Sponsored by World of Warships! Register here  wo.ws/2W1IX2j to receive 250 doubloons, 1,000,000 Credits, the USS Langley Aircraft Carrier premium ship, one port slot and 3 days premium time when you use code PLAYLANGLEY2019. Applicable to new users only.

@TheSunchaster

5 жыл бұрын

Check out FB private messages

@Ensign_Cthulhu

5 жыл бұрын

Being a World of Warships player, I can say that as far as I know, the Langley is not a premium ship. Getting her this way is a great way for newcomers to shortcut the effort, though; good on WOWS for doing this.

@grandengineernathan

5 жыл бұрын

I am trying to learn German, so can you please go back to the war against Germany? Thanks :p

@Vapefly0815

5 жыл бұрын

Just an FYI for people who got burned by World of Tanks. Funnily enough, Wargaming seems to have managed to avoid the intensely terrible economy and grind of World of Tanks here. World of Warships is actually a pretty damn good game, give it a shot! :)

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

5 жыл бұрын

@SUNchaster nothing there, if you mean the fb page, because I don't take messages on my private account.

Because they had the "Tora! Tora! Tora!" National spirit that gave them +50% Aircraft Carrier sortie efficiency for the first 180 days.

@TanksExplosionsAnime

5 жыл бұрын

They also exploited the naval doomstack mechanic

@SuperLusername

5 жыл бұрын

@@TanksExplosionsAnime afaik "The Great Creator" nerfed doomstacks and introduced fuel into the world of men.

@SuperLusername

5 жыл бұрын

@Jimmy De'Souza I am fairly sure the British thought so too of United Kingdom way back when "coal" was the name of the game

@tenshihinanawi1885

5 жыл бұрын

" Smart Paradox player +100%"

@shepherdlavellen3301

5 жыл бұрын

US submaeine force: hold my beer

Kido Butai is the Japanese naval version of the German Kampfgruppe on land. More emphasis on speed, mobility, and initiative.

@JRobbySh

4 жыл бұрын

With the same limitations: Not enough of their best weap[on systems.

@ousamadearu5960

3 жыл бұрын

More like the British fleet

@osvaldoromeros.7115

3 жыл бұрын

@@ousamadearu5960 uhm no

@zulubeatz1

3 жыл бұрын

The Kampfgruppe was more of a combined arms affair. The Panzer Division is a better comparison.

@benaskalinskas4154

3 жыл бұрын

​@@zulubeatz1 Planes, big ships and small ships sounds like combined arms to me

NEXT: How the Soviet Battleships were so effective - Sponsored by Wargaming. Just kidding, highly interesting video!

@podemosurss8316

5 жыл бұрын

Well, their battleships no, but their cruisers and destroyers took part on important actions on the Baltic and Black seas, as they mostly dominated those waters. On the Black Sea, for example, they helped on the defensive operations on Odessa, Crimea and the Caucasus (1941-1942), and conducted raids (together with small marine commando units) on the Romanian coast. On the Baltic, they were mostly on the defense, with the battleships of the Baltic Fleet being used as batteries on the siege of Leningrad.

@swissarmyknight4306

5 жыл бұрын

@@podemosurss8316 Clearly you have never played World of Warships. Comrade Star Destroyer did not even need to actually exist to rule the seas with its Stalinium-firing railguns.

@podemosurss8316

5 жыл бұрын

Swiss Army Knight You mean the Lenin-class battleship?

@neurofiedyamato8763

5 жыл бұрын

Soviet submarine operations were quite effective. So was their naval bombardments in support of ground operations. Riverine aspects of the soviet navy was quite well adapted. Something most other nations lacked.

@henripihala9267

5 жыл бұрын

Are you serious? The Baltic sea was totally blocked from Soviet navy.

I love this video. One thing to further emphasize just how overly selective the Japanese were about their pilot trainees. Saburo Sakai is one of the best known Japanese combat aces. One of the Wars best pilots. What most don't realize is while a Naval Pilot. He was never a Carrier Pilot. Largely because in the heavily class based Japanese Military Sakai was a standard enlisted man, not a Commissioned Officer. Sakai was never considered "Carrier Qualified" or was posted to one. Most of his incredible kill record was in China against P-39's and P-40's being flown by almost untrained Chinese Pilots. In the Pacific he operated from land bases. Mainly attacking the Philippines and later fighting over Guadalcanal. Guadalcanal is where he first encountered what he would respectfully refer to as "Gruman's". The F4F Wildcats. His first encounter with one, his legendary duel with "Pug" Sutherland, blew his mind as he poured 600-700 rounds into the Wildcat and it kept flying. No flames. No explosions. The amazing durability of the US Carrier planes really freaked out the Japanese Pilots a bit. Later in the same battle he caught a 7.62 mm round from the rear guns of an Avenger across the right side of his skull. Blinding him in the right eye and paralyzing his entire left side. He managed the 4 hour flight back to Rabaul with one eye, one hand and one foot and a savagely shot up plane. (Further proof that the real stories are far better than anything Hollywood cooks up). After surgery he recovered his left side, but only had partial vision in his right eye. He spent a year training new pilots. (even he admits it was a complete shit show. They could barely take off and land in the short time he had with each group) Then because the Japanese were getting so desperate for skilled combat pilots, even 1 eyed ones they sent him back out to Iwo Jima to provide escort for Kamikaze's. Studying his War History perfectly encapsulates the problems the IJN had regarding Pilot Training and Deployment throughout the war.

@hededcdn

4 жыл бұрын

Brilliant story, Sir

@briananderson8733

3 жыл бұрын

He graduated as a carrier pilot, while never assigned to a carrier. Initially was enlisted but became a sub-lieutenant.

@mcamp9445

3 жыл бұрын

It was an SBD Dauntless pilot rear gunner that shot him not an avenger

@commanderknight9314

3 жыл бұрын

@@mcamp9445 If am correct the avenger was introduced after midway.

@johnemerson1363

3 жыл бұрын

@@mcamp9445 In his story "Samurai" Sakai related that he spotted what he thought were F4F Wildcats and he dove on one. He had never seen an SBD before and at a distance I could see where he might make that mistake. At any rate, he dove to bounce the target and only at the last second did he realize this airplane had a rear gunner when the gunner shot up his plane and him.

Very good overview on why the Japanese carrier fleet had such tremendous advantages over the American counterparts. If we were to look at 'only' the pilots, the Americans too had many pilots with a lot of flight hours under their belt (limited intakes meant that the same pilots would be flying all the time) yet crucially they lacked combat experience and checked out in a variety of plane types (VF, VB, VT) before a more specialized training course was established only a short time before Pearl Harbour. Essentially they were 'Jack-of-all-trades'. The lack of combat experience is critical beyond tactical pilot experience. It meant that there could be no real testing of aircraft & equipment under combat conditions, nor of tactics and the feasibility of theoretical concepts developed throughout the inter-war years. The US Navy exercises of the 1930s are a weird bag of both forward thinking and inpractical concepts - the lack of any real discussion between pilots and theorists further reduced the ability to develop working systems instead of theoretical convictions. The Japanese on the other hand could be a lot more hands-on, tested and developed concepts and also had a more clear understanding of what carrier warfare would look like. This is exemplified by a more realistic appreciation of anti-shipping warfare (the risks of torpedo attacks, the special requirements when conducting horizontal bombing versus maneuvering targets, dive-bombing etc), the focus on specific plane characteristics (range, payload, navigation etc) and equipment (specifically torpedos). Of course they made their fair share of mistakes and had their limitations - both partially based on a lack of specific resources and technical know-how (for example, Japan had very few technically orientated jobs like mechanics or electricians that the army could draw on) and capacity - but on the tactical level they were ahead of the Allies. The victory at Midway might overshadow this but it took the Allies a considerable time to equalize Japanese expertize on tactical and operational experience, at which point the enormous industrical, technical and strategic capacity America had came into its own.

