Power Ratios in Various WWII Battles

[Keith Enge]

I have recently done some research and am looking for help interpreting it. Initially, I intended to investigate how often the underdog won in WWII naval battles. However, the investigation has since branched out. Before presenting the data, I should explain how it was obtained (this will take a while). My naval database has the orders of battle (ship and planes) for over 300 battles, all of the important ones and many minor ones. There are all kinds of battles; surface battles, U-boat wolfpacks against convoys, aircraft attacking ships, MTBs in coastal warfare, etc. The criteria that I used in selecting minor battles was balance; evenly balanced battles are more interesting than slaughters. When I did include unbalanced minor battles, it was generally because the underdog won; this has the inherent interest of "man bites dog". The database always has had the capability of determining the power ratio between the two sides in a battle but I have recently added some refinements to the algorithms. I also added to its search capabilities. Previously, you could find battles by combinations of:

1) Region
2) Type (surface, convoy, carrier, air, other) or combinations thereof
3) Day, night, or both
4) Historical or various types of "what ifs" (all still historically based but no action resulted because a search failed, interception timing was off, orders were changed, or whatever)
5) Tactical winner (Axis major, Axis minor, tie, Allied minor, Allied major)
6) Strategic winner (see tactical)
7) Number of participating ships (a range of numbers, more than X and less than Y)
8) Having land-based aircraft (from specified countries)
9) Having an animated map of battle (75 of these)
10) Participating ships by type and navy specifying must have these types from this country, at least one of these other types from this other country, and none of these types from a third country (you use a point-and-click interface to make a whole list of these conditions)

My definition of tactical and strategic wins should be discussed because tactical and strategic winners were necessarily judgement calls. The tactical decisions were quite easy to make; the winner suffered the least losses and/or months of damage repair. For tactical, the major and minor qualification had nothing to do with the importance of the battle, they were solely based on losses/damage. You could thus have a major winner of an insignificant battle. Strategic winners were a different animal. They were judged on how well their mission was accomplished, the importance of that mission, and any long-term implications. You could thus have tactical winners being strategic losers. For example, Japan is generally regarded as the tactical winner of the Coral Sea battle but the carriers damaged there and the aircrews lost meant that their two strongest carriers missed next month's Midway battle so Coral Sea was a Japanese strategic defeat. Conversely, a tactical loss may be a strategic win if the sacrifice resulted in strategic benefits.

To that list of searchable qualities of battles, I just recently added the capability to search for battles by power ratio ranges. You can thus find all battles where the Allies had between a 20% and 30% power advantage or where neither side was 15% better than the other or whatever. For the purposes of this investigation, only a binary qualification was used. The battles are separated into two categories; one where the Axis had a power advantage (anywhere from a very little to a lot) and the other where the Allies had some advantage however slight. Similarly, the tactical winning used a trinary qualification; Axis wins (either major or minor), Allied (same), or ties. All strategic considerations are ignored.

This completes the background. I used these database capabilities to investigate how some of the various navies did (wins, losses, and ties) when underdogs or when favorites (power disadvantage or advantage) in battles where the primary type was gunfire and torpedo action between surface ships. There is a caveat to the statistics which follow. Probably, since I considered them uninteresting, a considerable number of wins by prohibitive favorites aren't in the database so the number of wins by favorites is smaller than it could be. Conversely, wins by underdogs are interesting so the database has many of those battles to the extent that they are probably overly represented.

There are several potential anomalies in the statistics but I left them in, feeling that any wins by luck will be balanced elsewhere by losses by bad luck. For example, the Royal Navy won a battle as an underdog when two German S-boats (MTBs) collided and sank; for that stroke of luck, the Royal Navy gets a probably undeserved win. Conversely, some favorites lost when the outmanned enemy sensibly turned and ran, firing torpedoes to cover their retreat. If the pursuing favorite doesn't catch the enemy and anyone eats even one torp, the favorite becomes an unlucky loser. As I said, I left these sorts of things in because filtering them out would otherwise potentially impose my prejudices on the data.

I should also make a disclaimer about the power calculations. Individual ship (and aircraft) powers are calculated and then summed to get that side's power which is then divided by the other side's power to get the ratio. However, sometimes summing the ships' powers leads to a misleading result. For example, in the 10/12/40 battle off Cape Passero, the light cruiser Ajax was at about a 2:1 power disadvantage against three Italian torpedo boats and four destroyers. However, the geometry of the battle mitigated against this disadvantage. Ajax met the TBs first and, using a momentary 80% advantage over the combined power of the three, sunk two of them. The DDs were in a wide spread patrol line and so each arrived later separately. Ajax was thus able to engage them sequentially rather than as a mass and so damaged two. Ajax was able to defeat the Italians in detail because she had a series of temporary local advantages. The battle power calculation considers everybody in mass so Ajax was deemed the underdog. The database allows ships to be manually divided into groups with some groups or individual ships "hidden" from the calculations. However, unless this is prepackaged, the power calculation accumulates all ships as was done in this battle. Conversely, the opposite is probably exhibited in some other battles. The more powerful force is scattered and so can't bring all of its power to bear simultaneously, resulting in an effective power less than the calculated value. As a point of interest not germane to this discussion, for some types of battles, the side's power calculation isn't a mere summation of individual powers. For example, the collective power of the ASW escorts of a convoy attacked by submarines is automatically downgraded if the number of escorts isn't sufficient to patrol the perimeter of a convoy of that particular size (it is assumed that subs will be able to exploit gaps in the perimeter coverage). Conversely, the collective ASW power is upgraded if there are more ASW escorts available than needed on the perimeter. The extra escorts are thus available to relentlessly pursue subs to their destruction without weakening the perimeter defense so the collective power gets that boost.

After that lengthy preamble, disclaimers, and aside, the following table is the result for discussion. The winning percentage counts a tie as a half win and half loss. Remember, this result is limited to battles that were primarily gunfire and torpedo actions between surface ships.


