Australian ships' history

[m10bob]

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/shiphistorymain.html

[Dili]

RAN destroyers http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/~lenshome/destroyers.htm
 
Netherlands Navy in WW2  http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/

[spence]

Reading some of the ships' histories indicates that the crews and captains of most HMA destroyers and cruisers had far more experience than the game would credit them with. In fact with leadership of a destroyer flotilla in the Med in 1940 and 1941 and subsequent command of HMAS Perth it would seem Cdr Waller should be pretty close to the epitome of a surface warfare expert from the standpoint of experience.

[el cid again]

Do you have specific numerical recommendations for him - or anyone else? A lot of game names are just names - not assigned correctly - nor evaluated.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Do you have specific numerical recommendations for him - or anyone else? A lot of game names are just names - not assigned correctly - nor evaluated.

This is true and would require a LOT of work.(Might even be enough for a "mod of a mod" actually).
Had Tameicha Hara not survived the war, would any of us even know who he was??

[el cid again]

Oh yes we would. As author of the torpedo doctrine, and also as the most popular of all Japanese ship captains (he never lost a man on either of his destroyers; he did not tolerate abuse of his men) - we would have heard of him. But we know a lot more because of his book. I once was told that - because it was not done by a scholarly publishing house - it could not be cited. But NOW it HAS been picked up by a scholarly house - so perhaps it can after all?

[JeffroK]

Always has to get your dig in, dont you.  But printed by ballantine Books in 1961 should be good enough for most of us.
 
So when the Yahagi was sunk by USN torpedo bombers he miraculously saved every man?
 
Or by limiting your comments to destroyers do you avoid this inconvenient item?

[spence]

Having read his book quite some time back (like when the Beatles were still all together) I can't recall an exact numbers but in the first night of the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal his Amatsukaze got hit quite severely in a close encounter of the bad kind with IIRC USS Helena. Given that 3/8 inch of mild steel is the approxiamate WW2 standard for destroyer armor it would seem highly unlikely that nobody on board got killed --- the vaguest of recollections to me suggests around 40 men died in fact. I do recall Captain Hara indulging in quite a bit of self recrimination in the book for his own "mistakes/errors of judgement" which led to his men's deaths. That may have been how he actually felt or it may have been for the benefit of his intended audience (Westerners with full bellies and some extra cash to spend on a book or two).

[spence]

Do you have specific numerical recommendations for him - or anyone else? A lot of game names are just names - not assigned correctly - nor evaluated.

HMAS Perth has a 65/61 experience rating for the crew/ship in CHS. Captain Waller, who at least is the CO of Perth in CHS, has ratings of 60 Naval, 30 Air, 30 Land, 55 Admin, and 50 Aggressiveness (oddly enough just like every other Australian skipper). Capt Waller and his DD Flotilla experienced and took part in surface combat, ASW ops, escort duty, shore bombardments and were repeatedly attacked from the air. HMAS Perth certainly experienced air attacks and participated in escort and bombardment duties while in the Med. Somehow it seems to me that ships, crews and captains that did such things should, in the experience area, rate more highly than HIJMS Kitikami or HIJMS Fuso (and other units of the Imperial Battle Fleet) whose sole claims to high experience rest on participating in highly contrived naval exercises during lousy weather.

[spence]

From the TROM of HIJMS Amatsukaze at Combined Fleet:
 

12-13 November: First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal
Escorted Admiral Abe's Bombardment Force. Torpedoed and sank USS BARTON (DD- 599). Medium damage: by gunfire of USS HELENA (CL-50): hydraulic systems crippled, silencing guns and jamming rudder; 43 dead.  

 
Captain Hara might well have become known as the "author" of the IJN's torpedo doctrine had he not written his book but most likely only to a select few historians choosing to delve into such matters in some detail.  As
far as Cid's claim that he never lost a man on either of his destroyers; it is patently false.  As to the popularity of any relatively junior officer in the IJN, I find it likely that along with many other records ("quoted" in some quarters quite regularly) the records pertaining were destroyed at the end of the war.    

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Always has to get your dig in, dont you.  But printed by ballantine Books in 1961 should be good enough for most of us.

So when the Yahagi was sunk by USN torpedo bombers he miraculously saved every man?

Or by limiting your comments to destroyers do you avoid this inconvenient item?

I was pretty sure I first read it in the mid '60's..Thank you JeffK.....

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Always has to get your dig in, dont you. 

REPLY: Where was a dig?

But printed by ballantine Books in 1961 should be good enough for most of us.

Was for me, but a historian at the University of Louisiana said it could not be cited in any scholarly paper or book - due to academic standards. This year it got picked up by USNI - so possibly that would change his view?

So when the Yahagi was sunk by USN torpedo bombers he miraculously saved every man?