@nottoday3817

5 жыл бұрын

I think I should add 3 or 4 things here FIrst of All, allied vision of Carriers. While this vision still remained in Japanese navy as well (as exemplified in the video), Allied suffered even more: The psychology of big guns on big ships. There were requests to tinker with the ideea of creating a big carrier force at the center of the operations in naval warfare. However, navy heads would not give up on their battleship ideeas and even falsified some tests to show that carrier planes (or planes in general) were unable to damage a battleships. Thus, carrier planes should be used only to scout for the main battleship fleet and try to cripple enemy ships. Potential of aircraft was totally ignored. Perhaps this over-emphasise on battleships is also what lead to many other US short commings in early war, the biggest being perhaps the lack of torpedo expertise. 2nd A ton of luck. Prior to Midway and at Midway. In one instance, I think it was during the Solom Islands campaign, Japanese carrier planes, sent to sink Yorktown and Lexington had to spend so much time searching for them in nighttime and bad weather conditions that they almost ran out of fuel. They had to ditch their payload in the middle of the ocean to have any chance at returning back at their carriers. However, in perhaps the most dramatic twist of fate in history, the first carrier they tried to land on was a US carrier. With no payload, they had to abort the landing procedures and attempt at returning home. Perhaps, had they pulled a Kamikaze right there and then, the whole course of the War could have been altered, as the next day, the US force sank one of the Japanese carriers which was planned for Midway. In a similar event, a US dive bomber squadron at Midway almost failed to locate the Japanese carriers, but in the last minute, they spotted them. And all their escorting fighters were busy engaging another US squadron on the opposite side of the fleet, so nobody was there to meet those guys. So, yeah, dumb luck 3rd. Sometimes you make your own luck, aka US ships, especially in mid-to-late war, had better compartimentation. Much better. This meant that fires and floodings would spread much slower and would cause less damage to the ships. Japan, well, they had some of the worst compartimentation. Many ships were lost to minimal damage thanks to this. Especially carriers. 4th. Last, but not least: Search and Rescue. Especially for pilots. US put quite a bit an effort to search for their downed pilots. Japan, not really. If someone would die away from the fleet, he was considered dead.

@jeffbergstrom9658

5 жыл бұрын

Japan seemed to miss in one crucial area...protection for their ships and pilots. American planes and carriers were *far* more durable than Japanese planes and carriers. The US had substantially better damage control procedures on their carriers than the Japanese did and that really showed at Midway. Japanese planes were faster, more nimble and longer ranged but they lacked armor and self-sealing tanks. Also, the Japanese did not rotate experienced pilots out of combat and back into flight schools to train the next groups of combat pilots so Japanese new recruits never got the practical lessons from veterans that US pilots got. So, attrition was going to doom the Japanese carriers and pilots all along. It was just a matter of time.

@martijn9568

5 жыл бұрын

@@jeffbergstrom9658 Weren't US carrier aircraft far easier to repair, compared to the Japanese planes?

@Tk3997

5 жыл бұрын

Except almost all of that is nonsensical myth. There was no "tremendous" advantage, you don't get to claim that and then barely win one out of four battles battle you fight against a peer opponent and only when you bring twice as many ships to that fight. The proof is in the pudding as they say and the Japanese carrier arm was never really able to decisively win a single carrier engagement during the entire period of 1942. If the USN was so bad and the Japanese STILL couldn't decisively win even in battles where it was bringing significantly more carriers into action and was only even able to stay in the game because IJN submarines gave them GAINT and timely assists ahead of and after multiple key battles, really what does that say about the Japanese? Really the pilot issue is another myth there was no real difference in experience, only the USN being smart enough to start expanding it's training program BEFORE the war. This resulted in a 'dilution' of the average flight time of the corps, but tons of reasonably trained pilots win wars, not a handful of aces not that the USN going into the war didn't have pretty much as many of those as the IJN anyway. The cross training mentioned was limited really to familiarization pilots were not being switched between fighters and dive bombers from week to week or something once in service. The "Combat experience" might be the dumbest myth of all. That "experience" consisted of bombing mostly defenseless inland targets, being attacked very sporadically by very outdated and poorly flown fighters, and turkey shooting a handful of ancient and effectively defenseless Chinese ships at the very start of the war. This is really on the same level as trying to say that the "combat experience" of a modern GBC in bombing insurgents and rebels in the middle east would somehow translate to a major tactical advantage in a full blown clash with the PLA in the Taiwan strait. This 'combat' would teach you dick all that was relevant to engaging a peer foe in open ocean with carriers and was really only useful in gaining experience in basic flying and aircraft operations, neither of which couldn't be gotten in exercise. The idea the Japanese were leaps ahead in the other areas you mention is nonsense as well. Japanese had no better understanding of the USN of the realties of maritime strike in any meaningful way. The USAAF was dumb as hell and refused to listen to Navy consul on the matter, but that's something else entirely. I'm not sure where you're getting this shit that USN aircraft weren't just as specifically focused as the Japanese, they fact the two nations chose different factors to emphasize doesn't mean the USN somehow lacked understanding. As it was the USN dive bomber was clearly the better design, there wasn't much to chose from between the TBs if both had a working Torpedo, the Zero was marginally superior to the F4F-3. The longer range of the Japanese aircraft was bought at the EXPENSE of payload and survivability, as it was the advantage of longer range proved more useful for bomber escort from land bases then it ever really did in any of the carrier battles. They had really exactly one notable leg up aircraft wise, which was an aerial torpedo that worked. Although ironically the USN had that too at the start of the war, the first versions of the Mk.13 actually worked when dropped in there designated parameters (see Lexington TBs wrecking Shouhou), but design 'improvements' by the dullards at the USN torpedo factory made sure that was quickly 'fixed'. The only area they were TRULY ahead tactically was in the coordination of a combined strike from several ships and even that only really began to emerge in the direct run up to the war. That tactic before the advent of radar and effective control was also a decidedly double edged sword. It wasn't like the USN hadn't thought about it, but it was always very vary of having a bunch of carriers clustered together to make such strikes. Midway brutally showed exactly why and that such a fear wasn't in anyway unfounded and it's own success in that battle continued to influence it's thinking regarding dispersal vs concentration for most of the rest of the year.

@Tk3997

5 жыл бұрын

@@nottoday3817 Luck is overrated and usually effects both sides really if you want to play that game how about: -Saratoga isn't blundered upon by a Japanese submarine and taken out of the war for months right at the start of it or even just that the torpedo inflicts slightly less damage, Saratoga missed Midway by literally ONE day if the damage is even slightly less there is a fourth US carrier at the battle -Lexington doesn't accidently blow herself up after the battle is over from totally survivable damage at Coral Sea. -The submarine doesn't find Yorktown after Midway -Wasp isn't blundered upon and sunk by a Submarine -Saratoga isn't torpedoed AGAIN just before Santa Cruz -The last hit on Hornet at Santa Cruz doesn't just happen to be perfectly placed to ruin the repairs that were about to restore propulsion power and allow the ship to escape Those are just bug ones off the top of my head, I can name plenty more. This is how it always is people focus on the 'luck' of the side that wins, but tend to ignore all the unlucky shit that happens to them along the way, or all the lucky breaks the other guys gets.

The irony about the US taking a couple of years to start using similar carrier tactics to the Japanese is that the Japanese got the idea themselves from observing exercises by the US Navy. They'd seen photos of a couple of American carriers steaming together and thought that they were being operated in tandem, and decided to try it themselves.

@abatesnz

4 жыл бұрын

The US actually used a similar tactic, perhaps by accident, at Midway, when the dive bombers were able to take out the carriers while the defences had their eyes on the torpedo bombers.

@z3r0_35

4 жыл бұрын

@@abatesnz It probably was an accident, but one that the guys in the Dauntlesses were quick to capitalize on, to Vice Admiral Nagumo's detriment.

