Japanese Navy

[Swatch]

But Spruance was reluctant to pursue the retreating Japanese fleet because of the very real risk of running into the Japanese surface fleet, which included the battleship Yamato, at night and have his cruiser escorts overwhelmed while not being able to launch airstrikes. 


ack-ack

Did the American fleet even HAVE cruiser escorts?

[Nemisis]

IDK for sure, but probably. Carriers were usually escorted by cruisers and destroyers, to detect lurking submarines, and to provide some real defense against surface ships.

[Ack-Ack]

Did the American fleet even HAVE cruiser escorts?

Yes.  To be a little more clear, cruisers routinely escorted carrier fleets during WW2 and still do act as escorts for carrier tasks forces as far as I know.


ack-ack

[Nemisis]

did they ?

[RipChord929]

Good post sabre, I understood it completely...
I enjoy "what if's", because they usually promote very interesting convo...
 
 Kondo's bombardment force, Heavy Cruisers Mogami, Mikuma, Suzuya, Kumano, 5 DD's, were ordered early on the 4th to close and bombard Midway.. After the loss of the 4 carriers, they were ordered to retire NW and  link up with main body.  Early on the 5th, lookouts spotted the US sub Tambor running on the surface, ordered an evasive turn, thats when Mogami collided with Mikuma.. Mikuma took light damage midships, but Mogami lost her bow. This reduced her speed to 12 knots.. Kondo detached the damaged Mogami, Mikuma, and 2 DD's, then proceded at full speed for the rendezvous with the rest of his force.. The stragglers were detected by air, and attacked by the remaining SBDs from Hornet, and Marine SB2U's, all launched from Midway.. Mikuma was sunk, Mogami escaped...
 
 The leftovers of Nagumo's carrier strike force, fast BB's Kirishima, Haruna, Heavy Cruisers Tone, Chikuma, and 11 DD's, were also ordered to retire NW and link up with the main body... Took light attacks early on the 5th by the leftover aircraft from the US Navy Carriers, and B17's from Midway.. Resulting in light damage from a near miss to Haruna...
 
 The US forces were taking stock, and reorganizing late on the 4th... The Hornets SBD's had missed the "5 minutes of glory" on the 4th.. They never found the Jp Fleet at all, but had lost a third of their number from running out of gas while searching, before landing at Midway.. On the morning of the 5th, reports were recieved from Tambor, and air search, that gave position of Kondo's stragglers.. The planes on Midway, took off to get their licks in.. They did, sank the Mikuma, damaged the Mogami further, but she escaped..

 I submit for thought, that if these 2 IJN surface forces had proceeded to Midway, (they were within easy range), on the night of the 4th, and shelled the runway, aircraft revetments etc, before dawn... The Hornets AC, (and all the others sitting at Midway), would have been wiped out, or been left unable to participate in further actions on the 5th.. This would have left the mixed, and severely depleted, Airgroups from Enterprise and Hornet, (including survivors from Yorktown) as the only airpower available.. Also by this time, Yamamoto's main force would have had time to close the range into the battle area.. Bringing his fresh airgroups into action.. Changes the picture entirely!!!

I believe that Spruance would have been forced to retire, to preserve the only naval forces between Midway and the West Coast of the USA.. This would have resulted in the loss of Midway, and the Japanese bringing Pearl Harbor under daily air attack by land based bombers, making the port untenable.. MAJOR bad news!!

Remember, I do this stuff from memory mostly.. Don't have the books in front of me, so bear with me..

Great posts all  
RC

[guncrasher]

Facts are something that confuses semp, just look at the other threads he's posted in where he's been faced by overwhelming facts that prove him to be incorrect.


ack-ack

sometimes ago, this conversation took place in England not in the same words, but something similar.

-why are we losing so many lancasters?  aren't they doing the corkscrew maneuver?
-they are sir.
-then, what's the problem?
-weird thing the fiters dont give up anymore after the first corkscrew maneuver.
-what? the rascals, so what now? give orders so that everytime a lancaster gets a fiter within sight, they must do a corkscrew maneuver till they crash if they have to, otherwise we will have to switch to bombing at night.

If the lancs had done that maneuver everytime they got attacked, it would disrupt they formation so bad as to be even easier targets. and that's the last I write about this.

semp

semp

[BrownBaron]

sometimes ago, this conversation took place in England not in the same words, but something similar.

-why are we losing so many lancasters?  aren't they doing the corkscrew maneuver?
-they are sir.
-then, what's the problem?
-weird thing the fiters dont give up anymore after the first corkscrew maneuver.
-what? the rascals, so what now? give orders so that everytime a lancaster gets a fiter within sight, they must do a corkscrew maneuver till they crash if they have to, otherwise we will have to switch to bombing at night.