Navy________as underdog____________as favorite
____________win-loss-tie__%_________win-loss-tie__%
------------------------------------________-------------------
German_______9-14-10__ 42%________9-7-12____54%
Italian________1-8-4_____23%________7-2-2_____73%
Japanese______7-7-2____ 50%________13-5-6____67%
United States__ 3-12-8___ 30%________10-7-4____57%
Royal Navy____10-20-11__38%________23-14-14__59%


Sorry about the formatting of the table. How do you make tables or even tabs in this editor? I had to use underlines because spaces got concatenated.

At first glance, the German ties, whether as underdog or favorite, are quite high. This tends to confirm conventional wisdom. The Germans had an unusually large number of inconclusive actions resulting from their restrictive orders that commanded them to avoid battles if there was a risk of losing ships. The scarcity of outright wins can probably also be attributed, at least in part, to the small amount of shells carried compared to comparable ships in other navies. When they had to depend on gunfire rather than torpedoes, they often lacked enough shells to get decisive results.

The Italians did poorly as underdogs. However, as a major surprise, they had the best record of anybody as favorites. This was despite many handicaps. Their lack of oil prevented large fleet sorties, resulting in frequent numerical disadvantages for the ships that were used. Another factor was the Germans forcing them to use Luftwaffe codes which the British could frequently break. Thus, when the Italian Navy was able to assemble a superior force, the Royal Navy knew about it and avoided action (helped by the Allies superior aerial reconnaissance too). The Royal Navy, therefore, could usually fight on its own terms, inviting action when superior and avoiding it when inferior. It would be difficult for any Navy to build a sterling battle record under these circumstances which makes the Italian record as a favorite even more enlightening.

The Japanese Navy broke even as an underdog. This amazing result tells you everything you need to know about that remarkable navy. Note that some of their wins as underdogs were, as mentioned above in the disclaimer, the result of torpedo hits on pursuing US ships. The Japanese excelled at hit-and-run tactics. the Japanese trailed only the Italians in their record as favorites.

The US Navy was lousy as underdogs, better only than the Italians. As favorites, they were middle of the pack. They did much better in other types of battles but we aren't discussing those here.

The Royal Navy was in the exact middle, both as underdogs and favorites. They also had a somewhat high number of ties as favorites.

The completes my presentation. I welcome any discussion and/or additional insights.

[Old Salt]

Keith

Wow ! That is a lot of hard work you have done !

Shall have to examine further. In the meantime I shall wonder about :

Battle of River Plate
Glowworm v Hipper
etc.

Brian

[jainso31]

Keith -let me be the first to congratulate you on a remarkable piece of Statistical Analysis.
I have read through it thrice; and the fact that you yourself have drawn attention to the highlights of the study ie.who has highest/lowest scores as Underdog and Favourite makes further comment not particularly easy.
However here goes:-
Engagements----------- Engagements
As underdog/ ---- win pts/---- As favourite/---- win pts/--- Total Win pts
Royal navy=41 ---- 15.6 --- 51 --- - 30 ----- 40.6
German Km=33---- 13.8---- 28 ---- 15.1--- 28.9
USN =23 ----- 6.9 ---- 21 ---- 12 ---- 18.9
IJN =16 ----- 8.0---- 24 ---- 16--- 24
Italian =13 ------ 3.0---- 11----- 8 ---- 11
Looking at what i have done only indicates that the most engagements accrues the most Win Points except USN/IJN-nothing particularly remarkable about that!! Apologies for the awful presentation.
So Keith- please do tell me what it is that you are looking for???Or more to the point what should I be looking for -I am no Statistician!but naturally interested.
PS The Win points are a function of egagements X %age given.
jainso31

[Lachlan of Queensland]

well done keith that is an excellant job you have done with all this :D

question: is the RAN, RNZN and other commonwealth navies listed under the Royal navy section?

[jainso31]

The Lose Rate, as a percentage of all engagements in the exercise, was as follows:-
USN=43%,Italian=42%,RN=37%,German=34% and IJN=30%. Now there's "a turn up for the book". RN and Kriegsmarine just a tad above 1 to 3 ratio.

jainso31

[Keith Enge]

I'll make this post responding to each post so far.

Old Salt - Compiling the data wasn't that difficult, it took maybe a half hour with another hour or so typing in the post (much of that frustratingly trying to find some way to format the table). The hard part was done long ago, entering data for over 22,000 warships, most of which have multiple versions as they underwent refits at various dates. Of course, coding the database has taken considerable time over the years but I'm a programmer by profession so it was both doable and fun. Anyway, back to your question about two specific battles.

River Plate, of course, is in the database and is thus an item in the table presented. It is an example of a German underdog getting a tactical minor win (but a strategic loss) as a 1.7:1 underdog.

Hipper versus Glowworm - This battle isn't in the database so isn't an item in the table. Although a gallant action by Glowworm, I don't consider the battle tactically interesting enough to include such an unbalanced battle; Glowworm was over a 4:1 underdog and lost which isn't a surprising result.

jainso31 - There is an easier way to get your win points results while avoiding the minor errors introduced since I round the percentages to the nearest whole percent. Your win points are merely sum of the wins and half of the ties. Therefore, for Germany, this is 9 + 10/2 + 9 + 12/2 = 29.

In presenting this topic, I wasn't looking for anything in particular. I merely felt that the data was interesting and a bit different from what I expected. I just put it out there looking for any insights other people can provide.

Lachlan of Queensland - I'm sorry about the oversight. I should have mentioned that my database lumps all British Commonwealth navies together as one navy. Therefore, in the table, I was remiss in labeling it as the Royal Navy. In fact, a Royal Indian Navy minesweeper, Bengal, provides an interesting data point in that table as a winner as an underdog. Of all of the battles in the database, she was the biggest underdog that won. Despite being armed with only a single 4" gun, she successfully defended the tanker that she was escorting against two Japanese armed merchant cruisers, each of which had eight 5.5" guns. The tanker was badly damaged but one of the AMCs blew up and sunk.

jainso31 - That was an interesting bit of data-mining that you did. You divided losses (ignoring ties) by the total number of engagements (including ties). I'll have to think a bit about what it means. Off the top of my head, I would say that a high loss rate maybe indicates a willingness to accept battle even at the risk of losing ships. I'll touch on some of the navies. I must emphasize again that these are only very tentative conclusions.