@neubauerjoseph

3 жыл бұрын

@@abatesnz well, JP navy they had better ships and planes to start the war, but where they stucked was in their damage control program and training.

@ExHyperion

3 жыл бұрын

Joseph Neubauer their real downside was their inability to produce replacements for any ships they lost compared to the manufacturing monster that is wartime US. No amount of damage control can stop an onslaught of new ships hitting the seas every week. They also had a lot less reserve personnel should their main army fail, so they were pretty much destined to lose since the start of the war

@NeblogaiLT

3 жыл бұрын

Similarly- Germans watched fast armor training/simulations in Britain in mid-1920s, and went with it in WW2- while the British themselves cut down on most of their (very advanced) tank and tank tactics development due to economic crisis and deep budget cuts.

As early as 1915. Isoroku Yamamoto had predicted. The most important ship of the future will be one that carries airplanes. The Japanese pioneered the Carrier Task Force.

@shanedoesyoutube8001

3 жыл бұрын

And that was early in WW1, holy shit

@butchoharechicago6657

3 жыл бұрын

+@@shanedoesyoutube8001 In 1905 at the Battle of Tsushima, against the Russian Czarist Navy a young Japanese ensign on a cruiser was wounded and lost 2 fingers on his left hand when a Russian shell hit his ship. If he had lost 3, his Naval career would have been over. His name Isoroku Yamamoto. The Japanese fleet clobbered the Russian fleet.

@shanedoesyoutube8001

3 жыл бұрын

@@butchoharechicago6657 as far as I've heard, that's only bcuz the vodka navy was badly brewed (as in incompetent as fuk)

@mellon4251

3 ай бұрын

Tbh everybody new that carriers would eventually become more important than battleships. They where just not sure when. Doesn't help you in 1941 when you built only carriers but they are only the superior weapon in 1965. You can adapt a technology too early. Just look at the German V2 rocket or their jet fighter Wunderwaffe

@kulot-ki1tu

5 күн бұрын

@@mellon4251 thats foresight talking nobody expected aircraft back in the 1910s and 1920s to overwhelm large capital ships because the airframes were too slow and easy to shoot down, and carried relatively too light of a payload to significantly damage large surface vessels + the small airwings of carriers of the time by the time of the late 30s there were still significant factions in practically every navy that advocated for the continued use of battleships and its mostly these factions that ended up pushing programs for building some of the most iconic ships of the war like the iowas and the yamatos thats not to say there were extremely radical aviation advocates early on but they only became significant once the technology of aircraft began to rapidly develop enough to pose an actual threat to even the biggest battleships

Last time I was this early, Germany was still planning the invasion of Poland.

@Sir_Godz

5 жыл бұрын

last time i was this late the americans were still cherry picking which side to join

@ProfessorPottsy

5 жыл бұрын

Sir_Godz LOL! You clearly don’t know shit about WW2 history if that’s what you think. Please do yourself and the rest of humanity a favor by doing some ACTUAL RESEARCH on ACTUAL FACTS about the history of WW2 before you go spewing such nonsense out your yap. So you really think they would cherry pick which side while they had been giving the Brits AND Soviets resources, men, aircraft, naval ships, etc. from the start of the war? You must not know anything about warfare, or any sort of military conflict either

@dt2419

4 жыл бұрын

ProfessorPottsyTV he’s just joking stop being an up tight asshole

@Mar-vu8el

4 жыл бұрын

@@dt2419 careful he's a professor

@kaiserkiefer1760

4 жыл бұрын

ProfessorPottsyTV he could be talking about WW1 dumbass as that’s even earlier

The Japanese training doctrine for their fighter pilots is an interesting contrast study of how rigorously training elites doesn't really make for an ideal combat force. Not only was their training regime strict and lengthy enough that their graduation rate couldn't match up to the losses being sustained in the Pacific, but the Japanese also believed in keeping their aces in the frontlines. Sure said aces can raise hell up in the air, but once they were lost there was no getting them back. American training meanwhile may not be as elite as the IJN's, but they supplemented them with the lessons learned by their aces, which were rotated to serve as flight instructors back home to teach the new generation of pilots. Essentially, Japan may have had better pilots in the beginning, but once the losses set in the quality of their pilots rapidly deteriorated. In contrast, while the American pilots weren't as good in the beginning, not only were they easier to replace, but they only became better as the war progressed as the lessons and experiences of their aces were brought back to enrich them.

@cobracurse

5 жыл бұрын

This also partially explains why in World War 2, the numbers of "kills" the more famous individual German and Japanese air aces each scored by the end of the war (or by the time of their deaths in battle) often exceeded 100, while the total number of kills your average American air ace scored rarely exceeded 50 downed enemy aircraft.

@kamilkrupinski1793

5 жыл бұрын

Americans: won a war with better HR.

@donald8066

5 жыл бұрын

@@cobracurse There were no American with 50 Kills or more, the best (Bong) had 40. There were 340 Germans with more than 40 kills.

@4T3hM4kr0n

4 жыл бұрын

that also applied to germany as well. There were a high number of aces from legion condor but flight instruction was a mess.

@Drownedinblood

4 жыл бұрын

I really don't know why Japan wouldn't rotate their aces home. It may have been they were unable to because it was less safe for them to do so.

"Shattered Sword," which you referenced in the video, is one of the best naval history books ever written. It completely changed the understanding of the battle of Midway. One of the most important points raised by "Shattered Sword" concerns the vulnerability of Japanese carriers to bomb damage. They had two-level enclosed hangars full of munitions and gasoline, no ventilation to clear out gasoline fumes, no practical way to subdivide the space to seal off a fire, and very little in the way of damage control capability. Once a bomb or two exploded in the hangars, the conflagration was impossible to stop. Don't forget that Akagi, the flagship, was fatally damaged by a single bomb hit from one SBD.

@elrjames7799

3 жыл бұрын

Very nicely written.

@19canada67

3 жыл бұрын

The Lexington suffered from poor damage control at Coral Sea. The conditions at Midway were perfect for maximum destruction. The Shokaku took a few bomb hits in 1942 and survived. The Franklin took one to two bomb hits and was almost destroyed in 1945. Empty carriers don't burn as well all fully loaded ones.

@Conn30Mtenor

3 жыл бұрын

@@19canada67 carriers are floating bombs, chock full of high octane gasoline, bombs and torpedoes. There's only so much you can do.

@PappyGunn

2 жыл бұрын

Typically Japanese. All offence, no Defense. And all servicemen are expendable and expected to die for the Emperor. The callous disregard for subordinates life is really what stands out for me looking at the Japanese in general. Some will excuse it as Bushido spirit. I doubt Bushido sanctions wasting lives. How many pilots would they have saved just with self sealing fuel tanks. The Betty, a good and fast bomber was known as the flying zippo. For the duration of the war.

Quick note about the wows add: The USS langley isn't a premium aircraft carrier and it never was, it's the standard tier iv carrier. WOWS keeps promoting this in similar adds, so you are not to blame. Just wanted to give a heads up to the rest.

@MakeMeThinkAgain

5 жыл бұрын

Is this CVL 27 Langley or the original Langley?

@boogts

5 жыл бұрын

@@MakeMeThinkAgain Original

@RoloC4

5 жыл бұрын

Does this not have a premium skin?

@Anaris10

5 жыл бұрын

Caliban Yes, I learned that YEARS ago as an R.O.T.C. Cadet. Glad you pointed that out.

