Should I scrap the Yamato on turn one?

[Og]

ORIGINAL: Xargun


I just have to keep them safe from Allied air power til then.

Or think of 2 Yamatos and some escorts sailing between the West coast and PH blockading it ? Or down near Suva blockading Oz from the US ? They will blow the hell out of anything less than a cruiser easily - and probably even them too...

Xargun

You don't have to blow the hell out of a ship to put it out of action and delay the end of the war. I would rather disable 4 or 5 essex carriers with my sub fleet that go on a joy-ride on the yamato.

This seems like a war of attrition, with US subs being the number one threat. Coherent ASW plan sound much more useful than wasting rescources on giant air targets. When they get sunk, I lose a ton of exp points too.

If players ever do reach late 43 in this game, the advantages of this strategy may become obvious. If you don't really plan to finish a game, sure the Yamato is an amusing interlude.

I hope I get some players with your notions when I am the USA though.

yours
Og

[Onime No Kyo]

would think 1 Yamato is worth a dozen or more lesser ships in combat and especially in bombardment missions... imagine sitting at Port Moresby thinking your safe when up sails the Yamato at night and bombards the hell out of you and sails out of range before you can strike back.... a nightmare to be sure.

If UV has taught me anything, its that sailing anywhere south of PM is asking for it. I've always marched my troops overland from Buna. Its a pain to the grunts but at least the floating stuff is safe. Its enough of a problem just to keep Buna supplied.

[Xargun]

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

If UV has taught me anything, its that sailing anywhere south of PM is asking for it. I've always marched my troops overland from Buna. Its a pain to the grunts but at least the floating stuff is safe. Its enough of a problem just to keep Buna supplied.

You keep forgetting how wide open the Southern Pacific Ocean is... You stay away from Noumea and I think thats the only real airbase in that area.. There's a lot of open ocean to hide a fleet in.. Just hide in a hex with react on and let them come to you...

As for using subs - subs are slower to get anywhere and only have a couple of shots (and so far 75% of all my subs have missed every shot) before they have to sail all the way back to a size 9 port or a AS ship for resupply... A surface TF is much more efficient... plus, if the Allied player sees a sub he'll either go around it, or send a DD TF to sink it.. Its much harder to avoid a roving TF and the Yamatos are not that easy to sink without air power... and IF he brings his CVs to hit you, you run... and while his CVs are chasing you, you strike Port Moresby, Darwin, Pearl Harbor or such more important targets with your CVs...

Most of all the Japanese must maintain the initiative through 43 or you will loose.. Make the Allies keep reacting to you and you'll keep him offbalance and make it harder for him to counter attack... Let him wait til he's ready and you have lost.

Xargun

[Aloid]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Yamato or 500+ ASW escorts? I'd rather have the escorts and leave the Japanese fixation for sword size to weirdo zaibatsu execs who like to knaw on Walrus knob, Bluefin Tuna horn and dirty school girl panties.[:)] Essentially, Yamato class were basically just a "mine is bigger" venture.


Might catch some flak for that one...[:D]

Ron, that's funny! Made my Day..
Cheers!

[UncleBuck]

That is my thought exactly. There is a great deal of Blue Water in the Pacific. You only need to worry about the Allied players carriers. You know where his bases are and can stay in the open spaces between them. If as you said, he sends his carriers to take out your Raider force, you are free to do bad things elsewhere without their interference. I think the Aw S*&T factor a BB group Yamato or not would have to the Allied player when it is discovered say between the US and PH, or Australia and Fiji would be worth the fuel and the loss of the Yamato. He could never be certain you aren't trying it again and will have to place forces in his rear to protect the supply lines from a serious threat.

Another Cooky Idea would be to stick a CVL like Shoho with the Yamato. Use its planes to search and add that extra to the strike force. Would be expensive to lose but, you could probably play it safe and just spread havoc behind the lines.

UB

[Og]

US Cls have float planes ya know, and then there are jeep carriers etc. Does the Yamato run at high speed as soon as it is spotted (kinda like the Bizmark)? or does it move a little and then lurk again, hoping the carriers aren't on the way?

Does the Yamato have ASW escorts for all this, and if so does it have the AOs to constantly refuel them?

This sounds like a costly venture that risks losing the Yamato and 5 support ships for 20 AKs at the most.

You are right about one thing, if you just gotta do this, you would be better off just sending the Shoho, at least it can actually find enemy task forces with some reliability.