The US high loss rate may, as proposed above, indicate a willingness to accept battles where ships might be lost. They could do this knowing that their industrial might could replace any losses easier than other navies.

The Italian rate probably reflects two factors. Many of their actions resulted from defense of convoys. In these circumstances, you have to accept battle even though you know that you are likely to lose. The other factor is the one mentioned in the original post; the Italians were often out-manned because a lack of oil, British code-breaking, and British aerial reconnaissance allowed the Royal Navy to assemble more powerful forces to counter Italian sorties.

The quite low Japanese loss rate is probably explained by their long lance torpedoes and the tactics in using them. These often transformed into wins or at lest ties what would, for other navies, have been losses. Along these lines, consider the table below which just divides the number of tie by the number of engagements.

tie percentages
-----------------
German 36%
United States 27%
British Commonwealth 27%
Italian 25%
Japanese 20%

There are three navies lumped in the middle; the high and low ones may merit discussion. The high German tie rate undoubtedly is the result of the conservative restrictions imposed by the German high command. The low Japanese rate probably reflects the decisive nature of the long lance.

tie percentages as underdog
-------------------------------
United States 35%
German 30%
Italian 31%
British Commonwealth 27%
Japanese 12%

tie percentages as favorite
------------------------------
German 43%
British Commonwealth 27%
Japanese 25%
United States 19%
Italian 18%

The above two tables have some interesting points. The Japanese low percentage of ties as an underdog is almost certainly the result of long lances. If the Japanese were underdogs, they retreated behind torps; the torp hits then transformed potential ties into wins.

In the ties as favorites, the indecisiveness of the German Navy stands out; They didn't capitalize enough when they had a power advantage. The US and Italians did fight decisive battles when they had an advantage even if they didn't always win (the Italians did better here - remember the original table where Italy had that startling good win record as favorites).


Anyway, thanks everyone for the feedback. I look forward for even more insights from you and others.

[jainso31]

Keith
I have read your remarks on the Tie Rates carefully; and can only but agree; that because the Germans were very much tied to the rule of the regime so they were the highest where there was a "no decision" result.The Japanese Long lance was unquestionably a Tie Breaker; and therefore their "no decision" results were markedly lower.
I also accept that where there a desperate need to win at all costs (and the costs were covered) the chance of a tactical loss was acceptable IF there was a strategic gain; and I think the USN epitomises this in terms of result.
The RN and the Italians usually played the hand they were dealt -win or lose.
here I am thinking CRETE as "a devil take the hindermost" series of engagements.
This has been an eye opener for me as non mathematician; more a data-miner as you succinctly put it.

jainso31

[emason]

How do you make tables or even tabs in this editor? I had to use underlines because spaces got concatenated.


Keith I had the same problem until I changed the font to a fixed pitch font like courier new. For spacing the table I used alternate space and dots (or any other character). For example:-


Navy . . . . as underdog . . . . . . as favorite
. . . . . . win-loss-tie % . . . . win-loss-tie %
----------------------------------------------------
German . . .. 9 . 4 .10 42% . . . . .9 . 7 . 12 54%
Italian . . . 1 . 8 . 4 23% . . . .. 7 . 2 .. 2 73%
Japanese . .. 7 . 7 . 2 50% . . . . 13 . 5 .. 6 67%
United States 3 .12 . 8 30% . . . . 10 . 7 .. 4 57%
Royal Navy . 10 .20 .11 38% . . . . 23 .14 . 14 59%


Not perfect, but it illustrates the principle.

[Keith Enge]

emason - Your suggestion has merit. I should have considered a fixed font, that is of some help. The lack of tabs and the concatenation of spaces is still a problem but your alternating spaces with placeholders works. However, I replaced the periods with another less obtrusive character that can't be confused with decimal points or really anything else useful. The test below shows that it works quite well.

hello` ` ` ` ` world
line two ` ` ` second column
line three ` ` the end

[Old Salt]

Keith

Re : River Plate ..."a German underdog getting a tactical minor win (but a strategic loss) as a 1.7:1 underdog. "

I have played the computer game many times.. If I choose to be Graf Spee'' I always win ..... if I play RN, I always lose." She weren't no underdog !

Graf Spee had the gun range and speed to have engaged all three cruisers whilst staying outside their gun range .. to my mind that is a tactical loss !?

I consider HMS Glowworm v Hipper one of the finest, most courageous and selfless acts ever. But then statistics have no heart.

RIP Glowwarm.

Brian

[jainso31]

The disparity in the Ties as Underdog between the USN and the IJN is c.3 to1-this I find hard to accept, as they were the main antagonists in a major war theatre ie.the Pacific.I would have expected that result to be nearer par.Perhaps you could throw some light on this outcome.

jainso31

[Keith Enge]

jainso31-

That 3:1 difference between the US and Japan in underdog ties that you pointed out is interesting so I investigated more, calling up from the database those tied battles. I will first list the US ties for discussion. Each will start with the date and the battle "title" in the database, followed by the participants, and finally the battle synopsis in the database. Finally, I'll add any additional comments that I feel necessary. I should point out first, however, that two of the US ties were against the Germans, not the Japanese.

March 1, 1942 Escape through Bali Strait
Four old US "four piper" DDs versus four much more modern Japanese DDs

The US DDs were attempting to flee to Australia from the debacle at Java. They were intercepted in the Bali Strait and underwent about 10 minutes of gunfire. However, although old, they still had a good turn of speed and used it and a smokescreen to escape.

This is a tie because neither side did much damage.

September 27, 1942 An embarrassing demise
German armed merchant cruiser Stier versus US liberty ship Stephan Hopkins in South Atlantic

In poor visibility, they got too close and, although the German sank the freighter, she took so much damage herself that she had to scuttle.

This is a tie because both sides sunk.