@Dick-Dastardly

5 жыл бұрын

@@RoloC4 Either way its no fun

The problem with a force such as the famed "Kido Butai" and other forces containing and combining numerous carriers, is that while you can deploy unrivalled offensive power, you are also combining a LOT of high value targets in one convenient targetable package. This means a few things - 1) continuous air attack paralyses the whole group. Two groups of two carriers are not similarly affected 2) bad decisions affect the whole group. Less "hedging of bets" 3) The enemy only needs to find and target one group with all its assets, rather than looking for multiple carrier groups. This was very clearly demonstrated at Midway, where ineffectual attacks by crappy aircrews from midway completely paralysed the kido Butai long enough for a decisive strike to be achieved by the American carriers. While the Americans essentially won by virtue of their air groups being split between midway and the us carriers, protecting the latter from attack. The nature of naval aerial warfare meant that a single large group of carriers, while powerful, could be paralysed and defeated by a weaker, more spread out foe. Had the kido Butai sailed against midway with 2 or 3 carrier groups instead of one combined group, it may not have won, but it might well have avoided the 5 minutes of hell that doomed the kido Butai and Japanese war effort in reality. In the long run, survivability matters for your war effort and survivability is aided by carefully dividing forces into packages whose loss can be managed. In something as chaotic as early carrier warfare where 5 minutes and lady luck can change everything, you never want to put all your eggs in one basket!

@f430ferrari5

3 жыл бұрын

@Tom. How the IJN could have easily won was use the true advantage they had which was their surface ships. They had 11 total battleships including Yamato. If 5 were used to shell Midway this would have caused additional targets the Us pilots would have had to focus on. Yes correct in that for this Battle of Midway the IJN should have spaced out their carriers better and actually kept them behind and utilize more of their smaller carriers also use them primary for CAP for the surface ships. The IJN had plenty of fighter planes. The IJN didn’t even need 2/3 bombers and 1/3 fighters. They should have went 2/3 fighters and 1/3 bombers. Their faster surface ships should have been pushed out ahead and they would have been real threats to the US Task Forces out there. The IJN had 17 cruisers and 49 destroyers. In comparison the US only had 8 cruisers and 15 destroyers. The total count above doesn’t even factor in the Aleutians Northern Force where they also has 2 mid carriers, 5 cruisers and 15 more destroyers plus and oiler.

@SusCalvin

2 жыл бұрын

One of the quirks with carriers during that battle is that they can't launch their combat air patrol and attack/fighter aircraft and recce at the same time. Each carrier has a certain capacity for rearming and refueling aircraft. The US fleet uses carrier groups as well at the end. They don't amass their attack and fighter craft into big chunky waves, they move to attack as each group assembles. It becomes a constant, chaotic stream of attacks against the japanese fleet where the time-table planning of massed groups starts to fail.

Saburo Sakai was one of my favorite WWII pilots historically, he was awesome. Everyone should read his book "Samurai!". He was badly wounded during a mission but still managed to fly his aircraft back blind in one eye and with the left side of his body paralyzed. After the war he actually met with the American pilot (Harry Jones) that wounded him.

9:45 Saburo Sakai. Japanese ace pilot. Lost eye in battle. I recommend all to read his book, Samurai.

@paulgee8253

3 жыл бұрын

He wrote a good book but he lost his eye and nearly his life at Guadalcanal.

@rogerodle8750

3 жыл бұрын

I read his book when I was 12. 54 years ago. The story of how he lost his eye is emblematic of the shifting tides of the Pacific war.

@paulgee8253

3 жыл бұрын

“Destroyer Captain” by Hara ? is another great book from Japanese perspective and quite even-handed. Also has a lot of Solomons background.

Another reason was the early superiority of the Zero A6M over Allied fighter aircraft. It took some months for the Allies obtain better aircraft and to learn to out-fight the Zero. Also, early USA torpedoes were totally defective and would not detonate upon impact. This was due to the incredibly stupid mounting of the inertial firing pin at RIGHT ANGLES to the direction of motion.

4:25 That quote about the Zero Sums up the feelings of many a new player of Warthunder when they encounter a skilled player flying a zero or other Japanese Planes.

The Zuikaku, the second sister ship in the Shokaku class is my favorite carrier in the Japanese navy, much like the USS Enterprise (CV-6) had many close calls and were lucky until the final battle( much like Enterprise if you think about it ^^" ) because of this I personally call the ship "Lucky-Z" mirroring the nickname for the enterprise. Thank you once again for an awesome video ^^ it means a lot.

@bkjeong4302

5 жыл бұрын

The two ships actually fought repeatedly, though neither ever sank the other.

@jack.w2532

5 жыл бұрын

@@bkjeong4302 Enterprise's aircraft were among the planes that sunk Zuikaku.

@bkjeong4302

5 жыл бұрын

Jack Washbrook AFAIK that kill is credited to the second Lexington (which is ironic, considering Coral Sea).

@jack.w2532

5 жыл бұрын

@@bkjeong4302 As far as I was aware it was seven torpedo hits from 5 US Carriers that sunk her, Lexington and Enterprise included. I guess Zuikaku can't really be attributed to any one of them.

@Desteroyah195

4 жыл бұрын

Well, her name means "Auspicious Crane", so she had luck wrought into her from the moment she was named.

Hmm, I have a sudden urge to ask Wargaming to add Uboats and I don't know why.....

@bluemountain4181

5 жыл бұрын

Given how badly carrier game play is integrated into the game I don't think adding a new type of game play would be a good thing

@rafaeltait1203

5 жыл бұрын

NO GOD PLEASE NO!!!

@madensmith7014

5 жыл бұрын

@@rafaeltait1203 A chinese rip off already did subs in their game and it was fine. BBs and CVs were easy pickings but it also gave DDs and some CLs something more to do than being torp spammers and cannon fodder.

@rafaeltait1203

5 жыл бұрын

@@madensmith7014 CLs dominate the game already, nothing is stronger than a incester cancering from range

@madensmith7014

5 жыл бұрын

Historically, they were used mostly for convoy raiding and recon. But in a game where CV and BB noobs tend to camp in one spot as they bombard their enemies while cruisers and DDs have a tussle in the front, subs that can sneak through enemy lines and hit campers was a fun sight to behold.

I’m glad you mentioned that the doctrine for the Japanese (even up to Midway) was still focused on the battleship as the weapon that would ultimately decide the battle. Something often misrepresented due to hindsight.

The Zero was the first strategic fighter because of its range. The Japanese Navy’s twin engined “Betty” bomber was a very effective attacker of ships at sea as the Prince of Wales and the Renown found out. It just couldn’t take much shooting back at!

Thank you MHV! I really like your way of presenting and summarizing! Keep up the amazing work!

0:35 One key element is that there was so little opposition air power in those six months, and that opposition was pretty outdated. Another key element was that they were a lot closer to Japan than they were to California.

@shawnc1016

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly. If you look at individual engagements that were fairly evenly matched, the U.S. usually came out on top. Look at Jimmy Thach and his three wingmen taking on 20 Zeroes at Midway.

@papajohnloki

3 жыл бұрын

@@shawnc1016 basically they were able to "run wild" because they faced no serious opposition. Like it or not, the battle of the Coral Sea was the first time time this was not true and the results were not the overwhelming victory that, based on the results so far, the IJN should have expected. And, if Halseys staff (Browning) and the Hornet (Mitscher) performed so poorly at Midway, the Yorktown (and the torpedo bombers) might not have been lost and all 4 IJN carriers lost immediately. The IJN admirals (Nagumo and Hara) were outperformed by their American counter parts(Fletcher and Spruance)

The IJN was like the player who used all of their skill points on offensive capabilities while the USN was the guy who had a well-rounded skill tree

There's an error, MVH. Japan through the entire Pacific War never had more than 6 Carriers. They were Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku, and Zuikaku. They had several CVLs like Ryujo, but for CVs (i.e. Fleet Carriers), they only had 6 max leading into Midway in 1942 (4 went to Midway, the 2 Shokaku class were back in Japan recovering from the debacle of Coral Sea). The IJN wouldn't get a new Fleet Carrier until Taiho came around in 1944, but by then, Midway had occurred years prior and 4 of their old Fleet CVs were lost. When Taiho entered service, Japan had 3 Fleet CVs, her and the two Pearl Harbor veterans, Zuikaku & Shokaku. After the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June 1944, both Shokaku & Taiho would be lost. Zuikaku was the only CV left. Japan gets the 3 Fleet CVs from the Unryu-class in August thru October 1944 and would get to 4 Carriers But they no longer had planes and pilots for them. They couldn't even give Zuikaku a full complement of aircraft and pilots when she went as a suicidal decoy for Leyte Gulf in October 1944 where she was sunk. When Zuikaku was sunk, the IJN was down to 3 Carriers with no aircrews for them.

