|
Post by Blothorn on Nov 26, 2018 17:41:03 GMT -6
I agree that the Japanese would likely have trouble locating it in clear water--but I imagine that each attack would carry substantial risk, as it would only take one contact report with accurate information to bring the search area to a manageable size. Once the Japanese found it, they could shadow it and have until dusk to reach it with an airstrike (or indefinitely if they could keep track of it at night, but I think that would be a stretch). I think commerce raiding in the Pacific is a very different problem than in the Atlantic, particularly the south Atlantic: the allies had few bases in the south Atlantic, and were thus dependent on catching raiders with ships. Much, if not all, of Japanese shipping routes were within the phenomenal range of their bombers, so you don't need surface units in the area. (Aside, that does make the differences in success at protecting shipping from submarines more remarkable--Japan never had an Atlantic Gap to close.)
Separately, I think this proposal does suffer from the same questionable design as the Deutschland class--it is vulnerable to 8" fire out to fairly long range, and does not have the speed to keep cruisers at range. A faster (and possibly smaller) ship with 6" guns would suffice to overwhelm light escorts (destroyers and smaller) and would be able to better avoid heavy units; a ship with 8" guns and better armor might stand a better chance of beating a heavy cruiser without suffering crippling damage.
Regarding Anti-Aircraft armament--I am reminded of Yorktown's captain recommending after Midway that all anti-aircraft armament (including the 5" guns) on carriers be replaced with 40mm. The short range of the 0.50/20mm guns meant that they were primarily useful as an attrition weapon--they could prevent an aircraft from returning, but stood little chance of causing loss of control before weapon release. (The 0.50 was particularly bad in that respect--even within its short effective range, its only realistic chance of causing loss of control was a direct hit to the pilot.) He considered the 5" a useful weapon on escorts (since its long effective range allowed more ships to participate in the defense of whichever ship was attacked), but was considerably inferior in mid-range stopping power to a comparable weight of 40mm. (Although it should be noted that Yorktown did not have 40mm mounted before its loss, so that judgment is second-hand--this comparison was also probably upset by the introduction of the VT fuse.)
In this case, I would certainly not delete the 5" guns--with a >6" main battery, particularly, I hesitate to omit a secondary battery for surface combat, and a formation should have some long-range AA capability to dissuade too-close shadowing and distract attackers earlier in their attacks. They can be deleted from high-value ships never expected to operate independently (e.g. carriers), but a ship designed for solo operations needs them. However, I would still favor giving such an independent-operation ship a larger-than-normal battery of mid-caliber guns (i.e. 1.1", later replaced by 40mm, in the USN) to maximize the number of aborts.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Nov 26, 2018 19:04:12 GMT -6
oldpop2000 , the British had a far greater area to defend and cover than the Japanese did. If the American surface raider was just being quiet and hiding or running then sure it would be difficult to find. But if it is hunting then it would be doing so within the Japanese lines of communication which is a much smaller area. All it takes is one merchant getting off a radio report and the sky would be filled with search planes. [Edit - Blothorn made excellent points about the British working with few bases in the South Atlantic and the Japanese not having an air gap in their lines of communication.] Japanese flying boats were first to discover enemy forces at Coral Sea. There was a Japanese flying boat shot down by American carrier fighters at the beginning of Eastern Solomons so Japanese flying boats were the first to make contact their as well although it was shot down before making a report. (Same thing happened at Coral Sea but the next day another flying boat went out and did make the initial contact and report the American positions). The Japanese used their flying boats very effectively. Not saying it's easy to find a single ship but the Japanese had the tools and training to do it as or more effectively than anybody else. At least until the Allies started using airborne radar. American carrier fighters aren't a concern in the scenario we are talking about and we haven't even brought up the Japanese heavy cruisers which would presumably outgun the raider (the raider specs weren't limited by treaty restrictions so I'm assuming the Japanese cruisers would not be either) as well as being faster.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 26, 2018 19:51:22 GMT -6
