Topic: The loss of the USS Wasp, CV-7

[Panzergranate]

How effective any piece of millitary ordance is depends on operational deployment, method of use, quality of the personel crewing it but above all, how smart and astute the guy incharge of it is.

For instance the Soviet Red Army in 1941 had the world's most advanced battletank, the KV 1, which had more armour on the deck and belly than German tanks carried on their fronts at the time. The armour was far more than German or any western anti-tank gun could penetrate. It was mine proof, aircraft bomb proof and mine proof (many reports of KVs driving through mine fields unscathed and being Stukaed unsuccessfully!!) ad it out gunned all other tanks.

In effect it was the equivalent of a modern Challenger II tank today.

However they were KOed in droves!! How?? The crew had just 5 hours of training and were taken from raw recruits with know experience of tank tactics as well.

Most were either captured or detroyed after beaching when pushing over trees, running aground in parallel ditches, being boarded by infantry and other minor driver errors made only by the most clueless of tank crews today.

In fact the Germans captured so many intact that they were able to fully equip two whole regiments with these heavy tanks and it inspiredt hem to start development of the Tiger tank, which had less armour than the KV 1 heavy tank.

It proves that training is more important than equipment in combat. Ordinary but better trained infantry armed with nothing more than a rifle, piece of oil soaked rag or a grenade could elimiate the most advanced piece of millitary hardware on the planet at that time.

 

[Brush Wolf]

I disagree about the Kv's being advanced. They were really designed on the WWI model of a bunker/trench buster and was also mechanically unreliable. Once the Germans figured out what to do it was easily beaten. The T34 was the advanced tank and was truly a shock for the Germans and only the penney packet use of the T34 allowed the Germans to combat it initially. The German response(s) were the famed Mark V Panther and the Panzerfaust infantry anti-tank weapon. they also up gunned the Mk IV's to a higher velocity long barrel 75 instead of the low velocity 75 it carried up to that point.

[Hexx]

Pretty sure even the long barreled 50mm's could score a pen on a Kv
(can't remember the PAk number)

[Brush Wolf]

The 88's using AP ammo were only able to penetrate them at point blank range. About all any lesser gun could hope for would be a track hit to immobilize it.

[Just plain old Punisher]

The KV-1's were better than any of the PZ-IVD's, PZ-IIIF/H, and PZ-II's that the Germans had at the time of the German invasion of the soviet union.

[Brush Wolf]

The KV-1's were better than any of the PZ-IVD's, PZ-IIIF/H, and PZ-II's that the Germans had at the time of the German invasion of the soviet union.

I don't think the Kv's were better but they were definitely tougher. The T-34 which mounted the same gun in a more reliable and more mobile platform was the breakthrough design. While the T34 carried less armor than the KV that armor was also steeply sloped and provided almost as much protection and was the tank that the German high command was truly worried about.

[AcePylut]

1 Shinano with Medium bombers wouldn't have mattered, had it not been sunk by a sub.  Not when they'd get thrown against a fast carrier fleet with 300 Hellcats and Corsairs.

[Panzergranate]

I think that the Japanese high command fell into the same trap as the Germans with tanks, believing that bigger was better. OK the Sherman was crap as a battle tank, undergunned (until the British stuck a 17Pdr. gun on one!!), poorly designed  anti-armour ammo (M63, M72, etc.), ran on Av Gas,  but it could be built in vast numbers, was reliable, easy to fix, etc.

A lot of small, fast tanks, with well trained crews, can be fielded everywhere where as a handful of resourcefully expensive, high tech, over complicated tanks can only be in one place at time.

Interestingly, German tank crews in 1941 were told to avoid direct combat with any of the 63 Soviet 5 turreted T35 land battleships. These giant beasts were left to occupy and dominate the small radius of territory they occupied whilst everything just went around them. The Russian learn a hard lesson form this in 1941 which they took notice of, hence the excelent T34, the best tank of the WW2.

The Shiano would have probally ssuffered the same fate. For the resources wasted on building it, the Japanese could have built 2 or maybe 3 conventional carriers. The US Jeep carrier programme proved to be the winning way.

[CaptStumpy]

Shinano was originally laid down as the third Yamato class BB, was converted to a carrier in slip, and was designated to be a support ship for carrier task forces carrying reserve aircraft, fuel and ordinance but only a limited amount of her own aircraft. Of her own aircraft (around 40) she would have carried less than half of what an Essex class was carrying (about 90 aircraft).

At the time of her shake down cruise and sinking, the problem wasn't carriers, the problem was finding the trained aircrews to put on them and the fuel to put in the ships to carry them. Shinano, though impressively large for her day, wasn't remarkable as a carrier, except for size, armored flight deck and protection afforded her by her Yamato class lineage.

