Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Snargfargle

Real Battle Mimics WOWS

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,606
[PSP]
Members
6,359 posts
8,982 battles

In an early naval engagement of WWII, the American and Australian Navy did as poorly as most random teams in WOWS do. Interestingly, had the Japanese commander had stayed and finished the job they may well have held Guadalcanal. This would have changed the war for America greatly.

 

Edited by Snargfargle
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
540
Members
2,059 posts
5,097 battles

I have seen this minimap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,895 posts
1,338 battles

Yes, Savo was a major wth-are-you-doing call for the US Navy.

Cape Esperance was much more favorable for the US.  Guadalcanal 1st night was just ugly.  2 nights later was Ching Lee showing the Japanese how to Battleship.  Then was Tassafaronga.  The Japanese reminded the USN how to torpedo.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
985
Members
4,592 posts
6,543 battles
1 hour ago, Snargfargle said:

In an early naval engagement of WWII, the American and Australian Navy did as poorly as most random teams in WOWS do. Interestingly, had the Japanese commander had stayed and finished the job they may well have held Guadalcanal. This would have changed the war for America greatly.

 

This?  Changed the war greatly had it happened?  NO.  Just no. Regardless of these naval battlers Japan never regained the Solomon's. Set-back?  Ya.  War changer......................NO. IMO and with all due respect.  How would it have changed THE WAR?  They never got back a thing America took.  They had 1 good night in that campaign. 1 night with BBs in WWII don't win the war. Carry on mate.

Edited by dmckay
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
985
Members
4,592 posts
6,543 battles
13 minutes ago, mavfin87 said:

Yes, Savo was a major wth-are-you-doing call for the US Navy.

Cape Esperance was much more favorable for the US.  Guadalcanal 1st night was just ugly.  2 nights later was Ching Lee showing the Japanese how to Battleship.  Then was Tassafaronga.  The Japanese reminded the USN how to torpedo.  

BUT  they were beat in the Solomon's (badly in the end) and driven out.  How?  Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,895 posts
1,338 battles
16 minutes ago, dmckay said:

BUT  they were beat in the Solomon's (badly in the end) and driven out.  How?  Why?

Because the USN had ships in the pipeline to replace them and more...but the Japanese couldn't replace their losses.  Also, the Japanese didn't realize until way too late just how many troops the US had on Guadalcanal.  From what I've read, the big error is that they did not know that the majority of the 1st Marine Division (minus the 7th Marines, but with the 2nd Marines added) had landed.   The first attempt to push the US off the island was attempted by a reinforced battalion, and the next time a regiment.  They got chewed up.  By the time they pushed hard, it was too late for them. 

Also, we controlled the seas around Guadalcanal by day, because of Henderson Field.  That's why the Hiei and Kirishima were there the night of the 1st Battle of Guadalcanal: to shell the airfield.  That's why San Francisco survived that night. Her 14 inch shell hits were the HE flechette rounds already loaded in the gun tubes, not AP.

Some of it was luck, but a lot of it was logistics, and simply being able to absorb the losses and keep on going.  Something Japan couldn't do for very long.  The other pattern repeated in the Pacific War: The Japanese were good with tactical objectives, but didn't finish the strategic objectives.  Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz, Savo Island, and more were all tactical victories, but fell short on the strategic side in the end.

Read this sometime if you haven't: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Keep in mind also that about six months after the biggest battles, the new carrier fleet, including the Essex CVs, the Independence CVLs, several Clevelands, and a crapton more Fletchers showed up in theatre.   And of course all the ships to supply them.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
985
Members
4,592 posts
6,543 battles
4 minutes ago, mavfin87 said:

Because the USN had ships in the pipeline to replace them and more...but the Japanese couldn't replace their losses.  Also, the Japanese didn't realize until way too late just how many troops the US had on Guadalcanal.  From what I've read, the big error is that they did not know that the majority of the 1st Marine Division (minus the 7th Marines, but with the 2nd Marines added) had landed.   The first attempt to push the US off the island was attempted by a reinforced battalion, and the next time a regiment.  They got chewed up.  By the time they pushed hard, it was too late for them. 