Don't be to certain that the Japanese would be able to locate a quiet surface raider. The only reason the British found Graf Spee was because of her extensive attaches stationed in the neutral countries in the South America. They were able to have good intelligence from neutral ships entering and leaving those ports which could be transmitted to the British Naval Intelligence and then the Naval operations could send the Force K the information. The British had flying boats but they never came near finding Graf Spee. The Japanese do not have such an extensive network and these were unfriendly countries generally part of GB, France and Holland. They were decidedly anti-Japanese. Graf Spee was operating in an open ocean area covering about 13 million square miles with very little land mass within it. The area of operations you proposed for your hypothetical surface raider spans less than five million square miles, and is in a part of the ocean dotted with thousands of islands, to the point that very little of it is more than about 300 miles from a plausible location for an air base. If Japan holds everything it did on 7 May 1942 - which, if there's any Japanese shipping worth hunting with a heavy surface raider such as you describe in the proposed area of operations, I must presume that it does, since if we're just considering pre-war possessions Japan only holds a bunch of mostly-worthless islands in Micronesia and could be prevented from trading with potential neutral powers in the East Indies, Melanesia, and Polynesia by a combination of the continuing existence of moderately-powerful American or British cruiser formations operating in that area and the likelihood that the neutral powers in the region would on the whole prefer to trade with Britain and the US than with an aggressive, expansion-minded Empire of Japan deprived of its assets in the US and Britain due to hostilities with one or both of those powers - then the area of operations which you propose is a significantly more dangerous area for a relatively identifiable surface raider than the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans. A powerful heavy cruiser such as the ~12,000t 10" cruiser you describe would be better employed as part of the force attempting to delay the Japanese advance into the region while awaiting the arrival of powerful American or British reinforcements, not wasted hunting Japanese shipping which isn't there. What's it going to hunt? Invasion convoys? They're already covered by formations intended to be capable of defeating the British or American formations in the area; a lone raider isn't likely to have much success against them. Merchant traffic? What merchant traffic? With Japanese assets in American and British (and likely in US- or UK-leaning neutral powers') holdings frozen, either due to the outbreak of a war or due to economic sanctions preceding a war, Japan would have trouble buying anything from neutral powers in the region, is at war with at least one of the powers which controls significant territories in the region, and lacks holdings of significant economic value in the region if it hasn't invaded anything yet. There'd probably be something, of course, but not enough to make it worth diverting significant naval resources to hunting and destroying the raider or providing heavy escort to ward off attacks on shipping until after the rest of the American or British forces in the area were dealt with, and the withdrawal of a powerful heavy cruiser such as the proposed raider from the American or British formations in the region would likely significantly reduce the ability of said American or British formations to check the Japanese incursion into the region - not that they did that all too well historically.
I would also suggest that you are significantly overstating a surface combatant's ability to disappear in this region. This is not the subtropic to subarctic North or South Atlantic; this is the Pacific tropics, and moreover a fairly small and confined region of the Pacific tropics. Weather conditions are generally good, potential air bases are relatively nearby and plentiful, seas are relatively confined, and even in winter nights are never particularly long. A raider in the middle of the North or South Atlantic can run in pretty much any direction it wants to go to evade pursuit; a raider in the Celebes, Sulu, Banda, or Java Seas, or even the South China Sea, has significantly more limited options, is significantly closer to potential hostile air bases, and is operating in a significantly smaller region overall. If one chose to invest the resources to do so - as might be expected of a power inclined to turn the entire area into a series of successive lines of defense for the home islands - one might be able to cover the entire area with a relatively high density of patrol and strike aircraft and station a few relatively powerful air and naval forces at or near key areas such as the Straits of Malacca and have a fairly good chance of excluding small groups of hostile surface combatants from the entire region.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 26, 2018 20:33:25 GMT -6
Gentlemen: As I stated earlier, my primary purpose was to start a good discussion about surface raiders and their military value. This is an excellent discussion as usual with all of you. Now, do I believe in surface raiding as a part of Guerre de Course, not in the age of steel and steam. It worked in the Age of Sail, but is actually ineffective although it does draw resources from other missions. Would a US surface raider have a chance against the Japanese? I believe in the short run, in the first months of the war, it might have had an opportunity to strike their merchant fleet but eventually as they captured and occupied more islands, creating air bases and using naval bases like Cavite and Rabaul along with Truk, they would have extended their control and hence a surface raider would not have had much of a chance.
I hope we can continue this discussion, in relation to the RTW2 using possibly other nations as examples.