November 12, 1942 Battle of Guadalcanal, 1st phase
US: 2 CAs, 3 CLs, and 8 DDs versus Japan: 2 old BBs, 1 CL, and 11 DDs

The US forces go out to intercept the Japanese; they prevent the bombardment of Henderson Field but take a pounding. They lose a cruiser and four destroyers with another cruiser and destroyer disabled and others badly damaged (another cruiser is also later lost to a submarine). The Japanese lose two destroyers and the damaged BB Hiei is sunk the next day by US aircraft.

Some may dispute that this is a tie. The US Navy lost more ships. However, because the BB Hiei was so disabled that she couldn't escape US aircraft from Henderson Field the next day, I put the battle into the tie column in the database.

March 26, 1943 Komandorski Islands
US: 1 CA, 1 CL, 4 DDs versus Japan: 2 CAs, 2 CLs, 4 DDs escorting transports

In a protracted long range daytime battle, neither side did much damage (although Salt Lake City was disabled for a short time). Despite having the superior force, the Japanese fought cautiously, probably not wanting to risk the transports that they had been escorting.

August 17, 1943 Battle off Horaniu
US: 4 DDs versus Japan: 4 DDs escorting 20 barges

In a maneuver battle, neither side did much damage; the barges scattered and only two were lost.

Some may not consider the US an underdog in this battle; the Fletcher class DDs were potent ships. However, the Kagero class DDs weren't much worse in gun firepower and had eight long lance tubes with eight additional reloads. This gave the Japanese over a 4:1 advantage in torpedo firepower. I should probably explain how my database calculates torpedo firepower. The number of tubes is multiplied by factors based on the torp's speed, range, and warhead weight. Then reloads are factored in, biased by a reload time factor (in a battle, if the reload time is high, you might as well not even have any reloads).

October 1, 1944 Minelaying deferred
US DD Gleaves versus German 1 DD and 2 TBs off Imperia on Italy's northwest coast

The Germans were moving south to lay mines when the two sides saw each other. Gleaves opened fire. Evading, the Germans collided and so only opened fire later. When they did, Gleaves thought she was taking fire from shore batteries. That, and a nearby aircraft, caused her to break off the action. Although the Germans took no non-collision damage, Gleaves claimed to have sunk two ships. She also thought that there were three ships and all were freighters. German ship recognition wasn't much better; they believed their opposition had been a French CL.

This was a somewhat farcical tie, action just basically fizzled out. I should point out that none of the German ships were German originally; all were taken over from the Italians after the armistice. The "German" DD, TA.32, had an even more convoluted history. She had been the Italian Premuda but, before that, was the Yugoslavian Dubrovnik, captured in April 1941.

October 25, 1944 Battle off Samar
US: Taffy 1 (TG 77.4.1) has 6 CVEs, 3 DDs, 5 DEs, Taffy 2 (TG 77.4.2) has 6 CVEs, 3 DDs, 5 DEs, Taffy 3 (TG 77.4.3) has 6 CVEs, 3 DDs, 4 DEs versus Japan: 4 BBs, 6 CAs, 2 CLs, 11 DDs

When Halsey was lured away, the Japanese fleet falls upon the unguarded escort carrier task forces. Attacks by the 503 aircraft from the CVEs, desperate attacks by their DDs and DEs, and ducking into rain squalls and smoke screens manage to keep the superior Japanese force at bay. Finally, after losing three CAs and fearing the return of the main US task forces, the Japanese retire. The US loses one CVE, two DDs and a DE from Taffy 3. Later in the day, after the battle, the Taffies are hurt by kamikazes and subs. TG 38.1 hit the retiring Japanese with air attacks. By the way, this was the first organized use of kamikazes.

I think that I judged this a tie because I couldn't decide on a winner. Japan lost more tonnage of ships but the US lost a lot of planes in the desparate defense of the escort carriers.

December 12, 1944 Return to Ormoc Bay
US DD Coghlan versus Japan: 1 DD, 1 DE, and 2 landing craft, tank in Ormoc Bay, Leyte

The Japanese force were the survivors of an earlier air attack. The US ships had lost a ship to an air attack too. The Japanese ships were fighting with US artillery and tank destroyers ashore when the US ships arrived. They too attracted fire so they retreated. The US ships got separated and only Coghlan returned in time to detect the Japanese leaving. In the confused action, nobody did much damage although Coghlan claimed to have sunk T.159 but she was probably actually sunk by the tank destroyers.

----------------------------------

As you can see, this is a very mixed bag of battles. They are mostly all so different that general conclusions based on them are difficult to make. The two Japanese ties as underdogs are listed below.

June 8, 1944 DD stern chase
Allies: 11 US DDs and 2 Australian DDs versus 5 Japanese DDs towing barges near Biak, New Guinea

When the Japanese DDs were found, they cut loose the barges and retired. The Allied destroyers gave chase but neither side did much damage at those long ranges. The Allied DDs broke off pursuit when they entered waters designated as a free fire zone for US aircraft. Virtually all of the barges survived.

The Allied force had an Australian CA and two US CLs but they peeled off very early, fearing becoming long lance magnets (they were also too slow to help in the stern chase). These ships are "hidden" from the power calculations since they didn't really participate. Similarly, the Japanese had a covering force of a CA and CL but they were distant and didn't participate either. By the way, because of the two Australian DDs, this battle counts as a "Royal Navy" tie as a favorite as well as a US one.

December 3, 1944 Battle of Ormoc Bay
US: 3 DDs versus Japan: 2 DEs, 1 landing ship, tank and 2 landing craft, tank off Leyte

The Japanese force was unloading when warned of the approaching US force when Japanese planes attacked it. The landing ships got underway and escaped but gunfire sank one Japanese DE and did major damage to the other but the landing ships escaped. US DD Cooper was hit by a long lance, jackknifed, and sank in 30 seconds. Both other US DDs took more than minor damage.