@vetabeta9890

3 жыл бұрын

The Japanese had 9

A great video and since my interest is shifting toward the war in the Pacific :) very welcome !!!

Not to mention the Zero's had superior firepower with a 20mm cannon!! Though 6 to 8 50cal BMG's are an insane amount of firepower as well!! When the Hellcats came in it changed everything!!

Just wanted to point out that this ad & your video got me to play World of Warships for the carriers and that they should sponsor you more.

9:30 He tells the story of one of his class mates, one of the top students who, on the eve if his graduation day entered a nearby brothel/bar and got rather drunk. He was dropped from the program because drinking and and sex were both against the rules. He said several good pilots got the boot for honor violations. 11:30 He also said that early in the war the Americans were extremely brave pilots, but their tactics and equipment were not very good. He was badly injured and barred from combat in 1942 but was later allowed to fly combat again as they ran out of good pilots. He was shocked at the change in the Americans. They were still very brave, but now they were using good tactics and their equipment was much better.

The rigorous training at 8:15 is so true. Read about he Japanese Naval pilot training, and be amazed.

@chriscase1392

5 жыл бұрын

For pilots, the training was certainly rigorous. But worse, for the trainees, the washout rate for non-flying "offenses" was completely over the top. Showing up thirty seconds late for morning formation, failure to salute properly, some minor uniform discrepancy--and boom, the trainee was gone, even if he was an excellent pilot. And not before a beating with fists or a cane, and a heaping dose of humiliation and scorn, which could extend back to the trainee's family. More than a few senior Navy and Army officers, in the first quarter of 1943, as the Guadalcanal campaign ate up virtually the last of the pre-war pilot corps, remarked publicly that "it would sure be nice to have a few of those pilots who washed out" available. As stated in the video, the Japanese had no concept of mass training. By the time they really needed it, it was too late. The US, in contrast, dramatically expanded its pilot training programs in the months BEFORE Pearl Harbor, and expanded it again after entering the war.

In the last great carrier battle, Santa Cruz, the Japanese used the Shokaku & Zuikaku as strike platforms, with 2 squadrons of BN2 Kate's on the Shokaku and 2 squadrons of D3 Vals on the Zuikaku, escorted by 24 - 28 A6m zeros fighters from each carrier. This allowed the Japanese planes to blow through the USN CAP( combat air control) their air strikes sunk CV Hornet & damage the CV Enterprise.

Great presentation; nice citing of references and including books in the summary. Excellent work!

Another great video. I like the way you present the historical informations. Have subsribed to both of you channels.

Thank you for making this video I've been waiting for deep analysis on how great was the Imperial Japanese Navy especially their carrier strike force. Tennoheika banzai!

This is a very good overview of the subject. Thanks for the video.

"Shattered Sword" is an outstanding book. I have never been very interested in the Pacific Theatre. I'm more of an Ostfront fanboy. Videos like this got me interested, though, so much so that I bought that book and I'm glad I did. Good job there, MilHistVisualised. Keep up the good work.

thank you for another great video

Because with carriers it's easier to attack than defend. If four carriers and battleships show up unannounced, it's pretty hard to prepare for that at every island. But once Japan was in a defensive position, they had the same problem.

@sankyu3950

4 жыл бұрын

Very true with AA but japan had ships beside kaga that could manouver and haul insane speed with additional of there good pilot

How to dogfight a Zero, 1941-42: Point A. Don't dogfight a Zero. Points B-Z. See Point A.

@shawngilliland243

4 жыл бұрын

Nonsense - the American pilots of the Flying Tigers in China had developed some tactics of coping with the Zero before the US entered the war.

Kido is the Japanese word for "fast response." Butai" is the Japanese word for military unit. So, it is easy to surmise that the phrase, "kido butai" means blitzkrieg or lightning war.

@kel000001

5 жыл бұрын

Saying it as blitzkrieg is a bit far fetched but yes it does translate to mechanized/quick response unit

@ineednochannelyoutube5384

4 жыл бұрын

Kifo Butai I believe is commonly translated as Fast Taskforce.

@robc4191

3 жыл бұрын

But you could also argue it means 'first responder' LOL

Another great, and well researched video! Narrated with the usual charming German accent. Thanks!

@BobSmith-dk8nw

5 жыл бұрын

Austrian accent. :-) .

As usual, I learned something interesting. Thanks as always for what you do sir.

@jds6206

5 жыл бұрын

What you might have learned is bad history. This is full of errors....

Love it, great work!

The American anti-aircraft gunnery was good from the start particularly with our proximity fused shells. That helped our carriers survive through 1943.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

3 жыл бұрын

> The American anti-aircraft gunnery was good from the start particularly with our proximity fused shells. > That helped our carriers survive through 1943. the proximity / VT Fuze was introduced later

...Because sneak attack 200% dmg bonus.

cool sponsorship, congrats! : )

Great video. Thanks so much for sharing.

"The First Team" by J. Lundstrom is an excellent review of the combat experience of the US Navy's much smaller core of experienced inter-war aviators going toe-to-toe against the stacked advantages of the IJN in the first few years of the war, if anyone would like further reading.

Wait, since when is the Langley a premium ship?

@danielgorog2646

5 жыл бұрын

since it is adequate to give code to an USA carrier in a video about Japanese carriers

@hnkmephisto

5 жыл бұрын

I had the same interrogation :). the Langley is the T4 introduction Carrier to the US Tech Tree Langley (T4) >> Ranger (T6) >> Lexington (T8) >> Midway (T10) There are indeed 4 Premium Carriers (all T8) but the Langley isn't one of them

@shellshockedgerman3947

3 жыл бұрын

Anyone here miss the old T5, T7, and T9 CVs? I remember when Ranger was a premium CV with 3 fighter wings.

@warmike

2 жыл бұрын

@@shellshockedgerman3947 maybe you are thinking about the Saipan? Ranger was a T7 tech tree ship.

All three carrier nations had big ships and big guns as the prime offensive.

Great content as always!

I like that you provide sources. What format are you using?

I am ready to sign up just for the Graf Zeppelin!

One thing you might have missed was torpedo reliability. I think I have heard several times about how American torpedos in the early war often failed to explode

It should be noted that A6Ms used other fighting styles aside of turn fight. Their great P/W ratio, step climb angle and superior speed was used against fighters like I15 and similar in energy maneuvers.

@justinpyke1756

5 жыл бұрын

Indeed, in fact the IJNAS fighter pilots operated in a similar hit-and-run fashion to their USN counterparts.

Another great video sir. You may want to add to your reading list a book called The First team. It is about us carrier operations in the early part of the Pacific War. There is a second I just can't learn title at the top of my head

Saburo Sakai's memoir is an interesting read, if you have the time.

Tactical victories mask strategic failure for a little while

@johnemerson1363

3 жыл бұрын

They got careless and we got lucky. Our intel was fantastic but the Japanese intel failed miserably and they never questioned the lack of information.

great vid again!

Very nice and informative video. 👍 thanks for posting

*just researched USS Midway on WOWS and this video pops up* Ironic

@yalelingoz6346

5 жыл бұрын

Me too!

The japonese marine was like the blitzkrieg at the beginning of ww2

@maureencora1

5 жыл бұрын

I Wish the History Channel Do a Story of Japanese Marines defense at Tarawa and Manila.

