/k/ - Weapons » Thread #27671137

[34 / 2 / ?]

91KiB, 1200x948, NA_1942_Periscope-sight-of-sinking-Japanese-ship[1].jpg

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:32:04 No.27671137 View Reply Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27671172 >>27671294 >>27671386 >>27676511

How did the IJN get so completely rekt by American subs in the last 2.5 years of the Pacific War? I mean, look up the casualty lists for IJN capital ships, it seems like more carriers were sunk by submarines than by American aircraft. And Japanese convoys were decimated by lone subs constantly. How is this even possible? Why didn't the Japanese ever develop any effective anti-sub tactics?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:35:29 No.27671172 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27671137
IJN didn't have to develop shit early because US torpedoes didn't work.
Then when USN got torpedoes that worked, it was already too late.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:36:33 No.27671184 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27671205 >>27671302

IJN believed that hunting subs was not work worthy of a true warrior for the emperor so they rarely attempted it.

No joke.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:36:36 No.27671185 Report Delete

Quoted By:

They didn't develop because US submarine operations were awful to begin with. By the time they got better Japan didn't have the time or resources to develop a countermeasure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:38:20 No.27671205 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27671235

>>27671184
No joke but idiocy all the same. IJN recognized the threat of subs and developed countermeasures later. IJN was not crazy, they were just really bad at their job.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:40:33 No.27671235 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27671261 >>27671264

>>27671205
It's mostly that grorious destroyer captains didn't want the disgrace of escort duty.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:43:31 No.27671261 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27671235
That sounds far more embellished than it probably is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:43:45 No.27671264 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27671235
Jap destroyer captains took on whatever duty they were told to do. They were fine with ferrying soldiers and supplies to islands, let alone escort convoys.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:44:19 No.27671275 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27671286 >>27671287

Were early American subs really that bad though? Even in the glory days of 1942 Japanese convoys were being destroyed by American subs. You'd think they'd recognize the effectiveness of American subs pretty early on.

And also, why did the Japanese never develop a large submarine force of their own? You'd think they would see the destruction caused by American subs and want some of their own. Subs are also much cheaper to build than capoital ships and provide a higher return on investment. Why not build tons of subs in the last days of the war instead of still building massive aircraft carriers that don't even leave home waters before getting sunk by, you guessed it, an American sub.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:46:03 No.27671286 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27671275
USN subs were fine, sub tactics were fine. Their torpedoes didn't explode.

>Subs are also much cheaper to build than capoital ships and provide a higher return on investment.
Mahan proved this wrong. Commerce raiders might show a higher ROI in terms of $ spent on ships and $ sunk, but having a strong navy gets you better ROI in terms of $ spent on ships and number of wars won.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:46:10 No.27671287 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27671323

>>27671275
it wasn't the subs that were the problem, it was the torpedos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo

Took a long time to get the fuckers to work.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:46:59 No.27671294 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27671321

>>27671137

Proximity Fuses.

No really, that's it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:47:21 No.27671302 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27680872

>>27671184
You're an idiot. The IJN recognized the threat of subs and Jap destroyers were a plenty, especially in carrier groups.

The problem was they simply were not as technically adept at ASW as the brits were with their efforts against the Uboats. And for the first bit of the war they weren't even setting their depth charges deep enough, US subs literally had a safe depth they could dive to get under them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:47:27 No.27671305 Report Delete

Quoted By:

I mean look at this shit:
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJN/JANAC-Losses/JANAC-Losses-6.html

>These assessments indicate that United States submarines sank 540,192 tons of Japanese naval vessels, and 4,779,902 tons of merchant shipping during the course of the war, the total accounting for 54.6% of all Japanese vessel losses.

It's almost like the USN should have invested in nothing but subs, and the IJN should have invested in nothing but kamikaze fighters.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:48:49 No.27671321 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27671333 >>27671476

>>27671294
US had also the best torpedo fire control computers.
Much better than kraut shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:49:07 No.27671323 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27671345 >>27671346

>>27671287

>Withdrawn from service: 1980

Damn.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:50:04 No.27671333 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27677632

>>27671321

That and night-fighting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:51:54 No.27671345 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27671323
Torpedoes are surprisingly long-lived

The one that sank the Belgrano in 1982 was in service in 1927

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:51:59 No.27671346 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27671323
Think that's bad?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_21_inch_torpedo#21_inch_Mark_VIII

>Introduced in 1927

>still killing Argies in 1982

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:55:55 No.27671386 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27671137
Prior to WWII, the Japanese never really considered ASW to be a major priority. The US and Britain were already a step up because they had to deal with that shit in WWI. By the time US subs started seriously eating into their merchant fleet, it was too late for the Japanese to be able to do anything about it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 18:05:05 No.27671476 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27671321
German subs were the best in most terms of performance, and certainly the type XXI was a marvel.

But the US did develop and employ radar, electronics, and firecontrol systems for surface and submarine vessels alike that shit all over every other power's. It's hilarious how emphasis on and employment of advantages in a single catagory makes US vessels towards the end of the war unconsestably the best at everything.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1023151728.jpg, 524KiB, 1944x2592

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 18:30:13 No.27671698 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27671720

Who Submariner's bible here?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 18:32:01 No.27671720 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27671698
I'm gonna read that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 18:41:18 No.27671809 Report Delete

Quoted By:

Weren't most of the IJN's electronics garbage? Like they didn't even have radar until late in the war.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 18:46:05 No.27671852 Report Delete

Quoted By:

No good sonar, no convoy systems, no functional navy to do anything about it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 22:22:59 No.27674068 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27676236

Did the Japanese have any anti-sub aircraft?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 01:56:42 No.27676236 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27674068
Planes that could drop bombs? Yes, did they have long range radar equipped aircraft purely for the role of ASW, like the allies? Not really.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 02:34:49 No.27676511 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27671137
IJN Didn't had strong and efficient ASW, even although they had plenty of destroyer, their depth charges weren't sufficient as they would possible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 06:31:08 No.27677632 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27671333
In 44/45 maybe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 08:37:45 No.27678058 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27680896

Shit depth charges. American subs can dive deeper allowing them to avoid jap depth charges. Then the biggest idiot in WWII history "accidentally" leaked this info then American sub losses started to rise.
Not really that much effective as jap convoying was shit all in all as they disregarded merchant marine since it's not an honorabru warrior duty or something like that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 10:45:33 No.27678667 Report Delete

Quoted By:

the more you read about the Pacific wae the more its clear just how woefully underprepared and outmatched the slants were

I mean you start to feel bad for the fucks,

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 15:41:52 No.27680872 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27682021

>>27671302
Didn't that change because some politician called a press conference to tell everyone the actual depth of US subs?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 15:45:30 No.27680896 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27678058
>Then the biggest idiot in WWII history
Hitler?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 18:00:23 No.27682021 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27680872
Yes, some dumb senator or congressmen boasted about an intelligence report he had or something about US submarine crews safely diving underneath jap depth charges, in got in the news, then the Japs themselves read it...

Subject

Name

E-mail

Password

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these boards

Your latest searches