Oi, Kitakami useful in game?

[Dili]

Just asking if this two cruiser with their huge torpedo battery version have been useful in game, i haven't keep up with AARs

[Terminus]

About as much as the other 5000-tonners...

[Commander Stormwolf]

would be more useful if the other 12 kuma / nagara CL could be refitted as well

oi / kitikami are only 2 ships. limited range.

getting them to fire on something useful is hard.

best used to bolster torpedo numbers in some type of meat grinder campaign

14 of them however would have been incredibly useful in a battleship duel

as they were, kuma / nagara classes were useless

[PT boat skipper]

They sank one allied DD, then I lost both due to torpedo hits in surface battle with enemy DDs near Ceylon in late May? 1942. I had hoped for better result since I usually put them into my strongest BB TF. That was not the case near Ceylon though.

Looking forward to DD Shimakaze and the Agano class CLs.

ORIGINAL: Dili

Just asking if this two cruiser with their huge torpedo battery version have been useful in game, i haven't keep up with AARs

[Jorge_Stanbury]

good early war
cannon fodder afterwards

[Terminus]

Or as useful as the rest of the 5000-tonners...[;)]

[Jorge_Stanbury]

... and the entire IJN [:D]

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

... and the entire IJN [:D]

I resent that!

My thoughts echo Terminus's, though I'll expound upon them. I find them useful as escorts for heavy BBs so it's not just 2/4 BBs + 4 DDs. I also find them useful in Fast Transport TFs...which is every IJN CL. Basically, DD squadron leaders.

[Terminus]

Precisely. The torpedo cruiser concept was a cul-de-sac, and not worth the resources expended on it.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

... and the entire IJN [:D]

I resent that!

My thoughts echo Terminus's, though I'll expound upon them. I find them useful as escorts for heavy BBs so it's not just 2/4 BBs + 4 DDs. I also find them useful in Fast Transport TFs...which is every IJN CL. Basically, DD squadron leaders.

I use the slow (29KNT?) CLs as BB escort; and the "fast" ones mostly as destroyer leader

[Commander Stormwolf]

torpedo cruiser concept was a cul-de-sac, and not worth the resources expended on it.

the torpedo cruiser concept was a good and cheap way of converting otherwise useless and obsolete
vessels into a powerful tool for use in a fleet surface action (think omaha class cruisers)

rendered obsolete by the proven supremacy of carriers

but 14 of them put into action around Guadalcanal would have been devastating

[Commander Stormwolf]

one more idea -

to anyone that has played carrier strike -->

the BB / CA can be assembled into SAG and sent ahead of your CV
to engage (or try to) in surface action against the enemy carriers
and divert CV strikes

sort of a "stay ahead 4 hexes of carriers and react" button

just like at santa cruz (the only properly fought carrier battle by the Japanese)

lessons learnt from midway - surface forces are more useful in front of the carriers than behind

[Icedawg]

I haven't tried it yet, but I'd like to try sneaking them into a night time surface engagement with low moonlight. Maybe they can get in close and drop their fish along with a couple DDs. I'm thinking two TFs composed of one Cl and 2 DDs each.

[Cribtop]

I had one deliver a torp hit that slowed and eventually made easier the sinking of BB Massachusetts once. Then again, a random hit from a DD would've had the same impact. My hope was that a horde of torps would fly and strike home... Didn't happen.

[Buckrock]

Personally, I found them nothing more than a big tease in my current game. The Kitakami never launched a salvo in her only battle and was sunk by enemy cruiser fire while the Oi was part of a TF that engaged a force that included a BB and several cruisers. The Oi did launch her torps and slammed two into.....a DD.

You could probably achieve the same with regular IJN CLs while avoiding the disappointment of crushed hopes.

Historically, I think the IJN intended them to be used for very long range "concealed firing" rather than the more "up close and personal" TF battles around Guadalcanal. After Midway, the Japanese themselves appeared to prefer using them as Fast Transports and continued to do so despite the surface combats occuring in the Solomons. So maybe the fact that the IJN accepted the real world limitations of these two heartbreakers is a good guide for the rest of us.[:)]

[Terminus]

This is correct. The Type 93 torpedo was meant to be salvo fired against the US battleline at extreme range to soften it up for the Decisive Battle. The Kitty and Oi were a bad idea; they loaded too many tubes onto too few ships. Even the Jap admirals who were meant to execute Decisive Battle didn't want them.

Like I said, a cul-de-sac.

[Banzan]

You really "forced" me to find a translation for "cul-de-sac" now, lol.
A far to difficult word for such an easy thing. [:D]

[Boomer Redleg]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

This is correct. The Type 93 torpedo was meant to be salvo fired against the US battleline at extreme range to soften it up for the Decisive Battle. The Kitty and Oi were a bad idea; they loaded too many tubes onto too few ships. Even the Jap admirals who were meant to execute Decisive Battle didn't want them.

Like I said, a cul-de-sac.

Just curious - do the Oi and Kitakami have a higher chance of taking critical damage with all of those torpedoes sitting on the deck?

In my limited play against the AI it "Feels" like Japanese ships fire more torpedoes at night then in the day. The Oi and Kitakami fire a broadside of 20 torpedoes? I already hate Japan's destroyers - running into one of these two light cruisers I think would really suck.

[Commander Stormwolf]

in the absence of airpower, the type 93 torpedo probably would have been the weapon that won
the war for japan, or at least rendered a stalemate / less awful defeat

[Lokasenna]

I haven't seen destruction of torpedo (or depth charge racks) do catastrophic damage like they should, so my assumption is no.