@matheusimon7316

5 жыл бұрын

@@maureencora1 but I don't think that it would be something nice to watch, can you imagine that guy of explaining this

@fulcrum2951

5 жыл бұрын

They tend to go through dense forests so not really surprising

@jds6206

5 жыл бұрын

No. Wrong answer. IJN Marines never went up against a legitimate force. Never.

@matheusimon7316

5 жыл бұрын

@@jds6206 so the Blitzkrieg, didn't they?

Great video, I always enjoy your videos on the Pacific theater. I don't know if you're taking suggestions or not but I'm sure it would be great if you could cover the 1941-1945 period of Second Sino-Japanese War. Since no one covers the operational aspect of the war as well as you do. At least on the KZreadland. A number of massive scale operations took place that people don't have a clue about, such as Operation Ichi-Go and the Battle of Changde.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

5 жыл бұрын

thanks, the Sino-Japanese War might get covered on my second channel. I had one video planned, but I might drop it. The whole thing is just massive and usually it gets far less views and since it takes about 2-3 times the time to "research" (read & write the scripts), it is not really suitable unless I achieve enough support on Patreon et al where I don't have to think about views anymore. I did a stream on the Second Sino-Japanese War on this channel with Justin about 2 years ago.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

5 жыл бұрын

Military History not Visualized

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

5 жыл бұрын

The channel is linked in the about section, regularly mentioned in various videos etc. I am rather sure if you have missed it so far, you would not have found in the description of my videos.

After the Pearl Harbor attack, the Japanese navy emerged as the undisputed king of carrier warfare. By december of 1941, Japan got the following: 1] most talented, elite and most experienced naval aviators the world have even seen. 2]The Japanese also have 6 top of the line fleet carriers 3]Japanese navy trained extensively in night fighting 4]Japanese navy possessed the most powerful and longest range long lance 24 inch torpedo in the world. 5]Japanese navy uses the worlds best giant binaculars optics in the world.

I'm glad you concentrated on air crew training because the damage control was subpar from what I've read.

@BobSmith-dk8nw

5 жыл бұрын

Eh ... The Japanese carrier's were over come with catastrophic damage at Midway and later in the war they had a lot of problems because of new crews but I'm not aware of such as the ships that fought in the Soloman's having bad damage control. The Japanese navy was very well trained at the beginning of WWII but each time they lost something - they couldn't replace it with something that was as good - or better. .

@jds6206

5 жыл бұрын

Vis a vis "damage control"; you don't know what you're looking at or what you're talking about.

@berengerchristy6256

5 жыл бұрын

@@BobSmith-dk8nw the japanese carriers suffered so much damage upon hits at midway because they had planes armed and ready for a counterattack. however, the counterattack was never launched. this is because the US kept launching frequent, small attacks against the carriers. despite doing little damage, they kept the japanese carriers occupied with rearming and launching carrier defense fighters instead of strike fighters. they kept this up until the massive final attack involving (I think) over 70 US planes. the second wave came in unspotted, which allowed it to cause massive damage (I think the japanese lost 3/4 carriers) to the japanese carriers the difference between dedicated damage control crews and everyone knowing damage control is interesting. I wonder if today's USN does the same thing?

@BobSmith-dk8nw

5 жыл бұрын

@@berengerchristy6256 Yeah. That sounds about right. The Japanese lost Soryu, Akagi and Kaga to the first Carrier Diver Bomber attack. Hiryu's aircraft attacked Yorktown and the next US attack sank Hiryu. I can't speak about WWII - but off Vietnam the US had dedicated damage control crews on it's Carriers. When they had a flight deck conflaguration as they were about to launch a strike - the bombs on the aircraft went off and killed all the dedicated Damage Control people. So, after that - the US began training everyone in damage control. .

basically blitzkrieg but on water and in Asia

@JRobbySh

4 жыл бұрын

Which ceased to win in each case because of the vastly superior industrial capacity of the enemy.

@jakartagamer6188

4 жыл бұрын

@@JRobbySh especially america

The first designed and under construction dedicated air raft carrier was HMS Hermes. It was under construction before the Japanese carrier but operational before Hermes due to various delays.

When things go well early on, disaster is always imminent.

The Japanese have always had amazing design, technology and manufacturing capability. Their dedication has also been something to be admired. I'm thankful they are friendly allies of the US, and our mutual partners is protecting trade and prosperity in the Pacific.

@oliverw.6150

3 жыл бұрын

ALWAYS? Clearly you’re rather young and therefore don’t remember that for decades Japanese manufacturing was known for producing utter crap. The most notable product from Japan was the Chinese Finger Trap children would get at birthday parties and the like. Then they went high tech with Paddle Ball. But it was an American, W. Edward Deming, who in the mid 1950’s introduced Japanese manufacturers to the concept of “Total Quality Improvement” that brought Japanese discipline together with the science of TQI that made them the manufacturing powerhouse you know today. But it was not ALWAYS so. There’s a gag line in the movie Back to the Future. Marty time travels from 1985 back to 1955 where someone sees his Walkman and says, “Oh look, Made in Japan.” and everyone around laughs. Marty replies, “Yeah, all the best stuff is made in Japan which they scoff at. The gag is, in 1985 Japan made the best stuff but in 1955 they didn’t. How things change.

I think that you did a Mistake at 8:05 . The IJN had 6 CVs in 1941 (Akagi, Kaga, Sōryū, Hiryū, Shōkaku, Zuikaku) and 2 CVLs (Ryūjō, Zuihō) and 2 CVEs (Hōshō, Taiyō).

@davidhanson8728

5 жыл бұрын

I was think along the same lines. Need to add the Shoho in the CVL list. Unless they are counting some early 1942 such as the Hiyo and Junyo, which were small fleet CV's (nearly the same compliment as the Ryujo) You could make an argument as those 9 as CV's vs light Carrier. The US seem light in the counting in this comparison Saratoga, Lexington, Yorktown, Enterprise Hornet, Ranger and Wasp (7) all commission prior to entry into war. Langley was a seaplane tender by this point. Overall the relative total air group compliment size off Japanese and US carriers was about even. The 9+1 to 6 comparison seems very misleading. You also have the commonwealth forces which included a couple of CV's in the Indian Ocean at the outbreak in war (although a couple of US carriers were in the Atlantic, all but the Ranger were quickly shifted to the Pacific with the outbreak of war) so that may be moot issue If you subtract the USS Ranger you can get to six but then you should add the British CV's to an "allied" count for relative strengths.

@MakeMeThinkAgain

5 жыл бұрын

@@davidhanson8728 I don't think you should count Ranger when you're talking about the Pacific War. Ranger provided good service in the Atlantic but was really a CVE.

@fuynnywhaka101

5 жыл бұрын

@@MakeMeThinkAgain the reason she severed in Atlantic was Because she was too Slow

@rocketguardian2001

5 жыл бұрын

@@fuynnywhaka101 Actually they also couldn't slap enough AA on her to make her defensible.

@BobSmith-dk8nw

5 жыл бұрын

Ranger was NOT a CVE. CVE's were built on merchant hulls. CVL's were built on Cruiser hulls. Ranger was a CV. It was a smaller, slower CV - but it was a CV. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ranger_(CV-4) The deal with Ranger was that it was the first US ship designed from the start to be a carrier. Langley, Lexington and Saratoga were all conversions of ships originally designed to do something else. So - as the first ship designed to purpose - they made a number of mistakes with it - which were lessons learned for the Yorktown's. .

Nice analysis

Some of the pilots who flew with Kido Butai were highly trained. The special facility on the shores of Kasumigaura "Misty Lagoon" turned out exceptional pilots. Yamamoto played a crucial part in promoting and guiding this sword in the air.

1:37 "In multidivisional attacks, a hentai carrier..." Oh god, the internet has damaged me D:

@LawL_LawL

5 жыл бұрын

That's actually too good and so unfortunate for MHV, but I love that the accent helped in this instance.

