General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
RE: Why no tonnage war by Jap subs?
Posted by:
Michael Lowrey
()
Date: August 08, 2001 11:15PM
<HTML>Jack,
The key is to understand the Japanese theory of war at sea from the 1920s to WWI. Basically the Japanese believed the war would be decided by a big Jutland-style battleship shoot-out with the USN, probably near the Philippines. The Japanese would, of course, be outnumbered as the war began. To make up for this shortcoming, the Japanese\'s non-capital ships were expected to whittle down the American fleet before the decisive action. Destroyer squadrons, lead by cruisers, would torpedo American battleships. (The \"Long Lance\" torpedo and strong night torpedo attack tactics followed.) Japanese submarines would operate the US navy and sink major surface as well. When the main forces finally met, the Japanese would (hopefully) be even in battleship strength and win the battle through superior quality of forces (think Yamato).
Commerce warfare, in the Japanese view, was not relivent. It takes time for submarine warfare to take effect, while under the Japanese philosphy the war would have to be short if it were to be winnable. (Submarine warfare is a war of artition. Japan could not hope to outbuild the U.S in a drawn out conflict...) (I am not arguing that they could not and should have done more either in ASW or engaging in submarine warfare - clearly they should have.)
Of course, the reality is Japan greatly under estimated American resources and resolve. To make matters worse, the nature of the war was different from what Japan predicted. Japan failed to identify decisive battle when it occurred (Guadalcanal). Japanese overexpansion also was a huge problem - cruisers, destroyers, and submarines were asked to act as supply ships, which resulted in heavy losses for little gain.
Hope this helps,
Michael</HTML>
The key is to understand the Japanese theory of war at sea from the 1920s to WWI. Basically the Japanese believed the war would be decided by a big Jutland-style battleship shoot-out with the USN, probably near the Philippines. The Japanese would, of course, be outnumbered as the war began. To make up for this shortcoming, the Japanese\'s non-capital ships were expected to whittle down the American fleet before the decisive action. Destroyer squadrons, lead by cruisers, would torpedo American battleships. (The \"Long Lance\" torpedo and strong night torpedo attack tactics followed.) Japanese submarines would operate the US navy and sink major surface as well. When the main forces finally met, the Japanese would (hopefully) be even in battleship strength and win the battle through superior quality of forces (think Yamato).
Commerce warfare, in the Japanese view, was not relivent. It takes time for submarine warfare to take effect, while under the Japanese philosphy the war would have to be short if it were to be winnable. (Submarine warfare is a war of artition. Japan could not hope to outbuild the U.S in a drawn out conflict...) (I am not arguing that they could not and should have done more either in ASW or engaging in submarine warfare - clearly they should have.)
Of course, the reality is Japan greatly under estimated American resources and resolve. To make matters worse, the nature of the war was different from what Japan predicted. Japan failed to identify decisive battle when it occurred (Guadalcanal). Japanese overexpansion also was a huge problem - cruisers, destroyers, and submarines were asked to act as supply ships, which resulted in heavy losses for little gain.
Hope this helps,
Michael</HTML>
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
Why no tonnage war by Jap subs?
|
Jack | 08/08/2001 09:45PM |
|
RE: Why no tonnage war by Jap subs?
|
Brian Corijn | 08/08/2001 10:36PM |
|
RE: Why no tonnage war by Jap subs?
|
Michael Lowrey | 08/08/2001 11:15PM |
|
RE: Why no tonnage war by Jap subs?
|
kurt | 08/09/2001 03:50PM |