REPLY: Not according to me. I carefully worded my sentence - both to be correct - and to reflect the nearly miraculous record: not a single life was lost in either of the two destroyer he commanded, although they participated in many of the most dangerous of surface actions of the war for most of its early and middle phases. THAT caused him to have a reputation unparalleled in IJN, and what happened later, after a tour ashore (in charge of the PT boat school) is merely a post script. While surely men died when Yahagi sank, nevertheless, the survivors in the water attempted to cheer thair captain by singing the destroyerman's song, implying a remarkable level of morale in the circumstances.

Or by limiting your comments to destroyers do you avoid this inconvenient item?

Yes - just so. The reputation was what it was because of that record of years in command of destroyers, not because of a few days in command of a single sortee which all the officers at the mission conference agreed must result in the loss of both Yamato and Yahagi. They did not sail to win, but "because the Japanese people will expect the Navy to expend all its major assets if we are to lose this war." No one was trying to preserve his reputation - and curiously - that attitude may actually have enhansed their reputations. I don't regard it as an inconvenient item - do you?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

Having read his book quite some time back (like when the Beatles were still all together) I can't recall an exact numbers but in the first night of the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal his Amatsukaze got hit quite severely in a close encounter of the bad kind with IIRC USS Helena. Given that 3/8 inch of mild steel is the approxiamate WW2 standard for destroyer armor it would seem highly unlikely that nobody on board got killed --- the vaguest of recollections to me suggests around 40 men died in fact. I do recall Captain Hara indulging in quite a bit of self recrimination in the book for his own "mistakes/errors of judgement" which led to his men's deaths. That may have been how he actually felt or it may have been for the benefit of his intended audience (Westerners with full bellies and some extra cash to spend on a book or two).

It is quite common for Japanese professional soldiers and sailors to be self critical - and also critical of their branch, their nation or its leaders - and in Hara's case also of his superiors in his service. He did say a great deal about mistakes made - and lives lost. That does not change his reputation among his men - nor the extraordinary good fortune they enjoyed. Shigure returned with something like 60% of her hull flooded - and the damage was so extensive it required a very long time to make good. Men should have died in that battle, at least. But the god's have their own rules.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

Do you have specific numerical recommendations for him - or anyone else? A lot of game names are just names - not assigned correctly - nor evaluated.

HMAS Perth has a 65/61 experience rating for the crew/ship in CHS. Captain Waller, who at least is the CO of Perth in CHS, has ratings of 60 Naval, 30 Air, 30 Land, 55 Admin, and 50 Aggressiveness (oddly enough just like every other Australian skipper). Capt Waller and his DD Flotilla experienced and took part in surface combat, ASW ops, escort duty, shore bombardments and were repeatedly attacked from the air. HMAS Perth certainly experienced air attacks and participated in escort and bombardment duties while in the Med. Somehow it seems to me that ships, crews and captains that did such things should, in the experience area, rate more highly than HIJMS Kitikami or HIJMS Fuso (and other units of the Imperial Battle Fleet) whose sole claims to high experience rest on participating in highly contrived naval exercises during lousy weather.

Both stock and CHS155 show Perth with ratings of 0 for both day and night, so they get their values from the default tables. RHS has inherited these ratings as well as those of Capt Waller, but RHS uses different default values for ships, particularly early in the war. I think 65/61 are rediculously high levels of experience for a ship that appears in Dec 1941. At Savo island both US and RN ships don't look very good at all - and that is the defining moment for early Pacific surface combat. No chance (yet) for lessons learned. It is also the worst defeat in actual naval battle in the history of the USN. And that in spite of the presence of radar on the Allied side, but not the Japanese side. Every USN captain in that battle who lived was relieved for cause (and/or committed suicide). Is there any reason to think Perth was a better manned ship than other Commonwealth warships of the period were? Note that the Commonwealth navies seem to have been rather better in day combat operations than at night ones in this period, so it is more the night rating I have problems with.

Waller seems to be rated the same as ships (60 for naval ops) and the same as other naval officers for aggressiveness (50) - so these are probably generic values. His rating of 30 for air ops probably only means "he isn't an air guy" - the same for the 30 for land ops meaning "he isn't a land guy" - and admin of 55 seems only adequate but not superb. What if we say 70 naval, 60 aggressive, 45 air, 40 land, and 60 admin?

For the crew - I still seek advice - but if you think this ship is somewhat better than normal - what about 65 day and 45 night?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

From the TROM of HIJMS Amatsukaze at Combined Fleet:

12-13 November: First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal
Escorted Admiral Abe's Bombardment Force. Torpedoed and sank USS BARTON (DD- 599). Medium damage: by gunfire of USS HELENA (CL-50): hydraulic systems crippled, silencing guns and jamming rudder; 43 dead.  