@yigitoz8387

3 жыл бұрын

@Mialisus FLAT IS JUSTICE

I am surprised by the superiority of early war Japanese carriers. I had understood that they had lower aircraft capacity, and their closed deck design allowed for gasoline fumes to build up when the fuel tanks ruptured, and the fuel tanks were themselves anchored to structural elements that did not isolate them from shocks due to torpedoes and bombs, causing them to rupture and leak. This was said to be the cause of the losses at Midway. Can you explain why the Japanese carriers of the Shokaku class were considered superior?

@matthewhain1483

5 жыл бұрын

Physically most carriers are weak. A carrier that excels as a carrier even with design flaws will still thrash a lesser ship. He explains it quite well: compared to others of the time the shokaku had exceptional speed, and actually possessed relatively strong defense, though weaker damage control. Further it's fighter compliment at the time matched or exceeded anything fielded by other nations whole having better fighters to boot. The issue is that the inj carriers of '45 were the inj carriers of '40 while the us quickly fielded far superior aircraft and more capable carriers.

@cardiv5zuikaku944

3 жыл бұрын

Shoukaku class actually kind of pretty tough for Aircraft Carrier, Shoukaku was hit quite lots of bombs but can still return with her own power and then get back.

Another excellent video and thank you MHV! I've read "The Rising Sun" and "Carriers at War" and can add these two notes to the Japanese Pilot training program; 1. As described. the Naval Pilot Training Program was incredibly demanding yielding a very high "drop-out" rate. However, as the war progressed and the demand for carrier pilots grew, the Program directors refused to lower the training standards with the result that they could never hope to match increased war demands. 2. European/US and Japanese pilot training programs were similar in the sense that, after training and eval, graduates would be divided into four categories; 1 - Fighters, 2-Bombers, 3-Transport; 4-Auxiliary. And again, each one of these categories would be divided into four tiers based upon skills, evals and performance. Now, in times of war, European/US doctrine would have the top 25% of each air force branch (fighter, bomber, transport, aux) fight for one year(or X amount of missions) and then rotate back to become the instructors for new pilots. Then after a year of instructor duty, you would re-rotate back to the war as the current top 25%'ers would rotate back and become instructors. This is in practice to this day. Japan did things different. After being placed in your respective aircraft type (fighter, bomber, etc) the top tier 25% fought until either the war was over or they died - whichever came first. The second tier were made into instructors and never left. The strength of this system is that, at any given time, the pilots are the best of the best. The draw back comes when your forces suffer a catastrophic loss such as Midway. Now, to make up the numbers fast, the training program had to send all their second tier into battle and while they are technically and tactically proficient, they have little to no combat experience. Additionally, they had to move the third tier pilots into second (instructor) tier. And over time, it’s not difficult to see why Japan ran out of qualified pilots by 1944.

@f430ferrari5

4 жыл бұрын

Matt Mischnick lots of good points but we should always wonder why the IJN insisted on carrier vs carrier / plane vs plane battles when in reality they never had the advantage here. Even at Midway one could say the number of carriers were even. Midway Atol acted as an unsinkable carrier also and they also had 127!planes and while despite being obsolete they were a true distraction for the IJN carriers. Plane count was 360 for US and 248 for IJN. It’s easy to see why the IJN lost. Why would the IJN do this again after what happened at the Battle of Coral Sea. Shōhō was sunk. Shokaku damaged and Zuikaku lost many planes and pilots. It’s amazing how they could not figure out that this was not the way to go. The IJN had an 11 vs 0 advantage in battleships and had like a 62 vs 14 advantage in destroyers. 6 IJN battleships could either do 30 knots or 26.5 knots. Using the battleships could have saved many planes and pilots and carriers.

Muy buen documental, enhorabuena

They were effective because of the use of glorious nippon steel folded 1000x times

@Thunderous117

5 жыл бұрын

Somewhat interestingly the Japanese actually had worse armor plate for their ships throughout the war, largely as a result of the lower quality steel they had available, this is why Japanese battleships (and warships in general)of the time had thicker armor to achieve similar effectiveness as compared to other nations. They were able to do this by refusing to comply to the Washington naval treaty which gave prewar allied vessels design weaknesses that allowed them to be absolutely paddled at the start of the war as can be seen in the early battles in the java sea area where ABDACOM was shredded or Guadalcanal

@Thunderous117

5 жыл бұрын

Sorry for the long winded response to what I'm sure was meant to be a short joke 😂

KAGA enough Said!

Very appropriate sponsor for this video.

On patrol missions you only need 1 aircraft carrier per task group. On major assault and any large combat missions you can band several aircraft carriers together = a naval blitzkrieg. This the U.S. Navy did at Midway, Guadalcanal, and as early as the Battle of the Coral Sea - the first carrier vs carrier engagement between Japan and the U.S. - where each side deployed 2 carriers.

This video really should mention the Indian Ocean raid in 1942 where the Kudo Butai destroyed the British fleet in the Indian Ocean. It was the perfect illustration of the strength and the weakness of this. The Kudo Butai was able to sink 7 British warships including a carrier for the loss of only 20 aircraft. However, they had no logistical capability to actually use their new found dominance of the Indian Ocean so it didn't matter much strategically.

3:20 I think there's a disjoint in what you stated, the quote you posted, and the actual performance here... 2 of those 3 planes (the A6M Zero and the B5N Kate) could certainly be considered to be at-or-better to the contemporary USA equivalent, but by the time Pearl Harbor happened, the SBD Dauntless was the US's main carrier-based Dive Bomber, and no one is gonna give the Val the nod over the Dauntless as the superior plane. The phrase "with important exceptions" is one of those terms people use to gloss over the fact that 33% of the planes shown on the screen were actually NOT better ;p

@jds6206

5 жыл бұрын

Exactly.....many errors in comparison in this video; so many, it's not worth watching....

This video should have said that it was sponsored by Justin since this seems right down his alley

Yes. Very well done. .

I subscribed for one reason. I appreciate Russian and/or East EU analysis and unbiased prospective. Thanks!

the icon for "very long range" at 4:00 min, it's very confusing, it looks like a target practice or radar icon, instead of range, climb rate icon should be steeper

Every Solider, Sailor, Airman & Marine needs to be given the "Long Journey Home".

Played WoW from Beta on till 9/2017 when I moved from an urban area to deep in a wooded rural area and had to go on satellite for my online connection. Miss the game a very great deal.

@imjashingyou3461

3 жыл бұрын

Its gone down the shitter. Basically wargaming filled out the Russian tech tree line with almost a completely fake fleet and made them way more powerful then any other ships. They continue to ignore the Italians. Everything is a premium now for $90 a pop. And power creep in general is a huge issue. Wargamming can't seem to balance the game anymore. And they delibeately make the russian ships Uber ships to appease thier sense of nationalism and thier russian player base.

Very good explanation of that time period. The Japanese war in China gave them experience, as the German Pilots gained in the Spanish Civil War. Both Axis Powers, lacked good Training as the War progressed and their experienced Pilots were lost in Dog Fights. The Allies would take their Aces, and have them become Instructors. Passing on their real time dog fighting experiences. Also initially, Americans were pretty Racist and under rated the Japanese Pilots. Always a huge mistake in any War. With the huge Industrial Complex and Population that America had, their soon matched and bested the enemies War Machines. The Japanese Navy and Admiral, Yamamoto knew, their early success, wouldn’t last longer than six months. Even Britain was able to replace or repair their Fighters, at least those that managed to land, with little real damage, and were often back in the Air, the same day. Helps fighting on your home ground. Of course German Pilots reported having shot down many more Aircraft than they actually had. A problem with most Pilots claims. In any Air force. So the Germans expected fewer Fighters each Sorties they flew. The British problem was not enough Pilots. Until they finally put into action those Polish and Norwegian Pilots. They were afraid of language barriers. Unlike the other English Speaking volunteers. But in War, it’s usually the Nations, that makes the fewer blunders,that wins. One major reason, the Allies dropped any efforts to Assassinate Hitler. When they realized all the blunders he was making,

@fredharper4059

5 жыл бұрын

Na, it's the nation with more meat for the grinder that wins, which side in WW2 was USSR, India(British), U.S and China on? A single one of those nations had more meat(people) supply than the Axis. All nations make blunders in war but making more doesn't cause a total loss, I'd argue the Union Army made more than double the blunders of the Confederates but one poorly thought out charge lost the war because they lacked meat, for that grinder. The RAF lacked planes not pilots, Norwegian pilots weren't a very big contingent(if any) in Battle of Britain either, the 500 foreign pilots (20% of total) were Polish(141), New Zealanders(127), Czechs(84) and Canadians(112) making up the bulk of foreigners, it was the Luftwaffe that lacked the pilots. As it was a lack of meat(divisions) that triggered the date for Overlord as Hitler could no longer provide enough meat for the defence of France.

