lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 6, 2020 17:28:36 GMT
Following on from the decisive United States victory at the Battle of Midway in June, where three Japanese aircraft carriers were sunk for the loss of Yorktown, the strategic balance in the Pacific shifted dramatically towards the Allies. The defeat shattered any remaining illusions or victory disease among the IJN and Yamamoto's secondary contingency plan for the attrition and destruction of the USN in the South Pacific whilst preparing defences to counter their inevitable offensive were put into place. Even limited as they were post-Pearl Harbor, Japanese intelligence assets within the United States painted a stark picture of the scale of American naval construction. After Midway, Japan could deploy 7 fleet carriers, the elderly Hosho and 4 light carriers, with two Taiho class and three auxiliary conversions due to enter service in the second half of 1942, representing a not insubstantial force; however, the USN fielded 7 fleet carriers in Pacific alone with 4 Essex class ships and 4 Independence class light carriers entering service in the second half of the year and a further 24 fleet carriers laid down or ordered. The decision reached by Imperial General Headquarters was to defer planned offensives against Fiji, the New Hebrides and New Caledonia, where US forces were now established in strength, in favour of a concentrated defence of the Solomon Islands and a renewed land offensive in New Guinea. The main strength of the Combined Fleet, numbering 24 battleships once repairs from Midway were completed, would remain together and thus capable of successfully engaging either a British or American battlefleet, whilst fast coordinated task forces would rotate through Truk and the South Pacific front to counter the Allied threat from that direction. Even in the Darkearth verse Yorktown does not get a respite. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 6, 2020 19:02:01 GMT
It is simply a consequence of where it is in the battle; the full discussion of it will come in the American section.
The salient information in the last snippet is the differing IJN strategy and the use of two fleets, in addition to land based bombers and submarines. Victory disease finished earlier and Japan is somewhat better positioned. The Combined Fleet (16 BB, 4 CV, 4 CVL, 30 CA, 96 DD) is mainly based between Manila, Hong Kong and Tainan, with the forward fleet at Truk (8 BB, 4 CV, 4 BC, 27 CA, 72 DD) and older units assigned to the China Area Fleet and Japan.
The disparity in numbers id starting to cause some worry considering the loss of 15 cruisers and 42 destroyers to July 1942 and the limits on how much Japan can build. The commissioning of the two Taiho class CVs and the three auxiliary carriers can’t come quickly enough. 1943 is a fair year, but then construction lessens markedly.
After the losses taken by the old 15” battleships in the Coral Sea, there are proposals to convert the remaining 5 ships to aircraft carriers.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 6, 2020 19:07:37 GMT
It is simply a consequence of where it is in the battle; the full discussion of it will come in the American section. The salient information in the last snippet is the differing IJN strategy and the use of two fleets, in addition to land based bombers and submarines. Victory disease finished earlier and Japan is somewhat better positioned. The Combined Fleet (16 BB, 3 CV, 4 CVL, 30 CA, 96 DD) is mainly based between Manila, Hong Kong and Tainan, with the forward fleet at Truk (8 BB, 4 CV, 4 BC, 27 CA, 72 DD) and older units assigned to the China Area Fleet and Japan. After the losses taken by the old 15” battleships in the Coral Sea, there are proposals to convert the remaining 5 ships to aircraft carriers. So land base bombers from Midway, in OTL the B-17s station at Henderson Field (Midway) did not mange to hit any Japanese ships, did they have more success here. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 6, 2020 19:26:21 GMT
B-17s operating at high altitude didn’t have the best record for achieving hits on moving ships for good reason. The use of Midway as an unsinkable aircraft carrier was a boon, but the heavies didn’t have the tactics or weapons to yet play a key role.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 6, 2020 19:37:43 GMT
B-17s operating at high altitude didn’t have the best record for achieving hits on moving ships for good reason. The use of Midway as an unsinkable aircraft carrier was a boon, but the heavies didn’t have the tactics or weapons to yet play a key role. The Japanese mange to sink two British ships in OTL with land base bombers, so why not B-17s, ore was it that the Japanese used torpedoes and trained their pilots in sinking ships. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 6, 2020 19:47:32 GMT