Captain Hara might well have become known as the "author" of the IJN's torpedo doctrine had he not written his book but most likely only to a select few historians choosing to delve into such matters in some detail.  As
far as Cid's claim that he never lost a man on either of his destroyers; it is patently false.  As to the popularity of any relatively junior officer in the IJN, I find it likely that along with many other records ("quoted" in some quarters quite regularly) the records pertaining were destroyed at the end of the war.    

I don't mean "author" in the sense of writing a book in the private sense. I mean "author" in the sense that his torpedo tactical system was published as the IJN Torpedo Manual. If I recall it properly, he identified 42 different variables that influenced the tactical battle settings/situation. As he explained in his biography, this was not something he expected to happen - he was just the torpedo officer of a destroyer when he was a junior officer - and he began to work out the system. It worked so well it got adopted officially. For that reason alone, I think we would know who he was if he had not survived to write his biography.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

From the TROM of HIJMS Amatsukaze at Combined Fleet:

12-13 November: First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal
Escorted Admiral Abe's Bombardment Force. Torpedoed and sank USS BARTON (DD- 599). Medium damage: by gunfire of USS HELENA (CL-50): hydraulic systems crippled, silencing guns and jamming rudder; 43 dead.  

Captain Hara might well have become known as the "author" of the IJN's torpedo doctrine had he not written his book but most likely only to a select few historians choosing to delve into such matters in some detail.  As
far as Cid's claim that he never lost a man on either of his destroyers; it is patently false.  As to the popularity of any relatively junior officer in the IJN, I find it likely that along with many other records ("quoted" in some quarters quite regularly) the records pertaining were destroyed at the end of the war.    

I think you are somewhat confused here: the fame he enjoyed was indeed because he had not lost men. Since combat is not a survival activity, sooner or later that had to change - and I am certain men were lost when Yahagi went down. That didn't diminish his reputation at the time - and that is why I think we would have heard of him. It is not because the record never got broken that he was popular - it is because he had been able to get the reputation in the first place. I was not reading this material - I was remembering it after many years - and I don't have any problem with the data someone is reading now. But that does not change the essential point I remembered. This was not the usual run of the mill destroyer officer - and he would have been remembered by students of IJN history in any case.

[spence]

think 65/61 are rediculously high levels of experience for a ship that appears in Dec 1941.

Whether the experience ratings of the ship (65/61) are ridiculous depends entirely upon how they compare to those of their enemies. You cite poor performance of the Allied ships at Savo Island and that is a fair assessment of their performance on that night.

But, I would call your attention to the performance of Japanese Admiral commanding the destroyer flotilla screening the invasion force at Balikpapan. When the first american torpedo struck home he took the whole flotilla out of the battle to find a non-existent submarine. If those ancient 4-pipers had been carrying Type 95s instead of their miserable American torpedos the whole invasion fleet might well have been sunk.

Cape Esperance is another fight in which the superiority of the IJN in naval battle fails to shine particularly brightly. For the commander of a surface covering force, the thought of a naval battle with enemy ships seems to have been amazingly far from the mind of Adm Goto. Thinking he was being fired upon by his own ships, he died with the words "Bakayaro, bakayaro" (stupid bast@rds or something similar) on his lips.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

think 65/61 are rediculously high levels of experience for a ship that appears in Dec 1941.

Whether the experience ratings of the ship (65/61) are ridiculous depends entirely upon how they compare to those of their enemies. You cite poor performance of the Allied ships at Savo Island and that is a fair assessment of their performance on that night.

But, I would call your attention to the performance of Japanese Admiral commanding the destroyer flotilla screening the invasion force at Balikpapan. When the first american torpedo struck home he took the whole flotilla out of the battle to find a non-existent submarine. If those ancient 4-pipers had been carrying Type 95s instead of their miserable American torpedos the whole invasion fleet might well have been sunk.

REPLY: This is a legendary story in USN - and one of my favorites. But I am not sure that the error in thinking of one officer tells us much about CREW experience on the ships?

Cape Esperance is another fight in which the superiority of the IJN in naval battle fails to shine particularly brightly. For the commander of a surface covering force, the thought of a naval battle with enemy ships seems to have been amazingly far from the mind of Adm Goto. Thinking he was being fired upon by his own ships, he died with the words "Bakayaro, bakayaro" (stupid bast@rds or something similar) on his lips.

I think this story is also correct - and I was trained to believe former enemy officers when they tell us things. There is a good deal of information given to us by Hara - and it appears that his view (never do the same move twice) was not universal by any means. [We did that last night - we should not try it again - was not heeded - and even the renowned Tanaka lost this night because of it] A lot of this is covered by GG's die rolls. You will get exceptional good and bad performance. In terms of norms, in early 1942, Japanese optics based tactics were better than our radar (or non-radar) tactics. Later in the war that was not the case. Which means the WITP system of a table that changes over time is good. But we cannot get at the table.