With only two cases of Japanese ties as underdogs, it is hard to make any definitive conclusions based on them. About my only comment is noting that both occurred late in the war when Japan was no longer winning many battles. Regarding these two and the above eight, I welcome any insights others may have about such a diverse set of battles. One thing that did surprise me was that so few of the ties were the result of an inferior force fleeing from a stronger one and getting a tie because the escape was successful. I expected more of the ties to be like that. As it was, only the "Escape through Bali Strait" and "DD stern chase" fit that scenario. A few ties fit another expected tie category, battles that fizzled out before either side did much damage. One was a tie because everybody sank. Others were more difficult to assess; there was a lot of damage but, back when I entered them into the database, I judged the damage to be about equal on both sides (despite sometimes risking "comparing apples to oranges)".

[jainso31]

I have examined the evidence carefully and I agree that all are ties except:-
a)1st Guadalcanal which I view as a Japanese tactical win, despite the ultimate loss of the Hiei.
b)The Action at Horaniu- I am of the opinion that this was a USN tactical win because the Japanese retreated without much action.
c) IMO an Allies win -again because there was no contest.
I have however to be frank; and say that first two were close run ties.
The total ties for each side was USN=12 and IJN=8.IF my reasoning was correct
there would be three less ties ie USN wins +2 and IJN +1-how would this recalculate-you being the mathematician, if that's OK with you.? Favourite ties 5-4 USN/IJN %age wise
PS Are YOU making any distinction between Strategical and Tactical Wins/Loses??
jainso31

[Keith Enge]

jainso31 -

First, as I mentioned in my original post about the data presented, "all strategic considerations are ignored". Therefore, let's look at the two battles where the Japanese retreated, offering no action. You wanted to penalize them for this. However, remember that these were actions where they were the underdog. Therefore, retreating is only prudent unless there is an overriding strategic reason for staying. In fact, by retreating, they drew the US forces after them and allowed the barges that they were towing/escorting to reach their destination. In fact, as will be seen below, I credit them with a strategic win for this tactical tie. Before discussing the Guadalcanal battle (1st phase), let me display the strategic result of the ten actions.

March 1, 1942 Escape through Bali Strait
strategic tie since escape had no real strategic significance

September 27, 1942 An embarrassing demise
I called this a minor Allied strategic win because it removed another German surface raider threat

November 12, 1942 Battle of Guadalcanal, 1st phase
I called this a minor Allied strategic win because this action led directly in the next couple of days to first an air battle and then a clash between battleship led fleets, both of which were major US tactical wins.

March 26, 1943 Komandorski Islands
Strategic tie

August 17, 1943 Battle off Horaniu
Although I called this a tactical tie, I did credit the Japanese with a minor strategic win because almost all of the barges reached their destination.

October 1, 1944 Minelaying deferred
A minor US strategic win because the German minelaying was prevented

October 25, 1944 Battle off Samar
A major US strategic win because it was one of the four battles that composed the Battle for Leyte which was the last major fleet action by the Japanese.

December 12, 1944 Return to Ormoc Bay
Strategic tie because the Japanese landing ships didn't get to finish unloading

----------------------------------

June 8, 1944 DD stern chase
Minor Japanese strategic win, again because the barges reached Biak

December 3, 1944 Battle of Ormoc Bay
A minor Japanese strategic win because the landing ship and craft had successfully unloaded before escaping.

---------------------------------

The Guadalcanal battle is a puzzler. I can't really argue with you, it could be considered a Japanese tactical win. In my eyes, it all depends on how you deal with Hiei. Even though she wasn't actually sunk in the battle, I consider her "effectively" sunk there because she was so disabled that she couldn't get away and was an easy target for Henderson Field planes the next day. So, in the tonnage table below for ships sunk or badly damaged (using their standard displacements at the time of the battle), I put her in the sunk column.

ship ` ` ` ` sunk ` ` ` `badly damaged
Hiei ` ` ` ` 32200
Akatsuki` ` ` 1980
Yudachi ` ` ` 1683
---------------------------------------------
` ` ` ` ` ` `35863

Atlanta ` ` ` 6593
Barton` ` ` ` 1839
Cushing ` ` ` 1488
Laffey` ` ` ` 1839
Monssen ` ` ` 1839
Portland` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `11180
San Francisco ` ` ` ` ` ` `10050
Juneau` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` 6593
Aaron Ward` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` 1839
Sterrett` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` 1656
--------------------------------------------
` ` ` ` ` ` `13598 ` ` ` ` 31318


So, if you consider, as I do, Hiei as sunk, Japan loses the tonnage war handily. However, the US had a lot of very badly damaged ships. Portland and Juneau had been torpedoed and San Francisco was mauled trading gunfire with the battleship Hiei. Aaron Ward and Sterrett had massive topside gunfire damage too. It comes down to how do you score damage compared to sinking. If you say that badly damaged tonnage is equivalent to half of sinking tonnage, you get 13598 + 31318/2 = 29257. This is quite similar to the Japanese tonnage (all sinking) of 35863. You see what I meant in a previous post of comparing apple to oranges, it's a completely subjective judgement call as to how you weight damage compared to sinking. Using this sinking + damage/2 algorithm, you might downgrade the US win to a minor tactical. On the other hand, Hiei didn't actually sink that night. So, I basically threw up my hands and called it a tactical tie; it really can be argued both ways. However, as mentioned above, I called it a US strategic win because the Japanese sent followup forces the next two days and were soundly defeated both times.

Thoughts?

[jainso31]

I have looked carefully at your assessments; and I am agreeing with you on all but 1st Guadalcanal. This I consider was an IJN Tactical Win; but an undoubted USN Stategic Win- in that they kept control of the island; and more importantly Henderson Field. Aircraft flew off this field next day and finished off Hiei, which was not sunk by surface action.If that makes it a Tie in your exercise, then so be it.
Assessments by tonnage lost can be misleading.When the USN lost the Hornet sunk and the Big E badly damaged- this created a critical situation that overshadowed the tonnage lost; because there were no replacements at that time. When the USN were losing cruisers at a rate of knots-not a lot of furore, because there was plenty more where they came from. I think ships lost; and particularly the type of ship lost, is what matters at that time.
Your exercise may be using criteria set down by the USN,and indeed other navies ;but I am ignoring criteria; and applying my own rationale.
PS. How did you rate Vella Lavella and was the USN the underdog??
jainso31