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Nov 26, 2018 21:02:15 GMT -6
I like this question quite a lot.
Do we think it's possible the golden age, as it were, for surface raiding could actually be the 1930s? Advancements in construction might allow for fast, potent raiders with long range and an aircraft complement that lets them search out their targets on the open sea, while enemy attack aircraft wouldn't yet be long-ranged and powerful enough to cover whole areas and quickly sink large ships. The 1922 start might give a German player some neat opportunities for building surface raiders (as was historical). I'm not sure I see the US building a dedicated surface raider, though.
Also, on what basis do we evaluate whether a surface raider is successful (worth the investment)? Both in terms of "how much enemy shipping does it sink" and "how much of my enemy's resources do they now have to devote to guarding against attacks by my raiders". This can be both in-game and historically.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Nov 26, 2018 21:52:23 GMT -6
The anemic Japanese defense against the Doolittle raid and the submarine attacks make me highly skeptical that they would mount an effective defense against a lone raider while they are distracted by a grand offensive. Yes they had great recon planes. They're with the strike force. Yes they had four battlecruisers. They're with the strike force. Yes their torpedo bomber pilots could do great things. That's why they were in the strike force. The only way those ships and planes are chasing after a raider is if you replace the entire Japanese upper command. They're response would be to blame the army and maybe after that failed divert a couple light cruisers whose captains had performed poorly.
The impact of a raider would probably not be in the ships that it sank but in the cargo ships it diverted. If a surface raider could have slipped into the East China Sea for a single day then made a dash back into the Philippine Sea under the cover of darkness the disruption would be invaluable. Japan hadn't done prewar preparation to divert civilian traffic during raids. Ships would sit idle in harbor or take longer routes back. And what happens the next new moon when it's the ideal time to strike again? The British had the slack in the system that the disruption in the South Atlantic didn't create chaos. The Japanese did not have that slack.
It's worth remembering that an American surface raider would detect ships at 25 miles and planes thanks to radar and that the Japanese had little if any ability to detect the use of radar.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 26, 2018 22:23:29 GMT -6
The anemic Japanese defense against the Doolittle raid and the submarine attacks make me highly skeptical that they would mount an effective defense against a lone raider while they are distracted by a grand offensive. Yes they had great recon planes. They're with the strike force. Yes they had four battlecruisers. They're with the strike force. Yes their torpedo bomber pilots could do great things. That's why they were in the strike force. The only way those ships and planes are chasing after a raider is if you replace the entire Japanese upper command. They're response would be to blame the army and maybe after that failed divert a couple light cruisers whose captains had performed poorly. The impact of a raider would probably not be in the ships that it sank but in the ships it diverted. If a surface raider could have slipped into the East China Sea for a single day then made a dash back into the Philippine Sea under the cover of darkness the disruption would be invaluable. Japan hadn't done prewar preparation to divert civilian traffic during raids. Ships would sit idle in harbor or take longer routes back. And what happens the next new moon when it's the ideal time to strike again? The British had the slack in the system that the disruption in the South Atlantic didn't create chaos. The Japanese did not have that slack. It's worth remembering that an American surface raider would detect ships at 25 miles and planes thanks to radar and that the Japanese had little if any ability to detect the use of radar. Excellent comment, you have studied the Pacific history well as have all the others. The Japanese had trouble finding our carrier task forces in at least two major engagements, they would have had many problems finding a single ship. I agree and have commented that one of most important aspects of a surface raider was its ability to disrupt trade routes and divert ships from other tasks.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Nov 26, 2018 23:13:48 GMT -6
its also worth noting the even though force Z is sunk entirely by air strikes, there are significant amount of naval assets mobilized to search for it and possibly contain it( I believe all the japanese heavy cruisers in South Asia at the times was involved, as well as two of the Kongō class ships). The ship can be caught by all japanese heavy cruisers but should prove at least a capable match against any of them, so this probably will result in the Kongōs getting involved anyway.
A raider trying its best to escape and stalk the trade lanes can tie up significant amount of forces if Japan decides to do a hunt for Graf Spee esque hunt. While the prevalence of land bases from which japanese airplanes may operate may ultimately make the ship easier to catch, I think it’s able to at least cause sufficient disruption that could be vital in early war, if not much real damage.