A stack of Subs would do a much batter job--their best weapon is their torpedo ya know, but by all means, don't let me discourage you from these antics.

yours
Og

[gunnergoz]

Playing against the computer AI - It won't care a whit if I scrap the Yamato/Mushashi...but a human opponent probably would. In the "real" world, the ships are a very powerful force in being to be reckoned with, just the same as the Bismarck and Tirpitz. The poster noting that the time to scrap the ships would have been before they were complete on the ways is correct. Once built, there was little practical benefit to scrapping them.

As to the Shinano and it's potential at say, Midway...my guess is that it would have fared equally badly insofar as that most of the damage to the Japanese CV's came from exploding a/c and ordnance on the flight and hangar decks. Given that the Shinano still had a very heavily armored main deck (hangar deck), they probably couldn't have penetrated much past that, but once you get strong fires going, especially avgas, stopping them is a real challenge...one the Japanese could seldom do as effectively as US ships could. US shipboard damage control practice and effectiveness was then, and remains, some of the best in the world.

Were I the Japanese in '36, I'd not have built the super BB's and would have spent more on pilot training infastructure, CV's, effective AA, radar, ASW and long-range subs. Once the things were built, however, they should have been used more aggressivley, I agree.

[UncleBuck]

Again OG, Subs are not much threat to the Yamato. If they hit her and you think it needs to be withdrawn you can. A US sub is very unlikely to sink the Yamato. Also remember that with JP sub doctrine on, you will sink very, very few AK's with them. I am sure the Yamato can find the enemy reliably. Even if it does not sink anything, but makes my opponent move stuff around to avoid it would be worth it. The Patrol planes on the CL's are no threat. A CL will not harm the Yamato. If you don't think the tactic is worth it OG don't try it. But the question was should the Yamato be scrapped. I propose this as a viable and I believe an effective tactic to make use of the ship before the US gets enough CV based airpower to hunt the ship down without affecting the rest of the campaign.

Remember the loss of the AK's is not the real purpose of sinking them. The loss of what they are carrying is. If the 1st Marines don't reach the battle field because their convoy was sunk, or that 20K in supplies does not make it to the battle, it will hurt far more than the loss of shipping.

UB

[kaleun]

I hadn't thought of using the Yamato this way, but now I'm just dying to try it.
Next two hours will be spent deciding what should the exact composition of this long range commerce raider TF.[8|]

[Og]

So let me get this stright, UncleBuck, you think sending the Yamato alone to lurk between PH and SanDiego is a good Idea? Or to lurk, alone between PH and Australia someplace?

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Xargun

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

If UV has taught me anything, its that sailing anywhere south of PM is asking for it. I've always marched my troops overland from Buna. Its a pain to the grunts but at least the floating stuff is safe. Its enough of a problem just to keep Buna supplied.

You keep forgetting how wide open the Southern Pacific Ocean is... You stay away from Noumea and I think thats the only real airbase in that area.. There's a lot of open ocean to hide a fleet in.. Just hide in a hex with react on and let them come to you...

As for using subs - subs are slower to get anywhere and only have a couple of shots (and so far 75% of all my subs have missed every shot) before they have to sail all the way back to a size 9 port or a AS ship for resupply... A surface TF is much more efficient... plus, if the Allied player sees a sub he'll either go around it, or send a DD TF to sink it.. Its much harder to avoid a roving TF and the Yamatos are not that easy to sink without air power... and IF he brings his CVs to hit you, you run... and while his CVs are chasing you, you strike Port Moresby, Darwin, Pearl Harbor or such more important targets with your CVs...

Most of all the Japanese must maintain the initiative through 43 or you will loose.. Make the Allies keep reacting to you and you'll keep him offbalance and make it harder for him to counter attack... Let him wait til he's ready and you have lost.

Xargun

Don't forget these fuel guzzling battle wagons won't be able to loiter much at all in that part of the map. It's a long way to places like Fiji or American Somoa from Rabaul or Truk. And early in the War you probably aren't going to have built up enough fuel in either place to send a replenishment TF all the way out there with enough left over to let the Yamato and Musashi have a good drink..... As Frag has told me quite often.......IT'S THE MAP, STUPID! The map is going to prevent a lot of things. Even you can organize somthing, you do it at the peril of some other operation....

[UncleBuck]

Hey Zoomie, I recognize that it is an awful long way to get them to far off places, and that forward bases will be few and far between. That is why I would make up a Refueling TF to top them off before they jump off into the great unknown. Even a couple weeks of prowling in the rear could yield some real benefits.