[Keith Enge]

jainso31 -

I rated Vella Lavella as minor Japanese win, both tactically and strategically (strategically because Japanese barges completed their evacuation of Vella Lavella). The database calculation makes the US a 2.66:1 underdog however that needs some clarification. The US ships were divided into two groups, a northern one and a southern one, separated by about 20 miles. Each group consisted of three destroyers. The Japanese were divided too, into a support group and a transport one. The support group was much stronger than the transport group, six modern DDs compared to three much older ones. Because the northern group went into action without waiting for the southern group to join, I hid the southern group from the power calculation. Similarly, because the transport group was distant, screened by the support group, I hid that weaker transport group too. If both hidden groups were included instead, the odds would drop to 1.68:1 because the hidden US group was much stronger than the hidden Japanese group. If the northern group had waited for the southern group to join but the transport group remained hidden, the odds would have been 1.35:1

The battle resulted with the Japanese losing Yugumo while the US lost Chevalier immediately and Selfridge had to be scuttled when the southern group finally joined after the battle. O'Bannon was damaged, mainly by colliding with Chevalier, but managed to limp home. I consider this a strange battle with inexplicable decisions by various ship commanders on both sides.

First, the US northern group charged into action without waiting for the other to join. They probably didn't wait because they feared that the Japanese would escape now that surprise was lost but they accepted decidedly unfavorable odds. They didn't know the strength of each Japanese DD but could see that the enemy had six to their three.

Second, the Japanese split their support force and so squandered some of their advantage and risked defeat in detail. Dividing this way might be understandable if a pincer maneuver was the aim but their movements don't indicate this; four DDs closed with the US while the two others held back. The two that held back were weaker than the four Kagero and Yugumo class DDs that charged but not overly so; each had about 85% of the power of a Kagero/Yugumo.

Third, a bit later, the Japanese ships were crossing the US course, moving in echelon with the trailing Yugumo closest to the enemy. Yugumo then made a solo turn towards the enemy, drew all of their gunfire. All three US DDs had fired half-load torpedo spreads two minutes before Yugumo made her turn so maybe she did it to comb the spreads. If so, the decision is still strange, she could have combed the spread by turning away instead; this would increased the distance and been much safer. Anyway, Yugumo and Chevalier quickly both fired fish and torpedoed each other.

Fourth, about the time that O'Bannon and Chevalier collided, Selfridge, for some reason, decided to make a solo charge at the smaller Japanese group. She thus paid the price by walking into torps that the group had fired five minutes earlier.

As I said when I wrote the battle synopsis for the database, there must have been something in the water making everyone behave rashly.

Since we have been talking mainly about Solomon Islands surface battles, I thought that I would mention that I have 18 of them in the database, starting with Savo Island and ending with Cape St.George. There are also two carrier battles and ten air battles which we are ignoring. Anyway, in the 18 surface battles, the power advantages were evenly split, 9 to 9. Japan tactically had a win-loss-tie record of 10-6-2. Strategically, it was 8-9-1.

I should point out that some of those 18 battles had only minor forces. In one, opposing patrols met and the Japanese DD torpedoed and sank one of the two US DDs. In another, three Japanese DDs covering a "Tokyo Express" encountered and sank two patrolling US APDs (DDs converted into fast transports). Finally, I included the third only for later historical significance. During the night of August 1, 1943, a supply run by four Japanese DDs were intercepted by six US PT-boats. Amagiri rammed and sank PT-109, commanded by the future US President J.F. Kennedy.

[jainso31]

Keith thank you for the brilliant expose of the Battle of Vella LaVella-which of course renders the thread that I posted redundant.:(
Not quite sure how the win/lose/tie figures of IJN =10-6-2 and USN =8-9-1 make a final assessment of 9 apiece.:confused:
but that's just me

jainso31

[Keith Enge]

jainso -

Sorry, I should have made that clearer. The 9 each had nothing to do with the win-loss-tie records, it was the power advantages (underdog and favorite).

I thought that I should add something to my previous post. At its end, I mentioned that I had eighteen Solomon Island surface battles in my database. Of these, I created animated battle maps for sixteen of them. It is amazing what you can learn about battles using this as a tool. Looking at traditional static maps of ship tracks, it is difficult to picture the relationship between the various ships at any instant. Here, you can see the instantaneous positions of all ships by toggling on/off the tracks until that point. You can step through the battle minute by minute watching torpedo spreads arc forward, seeing which ships are firing at whom, and watching smoke screens form. I even added commentary that appears as messages as various important events occur during the battle. I also made animated maps of the two carrier battles, Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz, as well as the November 13, 1942 air battle of Guadalcanal. However, those maps have a different format, plotting air strikes, CAP, etc. I was able to map 16 of 18 because the Solomon Island surface battles are so well documented. For comparison, of the 34 Mediterranean Sea surface battles in the database, I was only able to map 15 of them (although I did map the Operation Pedestal convoy battle too).

Animating the battle maps sometimes reveals problems. For example, in the Rice Anchorage battle the night before the Kula Gulf battle, the timing of the long lance torpedo hit that sank the US DD Strong can't be reconciled from existing maps and action reports. The following text from my database battle synopsis explains the problem.

The US shore bombardment force was detected by Niitsuki's radar. Carrying troops, they withdrew, still undetected, after firing torps. Thirty four minutes later, while completing their second bombardment, Strong is sunk by a long lance. The US thought it was a mine or a midget sub. In making the animated battle map, I was initially unable to reconcile the timing of the torpedo hit. Fired at 00:15, it hit about 11 miles later at 00:49 which would give a speed of only about 20 kts, much too slow for a long lance torp. Therefore, Niitsuki must have reloaded her tubes (which takes at least 10 minutes) and fired another four fish 15 minutes after her first four. The timing then works.

I should add that only Niitsuki had long lance torps. Although other Japanese ships fired torps, they all died before reaching the US ships so the hit had to come from Niitsuki. As another example, the last battle in the database showed something interesting too. During the night of May 16, 1945, five British DDs sank the Japanese CA Haguro. This is usually touted as a sterling example of a "five star" torpedo attack. The DDs basically surrounded the target and fired fish inward at her. As it turns out, the British were incredibly lucky to avoid friendly fire. Twice, torpedo spreads with torps that missed Haguro continued on and barely missed DDs on the other side.