Unlike the case with UK, Japan really needed their fleet to go on the offensive in the pacific, I believe that diverting resources to hunt for the surface raider Will significantly hamper their ability to take the initiative in the opening phases of the war.
One thing worth noting tho, is that the building of this ship may possibly prompt japanese to build a similar large cruiser in response, due to their doctrine of having superior ship in all categories. although I don’t know how useful such a ship will be for hunting this raider( and I feel may even cause he japanese to waste valuable resources that can be spend on carriers)
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Nov 26, 2018 23:48:08 GMT -6
All good points. In light of these, do we think the US missed an opportunity by not building a surface raiding fleet?
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on Nov 27, 2018 0:39:33 GMT -6
One thing to keep in mind in all this is the sea lanes of Japan. They were not global like the British. They were all Western Pacific. The US sea lanes were primarily export only as almost all resources needed could be found locally or brought in over land. Essentially, this US raider would have to operate primarily in places like the China Sea to be effective otherwise it’s a non-factor that is mostly irrelevant until it does attempt to raid in those waters. In this environment a solid anti-aircraft armament is a must. By the way, I think six 10” guns are too few or too light. Go with twelve 8” guns or six 12” guns. I don’t think six 10 inchers would scare a cruiser with ten 8” guns nor could it out fight them. Twelves on the other hand would have to be respected unless a Kongo managed to catch it.
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Nov 27, 2018 0:58:05 GMT -6
One thing to keep in mind in all this is the sea lanes of Japan. They were not global like the British. They were all Western Pacific. The US sea lanes were primarily export only as almost all resources needed could be found locally or brought in over land. Essentially, this US raider would have to operate primarily in places like the China Sea to be effective otherwise it’s a non-factor that is mostly irrelevant until it does attempt to raid in those waters. In this environment a solid anti-aircraft armament is a must. By the way, I think six 10” guns are too few or too light. Go with twelve 8” guns or six 12” guns. I don’t think six 10 inchers would scare a cruiser with ten 8” guns nor could it out fight them. Twelves on the other hand would have to be respected unless a Kongo managed to catch it. Something that occurred to me, which your comment about 12" guns reminds me of, is that the historical US ships probably most potent as raiders were the Alaskas, which were actually built to counter potential German or Japanese raiders. Perhaps somewhere in between the historical Baltimores and Alaskas there is a raiding cruiser something like an American answer to the Deutschlands, with six 12" guns and enough speed to outrun anything but the Kongos.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Nov 27, 2018 1:25:56 GMT -6
Waaaay too valuable (or at least too expensive) of an asset to send an Alaska on a raider mission. These ships are operating alone and in enemy waters. However, in the spirit that I think oldpop2000 intended this thread here would be my requirements for an American surface raider. Take an Atlanta (or Oakland, we don't really need the wing turrets) and stretch it out to add additional propulsion machinery, fuel and provisions. It needs 35 plus knots speed to outrun Japanese heavy cruisers. (Which I realize is a lot for an American cruiser) Load up the topside with AAA. I would probably remove the top superfiring turrets and replace them with Bofors when available. You have a relatively smaller and more expendable ship that can either run away from Japanese CA or hopefully fight off enemy torpedo bombers. I would never take on an enemy cruiser with this, that's why I added the speed. Eight to twelve 5 in/38 should be able to fight off one or two destroyers. I might need to go to 6 inch guns but I don't really want to lose the dp capability.