Also, we controlled the seas around Guadalcanal by day, because of Henderson Field.  That's why the Hiei and Kirishima were there the night of the 1st Battle of Guadalcanal: to shell the airfield.  That's why San Francisco survived that night. Her 14 inch shell hits were the HE flechette rounds already loaded in the gun tubes, not AP.

Some of it was luck, but a lot of it was logistics, and simply being able to absorb the losses and keep on going.  Something Japan couldn't do for very long.  The other pattern repeated in the Pacific War: The Japanese were good with tactical objectives, but didn't finish the strategic objectives.  Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz, Savo Island, and more were all tactical victories, but fell short on the strategic side in the end.

Read this sometime if you haven't: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Keep in mind also that about six months after the biggest battles, the new carrier fleet, including the Essex CVs, the Independence CVLs, several Clevelands, and a crapton more Fletchers showed up in theatre.   And of course all the ships to supply them.

You stated exactly the question I was begging. Right on. LOGISTICS was huge. Also....I knew these guy growing up in the 1950's/60's.  The Marines in the Pacific were tough....very tough after they got battle xp. Army also.  Lets don't forget them. Just as tough as the Japanese. And the Japanese were indeed tough but left out on the vine in garrison islands that could not be reinforced.  Also, better weapons. That was huge actually.  M1?  Best mass produced semi-auto rifle in WWII....bar none.  Japanese...bolt action relic from the 19th century. Better ships, planes, arty, FOOD, tanks.  It goes on and on. And on.  Oh..it goes on even more. :Smile_honoring:  B-29?  Wow. Carry on.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,895 posts
1,338 battles

I've been studying WWII as a hobby since I was about 10 years old.  I'll be 49 in August.  Also, you know you've been doing it a while when you see books you read when you were younger in the bibliographies of the newer ones.  

 

Edited by mavfin87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
985
Members
4,592 posts
6,543 battles
3 minutes ago, mavfin87 said:

I've been studying WWII as a hobby since I was about 10 years old.  I'll be 49 in August.  Also, you know you've been doing it a while when you see books you read when you were younger in the bibliographies of the newer ones.  

 

Yup.Golly I have been reading this stuff since I was 6/7 years old. Don't read very many WWII books anymore because, as you say, most are just now a rehash of what I read growing up.  Now and then you will come across a revisionist book that can be worth the time....but not often. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,895 posts
1,338 battles
Just now, dmckay said:

Yup.Golly I have been reading this stuff since I was 6/7 years old. Don't read very many WWII books anymore because, as you say, most are just now a rehash of what I read growing up.  Now and then you will come across a revisionist book that can be worth the time....but not often. 

I tend to find books on specific ships or specific battles or small campaigns will have new material sometimes, or from a viewpoint I haven't seen.

However, for example, the list of books where you read about Strong and Irvine bombing Zuiho at Santa Cruz is quite large...I first saw that in The Big E.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,497
Beta Testers
6,868 posts
4,189 battles
28 minutes ago, dmckay said:

You stated exactly the question I was begging. Right on. LOGISTICS was huge. Also....I knew these guy growing up in the 1950's/60's.  The Marines in the Pacific were tough....very tough after they got battle xp. Army also.  Lets don't forget them. Just as tough as the Japanese. And the Japanese were indeed tough but left out on the vine in garrison islands that could not be reinforced.  Also, better weapons. That was huge actually.  M1?  Best mass produced semi-auto rifle in WWII....bar none.  Japanese...bolt action relic from the 19th century. Better ships, planes, arty, FOOD, tanks.  It goes on and on. And on.  Oh..it goes on even more. :Smile_honoring:  B-29?  Wow. Carry on.