[jainso31]

I can see now that I was up against a master-it's a shame that someone more knowledgeable than I - wasn't available to you. Anyway I enjoyed trying to compete; even though I knew you held all the aces.
The "animated" maps must be an absolute boon, in assessing an action; involving the many movements of all the hardware- in that action.
I did like the "five star" torpedo attack story -absolute HERESY!!:eek:
So what next my friend-what other worlds are there to conquer?? Is there any battle that you have not studied thoroughly?? BIAK for instance??

jainso31

[Keith Enge]

I'm not sure what battle you were referring to as "Biak". I would guess it to be the one I discussed in a previous post as "June 8, 1944 DD stern chase". As described there, I haven't found that battle to be tactically interesting. It is basically just involves ineffective gunfire at long range during a stern chase of the withdrawing Japanese DDs. Eventually, the chase was broken off; the US DDs would have entered an area where US aircraft had permission to attack anybody that they saw. I do have a map and report of this battle from which I could build an animated battle. However, the action isn't interesting enough for me to make the effort.

I do have another battle near Biak in the database. In fact, it involved the same Japanese ships and occurred ten hours before the other one. This, however, was an air battle. Ten B-25H Mitchells escorted by ten P-38L Lightnings attacked six Japanese DDs defended by six A6M2 Zeros as CAP. Harusame was sunk but the others continued on to participate in the next battle. This was a very balanced action with the US planes having just a 1.04:1 advantage.

I think that you give me to much credit; there are many battles for which I don't have sufficient information to make informed judgements much less animated maps. I'll list some of the major ones that I lust over (in chronological order). Maybe you or someone else has sources to which I don't have access.

October 17, 1940 Running for France
Near the western end of the Bristol Channel
Royal Navy: 2 CLs and 5 DDs versus German: 4 DDs and 6 TBs. Each side at times had aircraft help.

Outnumbered, the Germans try to escape towards Brest. A long stern chase from late afternoon to early evening ensues. Long-range gunfire and finally an aircraft attack fail to slow the Germans. Finally, smoke screens, air attacks of their own, and torps fired back at their pursuers allow the Germans to break contact.

October 20, 1940 Attack on convoy BN.7
Near Massawa on the Red Sea
Italian: 4 DDs versus British Commonwealth: 1 CL, 1 DD, 3 sloops, and 2 corvettes

The Italians attack but are beaten off, Nullo taking so much damage she has to be beached. She is destroyed by bombers the next day. Kimberley gets hit by a shore battery and has to be towed away.

December 25, 1940 Hipper versus Convoy WS.5A
In the North Atlantic off the Canaries
German: 1 CA versus British Commonwealth: 1 CA, 2 CLs, 4 corvettes, 2 CVs (acting as aircraft transports so hidden from power calculations), 20 troopships

Despite the heavy escort, Hipper attacks the convoy, damaging two troopships and Berwick. For an hour and a quarter before withdrawing, Hipper tried to skirt the escorts and reach the troopships, fighting intermittent actions with Berwick, Bonaventure, and Clematis. CA Berwick's damage needed six months of repairs.

I really want this one, it is tactically very interesting. Hipper seems to have tried several probes to get around the escort only to be frustrated each time. The stakes were very high with two carriers and twenty troopships as potential victims. This is one of the few times that a major German warship acted resolutely voluntarily rather than like Bismarck and Scharnhorst, fighting when trapped. My power calculation has Hipper a 1.85:1 underdog in this battle and yet she tried to press the action several times. Of course, the British advantage was somewhat lessened because they were tied to a convoy which they had to defend.

April 16, 1941 Force K versus the Tarigo convoy
Near Kerkennah Island
Italian: 3 DDs and 5 freighters versus British Commonwealth: 4 DDs

Force K sinks the entire convoy as the escorts are outmanned. Baleno and Tarigo are sunk but, while sinking, Tarigo sank Mohawk with hits from two single torpedo spreads. Over 40% of the 3000 Afrika Korps troops are rescued during the next seven days.

April 30, 1942 The determined defense of Convoy QP.11
Off Bear Island in the Arctic
German: 3 DDs versus British Commonwealth: 4 old DDs, 4 corvettes, 13 merchant ships

While looking for the damaged BCW CL Edinburgh, the Germans find the convoy. All afternoon, the Germans made six attempts to get past the escort to the convoy. Each time, they were repulsed by gunfire, torpedoes, smoke screens, and the clever use of ice flows. Finally, the Germans gave up and returned to their actual mission (they found and sank the CL the next day).

April 16, 1943 Italian convoy
Off Marsala
Italians: 3 TBs and 1 DE versus British Commonwealth: 2 DDs

The Italians successfully defend the convoy, sinking a DD while losing one TB and having another damaged.

The British Admiralty convened a court of inquiry after this action.

July 10, 1943 English Channel convoy
Near Quessant
German: 5 minesweepers escorting some coasters with distant cover from 2 TBs versus British Commonwealth: 3 DEs

The Allied force sinks M135 and damages M12 before the TBs arrive 90 minutes later. All three Allied DEs are then damaged as is T25 for the Germans.

February 29, 1944 Free French sortie
In the Northern Adriatic
German: 2 TBs, 2 corvettes, 3 minesweepers, 1 freighter versus French: 2 DDs

The freighter is sunk as is sub-chaser UJ201 by shells and then torps. Next, both TBs are damaged, TA.37 so much that she has to be towed.

August 4, 1944 Action off Muka Jima
North of the Bonin Islands (Iwo Jima's chain)
Japan: 1 DE, 2 corvettes (kaikobans) versus US: 4 CLs and 3 DDs

Matsu fought back for seventy minutes before sinking, allowing the two corvettes to escape.

I have no idea how Matsu held out so long. I have her a 13.5:1 underdog and that even includes the two corvettes she saved.