You’ve answered your own question.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 6, 2020 19:48:33 GMT
You’ve answered your own question. Damm it, that was not how i wanted the question to go. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 6, 2020 19:55:59 GMT
B-17s were not used as ultra-low altitude torpedo bombers, either in @ or on Dark Earth. Those deployed to the South Pacific in the first 6 months of war were not used as medium or low altitude skip bombers. Those deployed on Midway were used according to prewar doctrine to little effect.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 6, 2020 19:56:52 GMT
B-17s were not used as ultra-low altitude torpedo bombers, either in @ or on Dark Earth. Those deployed to the South Pacific in the first 6 months of war were not used as medium or low altitude skip bombers. Those deployed on Midway were used according to prewar doctrine to little effect. So no B17s sinking Japanese carriers, got it. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 6, 2020 20:15:56 GMT
Some historical developments make a great deal of sense, such as the B-17 and B-26 being employed in Europe and the B-24 and B-25 being preferred in the Pacific. As such, the window for B-17s to do anything of the sort is already punishingly small. Given that, in @, high altitude ops from Midway resulted in 0 hits from 16 attacks and 55 sorties, something would need to be fundamentally different for them to sink Japanese aircraft carriers with bombs. Much greater numbers might have mathematically increased their hit probability, but that brings up problems of fitting them on limited space and operating larger bombing missions.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 7, 2020 8:31:49 GMT
Some historical developments make a great deal of sense, such as the B-17 and B-26 being employed in Europe and the B-24 and B-25 being preferred in the Pacific. As such, the window for B-17s to do anything of the sort is already punishingly small. Given that, in @, high altitude ops from Midway resulted in 0 hits from 16 attacks and 55 sorties, something would need to be fundamentally different for them to sink Japanese aircraft carriers with bombs. Much greater numbers might have mathematically increased their hit probability, but that brings up problems of fitting them on limited space and operating larger bombing missions. B-17s from carriers in the Dark earth verse, is it possible |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 7, 2020 9:08:48 GMT
Seems to be a bit of a B-17 theme of late.
No.
Given the minimum take off length of 3780ft with a decent bomb and fuel load, it isn’t a starter. Even with empty weight, it would still need around 1500ft.
Postwar, the Floating Fortresses could do the job, but by that time, there are different aircraft better suited to the role. Habakkuk and her sisters could theoretically operate a four engine bomber with a light load, but again, use more suitable aircraft. There is less need with the combination of LR MPA/bombers + aerial refuelling + available bases + flying boats.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 7, 2020 9:31:02 GMT
Seems to be a bit of a B-17 theme of late. No. Given the minimum take off length of 3780ft with a decent bomb and fuel load, it isn’t a starter. Even with empty weight, it would still need around 1500ft. Postwar, the Floating Fortresses could do the job, but by that time, there are different aircraft better suited to the role. Habakkuk and her sisters could theoretically operate a four engine bomber with a light load, but again, use more suitable aircraft. There is less need with the combination of LR MPA/bombers + aerial refuelling + available bases + flying boats. Just asking as you said carrier where bigger than their OTL counterparts, if i am not mistaken, thus if carrier could handle B-25s like OTL, then i was thinking, could they handle B-17s as well, as you now have answered all my question related to the B-17 i will have to think of a new question, like, could the Habakkuk operate in warmer waters ore only up North. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 7, 2020 9:55:29 GMT
They could, but it would severely limit their operational life. There are other carriers for the warm south seas; Habakkuk is designed and suited for the North Atlantic, which is the key ASW battlefield.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 7, 2020 9:59:09 GMT
They could, but it would severely limit their operational life. There are other carriers for the warm south seas; Habakkuk is designed and suited for the North Atlantic, which is the key ASW battlefield. So how many are they and do they serve after the war ends. |
|