 

The rifles were a huge deal that most people don't get.  It wasn't uncommon for the Japanese soldiers to be unable to lift and aim their rifles near the end of the war.  They were starving, diseased and trying to use an absolutely terrible rifle.  It was long, heavy and difficult to reload.  Absolutely not what you want to be using when you're a smaller soldier to begin with, in poor health, weak with starvation and facing a well fed marine in good health armed with a superior weapon.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[ARMDG]
Members
17 posts
1,872 battles
24 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

The US military at times becomes complacent, resting on their laurels and thinking that their opponents are no match for them. Occasionally, wake-up calls are necessary to shake them out of this complacency. Much of this complacency occurs when peacetime generals and admirals promote underlings who are "yes men" who have spent their careers looking to better themselves rather than the service as a whole. It takes some barrel dumping before the good apples can be picked out of the garbage. The US is facing something similar today on the international technological and trade front, not to mention the training of scientists and doctors. Got to a STEM grad school sometime and see where the students hail from. While our kids are getting "PhDs" in gender studies, the brightest of the rest of the world are coming here to be trained and then leaving. Only about 20% of students in American grad schools are Americans.  

He's not wrong on the STEM grad breakdown. Most folks coming here for postdoctoral studies are also not from NA originally.

Really like that statistical analysis of the economic power - quite staggering how much excess capacity the US had at the time. I always find the politics of Japan interesting in that decision making - Yamamoto at the time and the Navy more broadly were strongly against engaging the Americans (given that Japan was already committed in Manchuria) as they were aware of the threat - whereas Tojo and colleagues followed the Army doctrine. If Japan had been able to take Midway/Hawaii and the Solomons it certainly would have been a more challenging war on the logistical front that might have been tougher, but they would have struggled to defend the territory. 

Edited by Xebadir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,826
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts

Well think of it this way many WoWs players are descendants of those who fought and survived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
178
[70]
Members
974 posts
3,846 battles
1 hour ago, CaptCombustion said:

Changed the outcome of the war? Absolutely not.

You are wrong.

As I say to anyone who thinks on how Japan might have done better in WWII, "if you like anime/manga/anything else from Japan, it already got the best possible outcome. A longer war just means sometime between the first landing boat hitting the shores of the Home Islands and the last mountain village being razed to the ground, Japan ceases to exist ahem, resistance, yes, that's the more politically correct term..."

So the outcome of the war, namely Japan getting off as well as it did, certainly could very well have changed if the war got nastier and thus more them-or-us annihilationist instead of a feeling of "the lolstomp is boring" that kind of became a thing later on (technically referred to using different terminology, of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,839 posts
10,762 battles
Quote

 

Real Battle Mimics WOWS

 

Ships doing bow-on angling, reversing during battle, and seeking cover behind islands?

Kidding aside, the book Neptune's Inferno is quite a good one on this battle (and others).

Edited by chewonit
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
1,266 posts
13 battles

Very interesting, could you imagine how things would be different? Great video. Thanks for the recommendation on Neptune's Inferno, chewonit. I'll definitely be checking it out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
83
[WOLF9]
[WOLF9]
Members
165 posts
3,706 battles

Snarg, thanks for posting this. Regardless of the impact on the war, the video was a vivid illustration of failure of command  and sort of a perfect storm.  Fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,606
[PSP]
Members
6,359 posts
8,982 battles
17 minutes ago, Jazzyblaster said:

Very interesting, could you imagine how things would be different? 

One thing that every generation of commanders seems to forget is to never split your forces unless there is a definitive reason to do so. Another thing they forget is that you should never underestimate your enemy. The third thing is to never assume that someone else has relayed the message. Better 30 extra 911 calls then none because everyone assumed that someone else was calling. Another thing that is needed is to train your commanders to be competent and to think for themselves rather than just relying on a chain of command that might be broken. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
1,266 posts
13 battles
38 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

One thing that every generation of commanders seems to forget is to never split your forces unless there is a definitive reason to do so. Another thing they forget is that you should never underestimate your enemy. The third thing is to never assume that someone else has relayed the message. Better 30 extra 911 calls then none because everyone assumed that someone else was calling. Another thing that is needed is to train your commanders to be competent and to think for themselves rather than just relying on a chain of command that might be broken. 

Couldn't have said it better, Snarg! Chuckled a bit about the 30 extra 911 calls but it's true. Better to be safe than sorry.

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.

×