go to a land base in the Pacific, especially after the US started to take islands back. Maybe they viewed them as one unit because of some "carriers are unsinkable" mentality, or simply the IJN had no faith that they could replace lost CV's, so moving aircraft around was a waste of time if no new ships were to become available.

 

I'll try to find the exact reference, but there was a note I read on possibly Midway, saying that the IJN had one more perfectly serviceable carrier at the time with a depleted airwing, they also had the aircraft and pilots from a damaged carrier, but mating the two and sending one more carrier was for them unthinkable, which for me seemed like an enormous missed opportunity.

Training your air wing for the specific carrier theyare going to serve on does have its merits, but training your pilots to be able to operate from any carrier IMO goes a much longer way operationally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
364 posts
2,750 battles
5 hours ago, piritskenyer said:

I'll try to find the exact reference, but there was a note I read on possibly Midway, saying that the IJN had one more perfectly serviceable carrier at the time with a depleted airwing, they also had the aircraft and pilots from a damaged carrier, but mating the two and sending one more carrier was for them unthinkable, which for me seemed like an enormous missed opportunity.

Training your air wing for the specific carrier theyare going to serve on does have its merits, but training your pilots to be able to operate from any carrier IMO goes a much longer way operationally.

I forget which two carriers the Japanese built, but one had the island on the opposite side of the flight deck so that they could, in theory, operate together without the superstructure getting in each other's way. Training pilots for one of these carriers would mean that they would struggle to adapt to the island being on the other side, so the air groups would have to be tied to the carrier. But like with US or British CV's, their ships didn't vary massively within a class, so transferring pilots would only mean that they wouldn't get their favourite spot to sleep I suppose. Like you say though, the best pilots (on all sides in the war) would be able to land on a variety of different ships or runways, so moving squadrons around a bit wouldn't affect them much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SOCKS]
Players
675 posts
5,253 battles
10 hours ago, piritskenyer said:

 

I'll try to find the exact reference, but there was a note I read on possibly Midway, saying that the IJN had one more perfectly serviceable carrier at the time with a depleted airwing, they also had the aircraft and pilots from a damaged carrier, but mating the two and sending one more carrier was for them unthinkable, which for me seemed like an enormous missed opportunity.

Training your air wing for the specific carrier theyare going to serve on does have its merits, but training your pilots to be able to operate from any carrier IMO goes a much longer way operationally.

 

Shokaku had been smashed hard in the Coral Sea. Zuikaku was untouched but her planes (specially the D3As and the B5Ns) had been shot down in droves during their attack on the american fleet.

Shokaku didn't have exactly a full air complement (some planes where lost during the battle both in the air and due to the fires in the ship), but certainly the idea of mixing both airwings and send them to Midway aboard Zuikaku should've been an obvious one.

For anyone.

But the japanese.

Yeah, not the most flexible guys around. There are some anechdotes here and there, which are quite funny, about how super careful were the allies in europe to do cover ups for the fact they had broken Enigma with Ultra. There was nothing short of paranoia about giving away the fact that Enigma was vulnerable and having the germans using something else they couldn't read.

In the pacific the allies had Magic (they were able to read a high percentage of the japanese military comms), but neither CINCPAC nor SoWestPAC cared a single dime about trying to hide it. In the (alleged, this could be apocryphal) words of McArthur: "there's no need to play those games (referring to all the coverup measures taken in the ETO) here. The japanese wouldn't believe we've broken their codes even if we openly told them; it's just not their mentality to analyze situations and adapt to them. They won't analyze this one, and they won't adapt to it".

The japanese never changed their codes during WWII even while there were outrageous signals that they had been broken. Maybe McArthur knew the japanese too well ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Sailing Hamster
3,191 posts
3,153 battles
1 hour ago, RAMJB said:

 

Shokaku had been smashed hard in the Coral Sea. Zuikaku was untouched but her planes (specially the D3As and the B5Ns) had been shot down in droves during their attack on the american fleet.