If the lancs had done that maneuver everytime they got attacked, it would disrupt they formation so bad as to be even easier targets. and that's the last I write about this.

semp

semp

Is the second signature to emphasize that your first signature is now over?

[Ack-Ack]

sometimes ago, this conversation took place in England not in the same words, but something similar.

-why are we losing so many lancasters?  aren't they doing the corkscrew maneuver?
-they are sir.
-then, what's the problem?
-weird thing the fiters dont give up anymore after the first corkscrew maneuver.
-what? the rascals, so what now? give orders so that everytime a lancaster gets a fiter within sight, they must do a corkscrew maneuver till they crash if they have to, otherwise we will have to switch to bombing at night.

If the lancs had done that maneuver everytime they got attacked, it would disrupt they formation so bad as to be even easier targets. and that's the last I write about this.

semp

semp

The Corkscrew evasive maneuver was a common evasive performed by Lancaster crews.  You claim it never happened but again, I'm going to show that you're incorrect.

In Armageddon:  The Battle for Germany 1944-1945 on page 314 tells of a Lancaster using the maneuver to escape a night fighter attack.

In this book, Nickels and nightingales a crewman tells how using the corkscrew maneuver allowed them to avoid being shot down and lose their attacker.

These are a couple of excerpts from BBC's WW2 People's War about a Lancaster's night mission over Germany in 1944.

On the night of 21 June 1944 RAF Bomber Command sent 133 Lancasters and 6 Mosquitoes to attack the synthetic oil plant at Wesseling, in Germany. I was the captain of one of the Lancaster crews detailed to take part in the raid. That morning I had been briefed about a new enemy combat tactic, where the German night fighters operated in pairs, one committing the bomber to an evasive move with the other seizing an attacking opportunity when the bomber was at its most vulnerable point, the top or bottom of the corkscrew. Discussing tactics with my crew, I said:


“Apparently they find a victim then one of them will attack from the rear along a standard fighter curve and of course if the bomber doesn't see him or have time to take action he is in trouble.” Both my gunners were lost for words at such a suggestion. “On the other hand,” I continued, 'He is picked up and the corkscrew port or starboard is committed - now his number 2 is holding off waiting for a good opportunity to come in, which we will try not to give him by adding a bit of rough flying at the roll-over points. Let's get airborne and try it out.”


The course change was made and now the black sky was to port and ahead leaving the bright sky astern on the starboard side. As I lined up the needle on the aircraft compass, the clear unhurried voice of the wireless operator broke the silence.


“Bandits skipper, one above rear on the port side, and the other one same on the starboard - range about 1,000 yards.”

“Right - see them rear gunner?”

“Not yet skipper.”

“Mid-upper?”

“No.”

“The one of the starboard is coming in,” said the wireless operator, reading the range on his Monica screen.

“Eight hundred… seven… six.”

“Got him skipper, corkscrew starboard,” a pause by the rear gunner.

“Go, go.”

“Up the revs engineer, twenty-seven fifty.”

“A hundred on Skip,” said 'Wag’.

And the engines’ synchronised drone changed to a drumming note of emergency as the practised drill commenced, down and turning, making it difficult for the fighter to turn inside the curve and bring his guns to bear on target.


“He's broken away, the port one is coming in Skip, seven hundred… six… five,” said the wireless operator, sedulously occupied with his screen, now a key member of the little battle group.


“Trying to catch us at the bottom when we roll”, I thought.

As I turned the aircraft from a starboard downwards curve through to the port upwards curve I pushed the control column forward violently causing the nose of the aircraft to drop momentarily, then up into the lumbering climb to port, thus creating an air turbulence that together with the six .303 Browning guns that were now filling the plane with acrid fumes, would encourage the enemy to keep at safe distance.

“Port bandit broken away Skipper”, came the voice of the wireless operator.

“They're both FW 190s,” broke in the Scottish brogue of the mid upper, as I hauled the heavy machine back onto course.

“They are still there - one port and one starboard - high and rear about 1,000 yards.” Despite the violent flying the wireless operator was keeping a good watch of his screen.

“Port one coming in 500 yards.”

“Got it,” picked up the rear gunner.

“Corkscrew port - Go! Go!”