OG, I am not saying to send the Yamato alone. I was thinking of a couple TF types for the long range commerce raider. 1) 4 dd's, 1 CL, 1 CA and the Yamato. Or 2) the same as group 1 but add a Light Carrier.

There is a great area to hide a small force like the Yamato TF and a similar Replenishment group, in SAFE JP controlled waters (for the Replenishment group). The U.S> Is most likely not going to have pushed past or even to WAKE by the time the Yamato is ready for this foray. So maybe basing the force out of Kwajelien or Ojite would work. I do not have the game but again I think this would be a worthwhile idea to get use out of these expensive ships without throwing them into situations you know they will get mauled. It will build crew experience, and may prove to be effective.

As for endurance. I believe that the battle group such as I described should have a several week cruising range if it is refueled prior to leaving friendly areas. IF it takes another week to reach the hunting grounds and spends two weeks patrolling a week back to the refueling point it should work out. Now if I just had the game or if someone that does have it could try it out we would know if it is possible.

UB


UB

[Ron Saueracker]

Yamato is a very big and well armed AO.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

Hey Zoomie, I recognize that it is an awful long way to get them to far off places, and that forward bases will be few and far between. That is why I would make up a Refueling TF to top them off before they jump off into the great unknown. Even a couple weeks of prowling in the rear could yield some real benefits.

OG, I am not saying to send the Yamato alone. I was thinking of a couple TF types for the long range commerce raider. 1) 4 dd's, 1 CL, 1 CA and the Yamato. Or 2) the same as group 1 but add a Light Carrier.

There is a great area to hide a small force like the Yamato TF and a similar Replenishment group, in SAFE JP controlled waters (for the Replenishment group). The U.S> Is most likely not going to have pushed past or even to WAKE by the time the Yamato is ready for this foray. So maybe basing the force out of Kwajelien or Ojite would work. I do not have the game but again I think this would be a worthwhile idea to get use out of these expensive ships without throwing them into situations you know they will get mauled. It will build crew experience, and may prove to be effective.

As for endurance. I believe that the battle group such as I described should have a several week cruising range if it is refueled prior to leaving friendly areas. IF it takes another week to reach the hunting grounds and spends two weeks patrolling a week back to the refueling point it should work out. Now if I just had the game or if someone that does have it could try it out we would know if it is possible.

UB


UB

Well I know I once mentioned somthing about sending a three CV TF and a supporting surface combat TF down the Australian Coast Brisbane way, or out to Somoa or such to raise some hell in Mid 1942 after the SRA was locked up, and Frag basically told me to forget about it. There's not enough fuel in all of Japan at that point to support such an operation...or something along that line.... I imagine Yamato and Musashi drink almost as much as Akagi....

[Damien Thorn]

Wit hall this talk about scuttling ships, I want to know: what is the advantage to doing so? I'm sure you don't get any extra ships with the scrap steel. So, why do it?

[Og]

If you never finish it, I assume you won't lose any points for it getting sunk--and you can use the ship points for useful stuff.

[Tiornu]

If we ask about scrapping Yamato at the start, we need to ask the underlying question, Should Japan surrender at the start? The reduction of the Japanese battle line is a tacit admission that the American navy will win its war. Battleships control the seas, and the Pacific War was one of sea control.
Shinano was a fleet carrier. The description of her as a support ship can be deceptive. Her foreseen role was to steam close to the enemy fleet and land the planes from more distant (more vulnerable carriers) after their attacks, then fly them off for a second raid after which they would return to their home carriers. This increased the effective range of the other CVs' planes and made Shinano very much a bomb/torpedo sponge.
Graf Spee's range was somewhere near 18,000nm at 15 knots. Japan has nothing comparable.

[Alexander Seil]

By the time war in the Pacific began, it was already becoming clear that battleships were a thing of the past. Carriers ruled the sea in the Pacific.

[Didz]

ORIGINAL: wdirons

ORIGINAL: Didz
I think the question was can you scrap her, not should you scrap her.
Deciding to cut down on the size of one battleship fleet and route the resourses in another direction is perfectly valid but does the game allow it?

The title of the thread is Should I scrap the Yamato....

I agree the title is misleading but the question is quite clear.

[Tiornu]

"By the time war in the Pacific began, it was already becoming clear that battleships were a thing of the past. Carriers ruled the sea in the Pacific."
I don't believe that's true. Neither did the US Pacific Fleet, as evidenced in the Dec 1945 report of the CINCPACFLT Board on Ship and Aircraft Characteristics which repeatedly describes the battleship as a vital unit. The mantra that carriers sent battleships slipping into archaism is too simplistic to be useful.