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Nov 27, 2018 1:52:57 GMT -6
Waaaay too valuable (or at least too expensive) of an asset to send an Alaska on a raider mission. These ships are operating alone and in enemy waters. However, in the spirit that I think oldpop2000 intended this thread here would be my requirements for an American surface raider. Take an Atlanta (or Oakland, don't really need the wing turrets) and stretch it out to add additional propulsion machinery, fuel and provisions. It needs 35 plus knots speed to outrun Japanese heavy cruisers. (Which I realize is a lot for an American cruiser) Load up the topside with AAA. I would probably remove the top superfiring turrets and replace them with Bofors when available. You have a relatively smaller and more expendable ship that can either run away from Japanese CA or hopefully fight off enemy torpedo bombers. I would never take on an enemy cruiser with this, that's why I added the speed. Eight-twelve 5 in/38 should be able to fight off one or two destroyers. I might need to go to 6 inch guns but I don't really want to lose the dp capability. You're right, which is why I was thinking of something smaller than them. I find myself following more conventional thinking; Jeb's call for some 12" or a large amount of 8" guns seems too much for a raider for me. The requirement that a raider be able to outfight a Mogami-class sounds like you're talking about what's effectively a battlecruiser at that point and thus as you say too valuable an asset to risk. So I would want my theoretical raider to have speed even at the expense of weaponry. At the same time the 5" armament you envision sounds too weak for me--I want my raider to be a bigger threat to enemy light cruisers. I think six 10" guns Deutschland style or six to eight 8" guns (probably more likely because that would spare the Navy from having to create a 10" gun specifically for this class) would be sufficient and I'd want the raider to avoid joining battle with anything that isn't scared of it. I am excited to see RtW2 battles of raiding and counter-raiding, especially with things like air search and radar in the mix.
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on Nov 27, 2018 2:34:59 GMT -6
I think you guys are right to be honest. The only problem with an Atlanta/Oakland type ship is it needs to be a bit bigger to have the range both in fuel, stores, and ammunition to be an effective raider, making it more expensive and valuable. If I recall, raiding was one of the roles envisioned for the US cruisers. Originally just the heavy cruisers but with the size and overall capabilities of the Brooklyn’s they were included. The fleet submarines ended up being a far more cost effective and efficient option for raiding in the relatively confined waters that most Japanese shipping traveled. The cruisers were just too vulnerable operating alone in Japanese controlled waters and too valuable for other roles. For that matter, in my opinion the Hipper class cruisers were the best surface raiders the Germans built. Fast, long ranged, with enough firepower and armor to outfight what they couldn’t out run. Not always used effectively (Blucher) but good raiding cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Nov 27, 2018 3:51:12 GMT -6
Waaaay too valuable (or at least too expensive) of an asset to send an Alaska on a raider mission. These ships are operating alone and in enemy waters. However, in the spirit that I think oldpop2000 intended this thread here would be my requirements for an American surface raider. Take an Atlanta (or Oakland, don't really need the wing turrets) and stretch it out to add additional propulsion machinery, fuel and provisions. It needs 35 plus knots speed to outrun Japanese heavy cruisers. (Which I realize is a lot for an American cruiser) Load up the topside with AAA. I would probably remove the top superfiring turrets and replace them with Bofors when available. You have a relatively smaller and more expendable ship that can either run away from Japanese CA or hopefully fight off enemy torpedo bombers. I would never take on an enemy cruiser with this, that's why I added the speed. Eight-twelve 5 in/38 should be able to fight off one or two destroyers. I might need to go to 6 inch guns but I don't really want to lose the dp capability. You're right, which is why I was thinking of something smaller than them. I find myself following more conventional thinking; Jeb's call for some 12" or a large amount of 8" guns seems too much for a raider for me. The requirement that a raider be able to outfight a Mogami-class sounds like you're talking about what's effectively a battlecruiser at that point and thus as you say too valuable an asset to risk. So I would want my theoretical raider to have speed even at the expense of weaponry. At the same time the 5" armament you envision sounds too weak for me--I want my raider to be a bigger threat to enemy light cruisers. I think six 10" guns Deutschland style or six to eight 8" guns (probably more likely because that would spare the Navy from having to create a 10" gun specifically for this class) would be sufficient and I'd want the raider to avoid joining battle with anything that isn't scared of it. I am excited to see RtW2 battles of raiding and counter-raiding, especially with things like air search and radar in the mix. If your raider have to fight a cruiser that far from home water, it is already dead. South Asia is way too close into japanese sphere of influence that any engagement is an extreme risk. Graf spee was able to fight off the bristish cruisers but the damage she sutained means she’s essentially doomed. It’s far harder to adequately armour yourship against heavy cruisers compared to giving it a bigger gun than its japanese counter part. As a result, it’s best to keep it cheap and somewhat expandable. Be enough to handle japanese light force and hope you survive long enough to distract japanese heavy force. If cruisers are diverted to hunt you, simply running away and force them to waste time chasing you is far more valuable given that japan already need all the large ships they can get in the pacific.
|
|