Had she been completely manned, worked up and her damage control teams trained, she would have very likely shrugged off the four torpedoes that struck her. Even still, she managed to stay afloat for 7 hours.

Regardless, the is little doubt she would have suffered the same fate as her half-sisters and the rest of the Japanese fleet when she completed her outfitting and work up. There is little the Japanese could do to stop the overwhelming American fleet in 1945. At Leyte, the carriers were used as decoy's and wasted, having not enough aircraft to be used effectively anyway.

[Just plain old Punisher]

I think that the Japanese high command fell into the same trap as the Germans with tanks, believing that bigger was better. OK the Sherman was crap as a battle tank, undergunned (until the British stuck a 17Pdr. gun on one!!), poorly designed  anti-armour ammo (M63, M72, etc.), ran on Av Gas,  but it could be built in vast numbers, was reliable, easy to fix, etc.

A lot of small, fast tanks, with well trained crews, can be fielded everywhere where as a handful of resourcefully expensive, high tech, over complicated tanks can only be in one place at time.

Interestingly, German tank crews in 1941 were told to avoid direct combat with any of the 63 Soviet 5 turreted T35 land battleships. These giant beasts were left to occupy and dominate the small radius of territory they occupied whilst everything just went around them. The Russian learn a hard lesson form this in 1941 which they took notice of, hence the excelent T34, the best tank of the WW2.

The Shiano would have probally ssuffered the same fate. For the resources wasted on building it, the Japanese could have built 2 or maybe 3 conventional carriers. The US Jeep carrier programme proved to be the winning way.

Well the reasons why early war carriers were so limited in displacement was the Washington and London naval treaties that limited each major maritime power to so much tons in carriers. I think japan was limited to something like 90,000 tons.

[CaptStumpy]

I think that the Japanese high command fell into the same trap as the Germans with tanks, believing that bigger was better. OK the Sherman was crap as a battle tank, undergunned (until the British stuck a 17Pdr. gun on one!!), poorly designed  anti-armour ammo (M63, M72, etc.), ran on Av Gas,  but it could be built in vast numbers, was reliable, easy to fix, etc.

A lot of small, fast tanks, with well trained crews, can be fielded everywhere where as a handful of resourcefully expensive, high tech, over complicated tanks can only be in one place at time.

Interestingly, German tank crews in 1941 were told to avoid direct combat with any of the 63 Soviet 5 turreted T35 land battleships. These giant beasts were left to occupy and dominate the small radius of territory they occupied whilst everything just went around them. The Russian learn a hard lesson form this in 1941 which they took notice of, hence the excelent T34, the best tank of the WW2.

The Shiano would have probally ssuffered the same fate. For the resources wasted on building it, the Japanese could have built 2 or maybe 3 conventional carriers. The US Jeep carrier programme proved to be the winning way.

Well the reasons why early war carriers were so limited in displacement was the Washington and London naval treaties that limited each major maritime power to so much tons in carriers. I think japan was limited to something like 90,000 tons.

81,000 tons to be exact, and she fudged that. The treaties in some ways, helped Japan, and put her ahead in naval aviation, since many of the resources and even some of the BC hulls, like Akagi, were diverted to what turned out to be more useful carriers. It also made Japan focus on higher quality of ships to overcome numerical inferiority. At the beginning of the war their carriers and fleet air arm and aircraft were the best in the world. Their DDs and CAs top notch and they had perfected a devastating 45 kt torpedo, with twice the warhead and 4 times the range of other navies that they put to good use in the Solomon's and gave the US commanders a nasty surprise. They also worked on overcoming their numerical inferiority by concentrating on night-fighting tactics, which they again put to good use in the Solomon's. A major failure and flaw was their virtual ignoring of radar until it was much too late. Also the focus of using their submarine force in fleet support and attack instead of supply and logistical interdiction strategy.

The big BBs where really just huge useless fuel sucking anachronisms that were really obsolete before they were laid down. Shinano was really just a crazy stop gap measure to use up an existing hull.

[Just plain old Punisher]

Helped us too, since we could use our two BC hulls to lay down our 34,000 tonners, the lexington and Saratoga.

But in order to save weight, the Japanese also launched several light carriers of limited usefullness. And their existing fleet carriers lacked any signifigant flight deck armor.

[Just plain old Punisher]

Ha! Here is where buying that bargin book "Janes history of modern naval warfare" pays off!

[CaptStumpy]

Ha! Here is where buying that bargin book "Janes history of modern naval warfare" pays off!

Pah! That rag? It's Conway's or nothing baby!

[Just plain old Punisher]

Eh, Janes provides a lot more commentary that connects it all together =P