The above is from the other thread where you claimed it was never used.  As you can see, I have shown you examples where is was commonly used as a defensive tactic when under attack by night fighters.  So common was this tactic by Lancaster crews that they even practiced it.  Now, are you going to insist it never happened or must I provide more examples showing it did and was common and again show that you're completely and utterly wrong?


ack-ack

[guncrasher]

of course you have a book that explains this too. its a b26 but u get the idea.  I can tell you that the corckscrew maneuver was not effective  as you think it is or was used as widely as you think in formation. or that lancs would dive bomb even on a shallow dive as a rule.  when you quote whoever was flying that plane, was he  flying in formation?  were the other planes also doing the corkscrew maneuver?  did that disrupt the formation and made them separate from each other and therefore an easy target for fiters.  I still stand by my original statement if you want to quote that too.  as a rule if a fiter crashed with a bomber, they both were destroyed.  but there's some buffs that actually landed with a fiter sticking out of their belly.  this is what I was refering to.  there is always exceptions.



semp

[Ack-Ack]

of course you have a book that explains this too. its a b26 but u get the idea.  I can tell you that the corckscrew maneuver was not effective  as you think it is or was used as widely as you think in formation. or that lancs would dive bomb even on a shallow dive as a rule.  when you quote whoever was flying that plane, was he  flying in formation?  were the other planes also doing the corkscrew maneuver?  did that disrupt the formation and made them separate from each other and therefore an easy target for fiters.  I still stand by my original statement if you want to quote that too.  as a rule if a fiter crashed with a bomber, they both were destroyed.  but there's some buffs that actually landed with a fiter sticking out of their belly.  this is what I was refering to.  there is always exceptions.

(Image removed from quote.)

semp

Since I don't want to hijack this thread further, I created a thread in the Aircraft forums in which I provided more proof that it was considered the most effective evasive tactic for RAF Bomber Command to evade night fighter attack.

Lancaster Defensive tactics


ack-ack

[RaptorL]

Focus on the topic. New Country Navy's. You want them or not?

[Sabre]

Focus on the topic. New Country Navy's. You want them or not?

Yep, I do.  Nice counter-post, RipChord.  I remembered that Tone was in the Midway OP, and just had it in my head that Tone was the one sunk after the collision (memory's not what it used to be, I guess).  Spruence was a cautious commander, no doubt, though I believe it likely he'd have stayed on-station if he thought the Japanese were not withdrawing.  As with many (most?) real battles, what you don't know guides your actions as a commander as much if not more so than what you do know.  I disagree with your assessment of the impact of the Japanese capturing Midway.  Yes, Pearl would be in reach of Betty's and Zero's (barely), but I think the air battle for Pearl would have been analagous to that fought for Gaudalcanal.  In that battle, the Cactus Air Force managed to easily hold the IJN at bay with a relative handful of inferior planes.  Add to that the fact that Midway itself is not capable of holding sufficient aircraft to seriously challenge the "unsinkable" supercarrier that is Hawaii (even if you dangerously over-crowded Midway with aircraft...and making it extremely vulnerable to even modest shelling and B-17 attacks), and it's plain to see that the loss of Midway -- while damaging -- would at best be a temporary setback to the US effort.  Nonetheless, good post, sir.

[ghostdancer]

Nice counter analysis but the loss of Midway could have had a much wider impact on the whole American war effort. Remember that after the bombing of Pearl the public wanted to go to war against Japan not Germany. It was Germany's declaration of war that brought us into conflict with them simply put.

Basically this sentiment was reflected behind the scenes in a debate within the military and government on who to focus on first with the Europe first proponents eventually winning that argument. If Midway had fallen and if the Japanese had done regularly bombing of Hawaii, even if doing so yielded little concrete results tactically or strategically, I think you might argue that the U.S. Government and  military might have switched to a Japan first strategy instead of a Europe first strategy which would have had a dramatic impact on the whole course and nature of the global conflict.

[FLS]

Regarding historical accuracy as a reason for this, do you want PT boats and LVTs spawning from a Japanese CV group? Granted it's no different from Japanese planes taking off from the CV now.

The big issue would be if there was a perception that one fleet was superior to the other. It might be impossible to have them be both accurate and balanced.

[Sabre]

Nice counter analysis but the loss of Midway could have had a much wider impact on the whole American war effort. Remember that after the bombing of Pearl the public wanted to go to war against Japan not Germany. It was Germany's declaration of war that brought us into conflict with them simply put.

Basically this sentiment was reflected behind the scenes in a debate within the military and government on who to focus on first with the Europe first proponents eventually winning that argument. If Midway had fallen and if the Japanese had done regularly bombing of Hawaii, even if doing so yielded little concrete results tactically or strategically, I think you might argue that the U.S. Government and  military might have switched to a Japan first strategy instead of a Europe first strategy which would have had a dramatic impact on the whole course and nature of the global conflict.

Excellent post, Ghost, and I quite agree that it could easily have caused a re-alignment of national priorities.  However, I think that re-alignment would have been more short-term in nature.  Japan's strategic situation would not have changed much, other than to extend even further a defensive perimeter and logistics chain that was impossible for them to maintain as it was.  And the cream of their naval aviation corps would still be decimated. I see it more as a ripple in the timeline, rather than an out and out rewriting of it.

Regarding FLS's post, what he sites is why I think adding more classes of ships, rather than the same classes from different nationalities is more important to growing the game.