January 28, 1945 I just want to go home
North of Bergen, Norway
German: 3 DDs versus British Commonwealth: 2 CLs

The Germans were returning to Germany from northern Norway. ULTRA intercepts warned the British and a force was sent out. An hour and a half battle ensued as the Germans fled. Z31 took considerable damage including a destroyed forward turret but their speed, three torpedo attacks, smoke screens, and finally a shore battery allowed them to escape.


Well, that's my wish list. There are other battles which I would like more information and maps for but these are the primary ones. For some of the other ones, I hold little hope. Most of them are quite small and probably virtually undocumented. For example, I don't think that I have ever seen a map of a battle among coastal craft although, for example, British DEs and MTB/MGBs fought many battles against German S-boats (or E-boats if you prefer). Note that only one of the battles on my wish list is in the Pacific theater. This isn't because I'm uninterested in those battles but rather that the theater is well documented and so I have already been able to deal with those battles. A list of my animated maps by region will illustrate the situation: Solomons 19, Philippines 4, Aleutians 1, South Pacific 7, Central Pacific 4, Indian Ocean 4, North Atlantic 3, South Atlantic 1, Arctic Ocean 3, Norwegian coast 4, English coast 2, French coast 6, Mediterranean Sea 16, Baltic Sea 0, Red Sea 0, Black Sea 1.

Any help with my wish list, or indeed any other battle, would be appreciated. The database is always an ongoing task.

[Don Boyer]

An interesting numbers game, and very fun reading, but I have one small problem, best illustrated, for example, by the naval battle of Guadalcanal coming out as a "tie" according to the numbers, unless I'm misreading this exercise.

In this battle the Japanese failed to destroy and retake Henderson Field--the most important objective in their plan, failed to protect their transports from being slaughtered, failed to destroy the naval forces arrayed against them (the US came back later with even more firepower), failed to eliminate the air power arrayed against them, and despite superior firepower at the point of contact, turned away from battle when the going got tough. No strategic objective was achieved by the Japanese. No short-term tactical advantage accrued to the Japanese from this battle. They lost their collective ass. This isn't a tie in my book.

[Keith Enge]

Don Boyer -

I agree, the first battle of Guadalcanal was a big strategic loss for Japan. However, by my definition in the original post, tactical win/loss/ties are only determined by the losses and heavily damaged ships in the battle; no strategic aspects are allowed, they have their own win/loss/ties. That said, as discussed with jainso31 in subsequent posts, tactical win/loss/tie can be debated depending how heavily you weight damaged ships compared to lost ships. It also depends on if you consider Hiei lost in the battle even though she was only disabled. However, that disabling meant she was easily found and dispatched by Henderson Field aircraft the next day.

Hiei really attracted attention. She suffered eleven attacks over a period of eleven hours. The air attacks stopped a DD's towing attempt and were opposed intermittently by Zeros until the retreating Japanese task force moved out of range. There were only fifteen Zeros and at most six at any time. Meanwhile, the attacks from Henderson Field (except for the B-17s from Epirito Santo) were:

6 SBD-3 Dauntless got a near miss
4 TBF-1 Avenger
9 SBD-3, 3 TBF-1, 7 F4F-4 Wildcat
9 TBF-1
3 TBF-1
7 B-17E Flying Fortress got a surprising hit
6 SBD-3
6 TBF-1 (from both Henderson Field and CV Saratoga) got two torp hits
8 SBD-3, 6 TBF-1 14 F4F-4 got two torp hits
4 TBF-1 got two torp hits
6 SBD-3 got a bomb hit on one of the two DDs with Hiei

As far as I can tell, only one attacking plane was shot down. The reason that so many attacks were needed was they were all small and piecemeal, eleven scattered over eleven hours. Often in damage control, it isn't how much damage you take but how quickly you take it. Quick sequential damage can overwhelm damage control teams, prevent firefighting, etc. Hiei eventually had to be scuttled because each of the last several attacks did damage, preventing damage control/repair from the previous attack. Those later attacks were probably more successful than the earlier ones because no Japanese CAP was available against them, the task force had moved out of range.

Now, after that diversion from the main topic, back to strategic considerations. As mentioned in previous posts, strategic assessments are based on, among other things, completion of your mission, the importance of that mission, and any short or even long term effects of the battle (like the Japanese carriers damaged and aircrews lost at Coral Sea that were therefore unavailable a month later at Midway). Missions can have almost infinite variety; invasions, minelaying, searches, interdiction, shore bombardment, airfield suppression, convoy protection, etc. Strategic assessments are very subjective and depend heavily on postwar hindsight.

[jainso31]

Keith- 1st Guadalcanal was always sticky; and as Don entered the exercise late, therefore was not altogether "au fait" with the rules that YOU had set down-a bit like me at the beginning. I remember the same vehemence in the thread 1st Battle of Guadalcanal.
The Battle of Biak that I referred to was conducted 8-9 June 1944.and yes it was a stern chase but according to O'Hara- a relatively important one.
I'll see what I can produce for Convoy WS5A-a Winston Special. A quick look at my various books; and the internet does not bode well for this venture-Winston Specials may well, still be covered by the Official Secrets Act. Even O'Hara makes no mention of it whatsoever.However-need's a must when the devil drives.

jainso31

[Old Salt]

I'm still not sure what all this proves ... I will leave it to you clever ones, I'm just an old ship driver !

Brian

[Don Boyer]

I think Old Salt has the point I was making.

You can define and quantify numbers back and forth infinitely, and it contributes nothing in my opinion to illustrating for posterity why the bloody fighting and dying by good men in wartime situations had to happen, and what it all meant when it did happen. It reduces the sacrifices of men to mere numbers, which, again in my opinion, does them little justice or honor in the historical record.

[Old Salt]

I think Old Salt has the point I was making.

You can define and quantify numbers back and forth infinitely, and it contributes nothing in my opinion to illustrating for posterity why the bloody fighting and dying by good men in wartime situations had to happen, and what it all meant when it did happen. It reduces the sacrifices of men to mere numbers, which, again in my opinion, does them little justice or honor in the historical record.

Don

You have said it in a nutshell for me and so eloquently.

Brian