Jump to content

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

257
[LSNB]
Members
1,399 posts
4,014 battles

But then... they did study the Japanese warships in detail.

b5ceb3a0-90f7-11e8-843e-ac162d8bc1e4.jpg.ca1832f6f4b6b960d46d5df219c4503e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,014 posts
6,965 battles

I see a Mogami-class cruiser at the bottom. Wonder which ship it is. A quick wikipedia search on the Mogami's shows that 3 of the 4 were sunk, one was scuttled. The three that were sunk were done so by carrier aircraft, so this is likely a picture of one of the USN CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
759
[LOU1]
Members
4,078 posts
11,293 battles

Navy personnel were trained in ship identification and frequently reviewed silhouettes during their tour. I think that was primarily on submarines, though.

Edited by ExploratorOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
427
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,374 posts
4,342 battles

The USN's Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) had drawings and pictures, along with pretty good specs on Japanese warships:

KongoONI.JPG

 

Oni-Natori.jpg

Since these ONI recognition manuals were distributed to most, if not all, US warships identifying Japanese warships in combat wasn't that difficult.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
257
[LSNB]
Members
1,399 posts
4,014 battles
4 hours ago, Murotsu said:

The USN's Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) had drawings and pictures, along with pretty good specs on Japanese warships:

KongoONI.JPG

 

Oni-Natori.jpg

Since these ONI recognition manuals were distributed to most, if not all, US warships identifying Japanese warships in combat wasn't that difficult.

 

Ah, I remember these. I remember the ships were also detailed in wargaming game manuals such as Jane's Fighting Ships, although not in that much detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,954
[RKLES]
Members
11,786 posts
13,378 battles
13 hours ago, Murotsu said:

The USN's Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) had drawings and pictures, along with pretty good specs on Japanese warships:

KongoONI.JPG

 

Oni-Natori.jpg

Since these ONI recognition manuals were distributed to most, if not all, US warships identifying Japanese warships in combat wasn't that difficult.

Yeah between these and Silhouette of ships they could get better recognition and intelligence of the enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
310 posts
6,729 battles
18 hours ago, destawaits said:

But then... they did study the Japanese warships in detail.

b5ceb3a0-90f7-11e8-843e-ac162d8bc1e4.jpg.ca1832f6f4b6b960d46d5df219c4503e.jpg

This is that ships score card.... Each flag represents a ship sunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,738
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,363 posts
681 battles

That is aboard Boise, and it was done after the ship was heavily damaged during the Battle of Cape Esperance. 

 

Boise was credited with much more than she actually did during that battle, more as a propaganda piece than anything else. Helena's gunnery was actually much more effective than Boise's during that engagement and Helena didn't get nearly any of the credit. Boise was actually credited with more ships sank/damaged than were actually sank/damaged during the engagement.

 

Here's another view of the same thing.

 

16VlZ5g.jpg

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
257
[LSNB]
Members
1,399 posts
4,014 battles
4 hours ago, TheTrickpony said:

Does anyone else want a Natori/Nagara-class in-game now after seeing the diagram?

Not me. Not after seeing Arpeggio of Blue Steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,529
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,256 posts
6,233 battles
22 hours ago, ExploratorOne said:

Navy personnel were trained in ship identification and frequently reviewed silhouettes during their tour. I think that was primarily on submarines, though.

Carrier pilots were too, if I remember correctly. After all, it's rather embarrassing to go in for an attack run only to figure out at the last minute that it's your own ship. See the Battle of Coral Sea, where some rather tired Japanese pilots in poor visibility accidentally tried to land on the YORKTOWN for a perfect example of why it was necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder, Beta Testers
1,591 posts
2,659 battles

During the WW1-interwar the Japanese Navy used Water  Tube Boilers that burned a mixture of coal and oil, and gradually replaced them with Kanpon oil-fired boilers during refits

Looks like the Nagara's retained two of the dual fuel boilers while the other ten were fully oil fired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
654
[REVY]
Members
1,962 posts
11,135 battles
On 7/29/2018 at 5:17 PM, ramp4ge said:

That is aboard Boise, and it was done after the ship was heavily damaged during the Battle of Cape Esperance. 

 

Boise was credited with much more than she actually did during that battle, more as a propaganda piece than anything else. Helena's gunnery was actually much more effective than Boise's during that engagement and Helena didn't get nearly any of the credit. Boise was actually credited with more ships sank/damaged than were actually sank/damaged during the engagement.

 

Here's another view of the same thing.

 

16VlZ5g.jpg

 

 

That's mostly because of the state she returned in then anything.

At home, people heard of the battle and now see this heavily damaged ship returning for repair and automatically 'assume'.

 

Look at the famous photo of the flag raising at Iwo Jima. That photo was actually the second raising of the flag, a much bigger one. The reason it is remembered is because it was it was one of the first photos sent back from the battle and its heroic image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
759
[HC]
Beta Testers
2,662 posts
12,121 battles
8 hours ago, Lord_Slayer said:

That's mostly because of the state she returned in then anything.

At home, people heard of the battle and now see this heavily damaged ship returning for repair and automatically 'assume'.

 

Look at the famous photo of the flag raising at Iwo Jima. That photo was actually the second raising of the flag, a much bigger one. The reason it is remembered is because it was it was one of the first photos sent back from the battle and its heroic image.

Also, kill claims in combat are notoriously unreliable. It wouldn't surprise me if the same ship gets claimed as a kill multiple times by one or more ships because it was seen, engaged and lost sight of multiple times, and the ship escaped unharmed anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,831
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,758 posts
2,134 battles

Generally all navies made such information available to crew of ships, subs, and shore battery, plus aircraft. Such information was vital not only for attacking, but also anyone simply scouting out enemy forces. Knowing what the enemy had where was vital, and mistakes could have major impacts.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For security reasons, please do not provide your personal data or the personal data of a third party here because we might be unable to protect such data in accordance with the Wargaming Privacy Policy.

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×