Shokaku didn't have exactly a full air complement (some planes where lost during the battle both in the air and due to the fires in the ship), but certainly the idea of mixing both airwings and send them to Midway aboard Zuikaku should've been an obvious one.

For anyone.

But the japanese.

Yeah, not the most flexible guys around. There are some anechdotes here and there, which are quite funny, about how super careful were the allies in europe to do cover ups for the fact they had broken Enigma with Ultra. There was nothing short of paranoia about giving away the fact that Enigma was vulnerable and having the germans using something else they couldn't read.

In the pacific the allies had Magic (they were able to read a high percentage of the japanese military comms), but neither CINCPAC nor SoWestPAC cared a single dime about trying to hide it. In the (alleged, this could be apocryphal) words of McArthur: "there's no need to play those games (referring to all the coverup measures taken in the ETO) here. The japanese wouldn't believe we're broken their codes even if we openly told them; it's just not their mentality to analyze situations and adapt to them. They won't analyze this one, and they won't adapt to it".

The japanese never changed their codes during WWII even while there were outrageous signals that they had been broken. Maybe McArthur knew the japanese too well ;).

 

Yeah, i suspected that it was those two carriers, thank you for confirming that, I forgot to go check up on that.

 

EDIT: As for McArthur, I do think he was highly overrated, even if he wasn't full of sh1t all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SOCKS]
Players
675 posts
5,253 battles

Overrated or not, what one can't deny is that he was a character. And say what you want about the man, but he did know how to beat the japanese because he understood them better than most minds in the high officer hierarchy of all the US military branches.

 

I guess that makes up for his alleged lack of skill as a general. Which I find debatable, btw. He wasn't the best operational mind of WW2 but he wasn't by far as bad as some say. Most of the badmouthing originally done about him as a general came from people who had an issue with him personally, which weren't few (oh, and the Marine Corps, because they felt he didn't give a crap about them being as he was US Army), so I question their objectivity.

 

SoWestPac grew from a token force to a mighty offensive steamroller while fighting in some of the worst and most awful natural scenarios for military warfare in the planet, and that was in big part because of him. One can question his methods and some of his choices, but what can't argue was that he got results, and big ones at that. Not in the Philipinnes, of course, but noone could've done anything to save that debacle, the Philipinnes were indefensible and untennable after Pearl Harbor. Maybe he might have put a better defense, maybe not - but the end result would've been the same at the end no matter who was in command.

What he was, was full of himself, and then some. And out of his mind now and then (him wanting to nuke the north koreans let alone the chinese, wasn't exactly sane). But overrated...I'm not that sure about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
13,610 posts
10,385 battles
15 minutes ago, ___V_E_N_O_M___ said:

?

This thread:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Chikuma_(1938)

 

In game and what the Dev Blog is about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Chikuma_(1911)

 

But once again I am not surprised that you missed that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
534 posts
5 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

This thread:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Chikuma_(1938)

 

In game and what the Dev Blog is about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Chikuma_(1911)

 

But once again I am not surprised that you missed that...

Your a snarly little sod aren't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
13,610 posts
10,385 battles
10 minutes ago, ___V_E_N_O_M___ said:

Your a snarly little sod aren't you?

And you seem to be completly spaced out all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
534 posts
Just now, ColonelPete said:

And you seem to be completly spaced out all the time.

I bet you were bullied a lot in school, I guess not enough. As you still seem to have a corn cob up your ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
13,610 posts
10,385 battles
4 minutes ago, ___V_E_N_O_M___ said:

I bet you were bullied a lot in school, I guess not enough. As you still seem to have a corn cob up your ...

Some people do not get bullied. I was one them. But your interest in my childhood and my behind is perculiar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
534 posts

Maybe if I ignore you, youll get bored. Lets test out that idea. Have fun out there, this is my last acknowledgement of you or any of your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×