@berengerchristy6256

5 жыл бұрын

@@fredharper4059 for the protracted war it turned into: yes. for the fast war that Yamamoto had hoped for: no.

Military History Visualised: "Japanese pilots were the best carrier pilots in the world at the time" The Swordfish pilot who disabled the rudder on the Bismark: *visible confusion*

@highflyFinn

5 жыл бұрын

@Jack the Gestapo yeah it was just a meme

@richardrichards5982

5 жыл бұрын

No doubt that the Swordfish pilot who disabled the rudder on the Bismark was a brave and great feat, but this was a one off lucky event as well. The Japanese pilots early in the war were certainly well trained and had huge hours on their machines, higher than any other carrier pilots at the time. The great problem for the Japanese was that when attrition set in, your lose experienced pilots only to be replaced by pilots with less hours, less training. Many of the IJN experienced pilots perished over the Solomons, their replacements were less well trained and had less hours on their aircraft. Disaster was looming for the IJN.

I dunno if this his been mentioned, and too sleepy to check, but of those 9 carriers I'm assuming 3 of them are Ryuujou, Shouhou and Zuihou. Technically these were light carriers according to the IJN while the Pearl Harbour Six were classified as Standard ie Fleet carriers. Hiyou and Junyou were also under the light carrier classification. The only true Fleet carriers built after the start of Japan-US hostilities were the three Unryuu class, Taihou and the Yamato-class Shinano, although she was sunk prior to completion.

Well done!

Sure, the Japanese had more carriers at the start of the war, but it was not able to increase that number, so was unable to replace losses. This is why Midway was so devastating.

@turdferguson3803

4 жыл бұрын

Japan still had more carriers in the Pacific even after Midway. Japan also still made a lot of carriers during the war.

@erictaylor5462

4 жыл бұрын

@@turdferguson3803 So, how does this disprove my comment that Japan could not replace losses. How do you define "a lot" and what, to you, qualifies as a "carrier"? You seem to think that Japan had a substantial carrier force right up to the end of the war. If that is really what you think, you're an idiot.

@davewolfy2906

4 жыл бұрын

Impressive, I bet that your school nickname was "Knowledge".

@turdferguson3803

4 жыл бұрын

@@erictaylor5462 The last of their carrier force was mostly destroyed in 1944. If you think the Japanese were done after Midway you're an idiot, idiot.

@erictaylor5462

4 жыл бұрын

@@turdferguson3803 Actually, if you define "Done" as having lost any possibility of winning the war, then they were done after Pearl Harbor. But after Midway they were fighting a defensive war.

In some ways, this is where parts of the Japanese funding for tanks went.

@tedwarden5803

3 жыл бұрын

The Japanese didn’t need tanks. They were fighting lightly armed ground forces Up until 1944.

@9f81rsd00

3 жыл бұрын

@@tedwarden5803 oh i know. when you think about it, there’s a good chance the war with japan couldve ended sooner (or be less costly) if they decided to focus more resources on tank research and production. Even if they had much better tanks, the amount of aircraft america could produce and the manpower pool they had meant those tanks would be drowned through overwhelming air support.

@tedwarden5803

3 жыл бұрын

@@9f81rsd00. Read Yamamoto’s prediction on a war with America. ‘ A sleeping giant’. Japan did produce light tanks suitable for the countryside in which they were used and against the forces they were fighting. Why would you produce heavy tanks when you’re fighting the Chinese or in the jungle or island hopping? It would be pointless. I’d be interested how useful the Americans found their armour in the Pacific. But America had the recourses to send much as they liked in the last year or so of the war. The Japanese never had the industrial output.

Excellent video!

This is, quite possibly, one of the finest KZread videos I've ever had the pleasure of viewing. Good job!

It never surprised me that Japan wiped the Pacific for so long. They had the third largest fleet in the world. It was a diverse fleet embracing all the major ship types. It had excellent leadership and training. It had kept it ships modern through aggressive refitting and building programs. It had the political clout to ensure it was not neglected to finance the Army's failing invasion of China. Perhaps above all, it had only to fight in the Pacific and partly into the Indian Ocean to satisfy its strategic needs whereas its opponents were required to fight all over the World. The real amazing feat is the USN successfully surviving long enough to create the infrastructure to flood the oceans with new fleets, drowning the Imperial Japanese Navy.

@madensmith7014

5 жыл бұрын

It's not really a surprise considering that they were really the only power in Asia. Being the world's third largest navy means close to on par with the world's first and second combined not to mention when you don't have the industry to keep up the war machine running against others. It was already expected that the US would win and the true feat was how Japan managed to hold on until the nukes were dropped.

@genericpersonx333

5 жыл бұрын

@@madensmith7014 Obviously, the US had the edge in a war of attrition. The only issue with that idea that Japan's defeat was inevitable is that one can't prove that a negotiated peace favorable to Japan was never an option. If Midway had seen the USN losing its carriers, it would have been very different discussions going on in Washington D.C. in late 1942.

@madensmith7014

5 жыл бұрын

@@genericpersonx333 True, I also hold the same stance in that debate. Even if the Americans can out produce the Japanese, just by having what seems to be an unstoppable fleet was more than enough to scare the world's biggest economy. They might be able to out produce them but the people of America might not want to continue throwing lives into a place they've never even heard of before. Midway and the defeat of Germany greatly boosted the morale of the Allies which was one of the major factors in this war. They had a chance to win this war, which is the surprising thing. Cold hard statistics will always favor the US, but the Japanese somehow managed to gather up some odds to their side to even be able to keep up with the Allies is the real shocker.

@berengerchristy6256

5 жыл бұрын

@@madensmith7014 they kept up only to a point. then they just kept losing battle after battle, unable to replenish men and materiel after each loss. I think that if Japan had tricked the US into starting the war, war weariness would have set in much faster. because pearl harbor was a dirty surprise attack, this made people angry. people wanted Japan to lose, not just for the war to end. just a hypothesis

@berengerchristy6256

5 жыл бұрын

@@madensmith7014 yeah, and with lend lease it was extremely unlikely that the US would ever have declared war on germany. the only way japan could hope to win was by delivering a crippling blow at pearl harbor. they didn't, and their fate was sealed

No one to stop them.. As soon as they we head to head with other carrers they lost

@cardiv5zuikaku944

3 жыл бұрын

Not really, US lost Lexington in battle of Coral sea which eas the 1st carrier to carrier war, while Yorktown severely damaged, while Japanese only lost light carrier, the fleet carrier only suffers damage but can return with their own power

A mix of best fighter of the world and best aeronaval pilots.

@Conn30Mtenor

3 жыл бұрын

with no replacements on the horizon and an unnecessarily strict entry requirement for new recruit's entry to service. It was a one-shot weapon.

The second cousin of my great grandfather was a IJN Pilot (of a torpedo bomber). He took part in the attack of Pearl Harbor and other battles