Best Japanese Ship WW2

[tassie48]

Hi what is your best WW2 Japanese warship mine is AKITSUSHIMA seaplane tender along with TONE and third place FUSO tassie48.

[steve roberts]

Hi Tassie.My favorite's were their I400 class Submarines.A sound Tactical weapons platform,the plan to attack the Panama Canal with them was a brilliant idea.Fortunately for us and Unfortunately for the Japanese,the concept came too late in the war..Regards Steve:cool:

[designeraccd]

Well given the RESULTS...I would submit the IJN got the best bang for the yen from many of their DESTROYERS. They formed the backbone of their ACTIVE surface fleet, especially after losing the 4 CVs at Midway.

Admiral Tanaka on his old CL flagship, Jintsu, ably lead many of the IJN's most effective DD actions in the Solomons. Therefore I would submit the elderly Jintsu for consideration, too. DFO ;)

[BALTICSUBS]

The carriers Zuikaku & Shokaku, sound ships that were in everything except Midway and their battle record would be the best of the Japanese carriers. One wonders another what if had they been at Midway?

[INVINCIBLE]

Hi what is your best WW2 Japanese warship mine i AKITSUSHIMA seaplane tender along with TONE and third place FUSO tassie48.

I am not sure I would select the TONE as it is arguable that she caused Japan to lose WW II. She was however a beautiful ship.
In the opening moves of the pivotal battle of Midway she was stationed to cover the NE sector of the Midway carrier fleet. When the covering cruisers launched their aircraft to search their sectors for any possible US carriers in the area the only cruiser which failed to launch was the TONE. As a result the area to the NE was not covered. It was in fact exactly in that sector that the American carriers were closing from. Had they been spotted then the fateful Japanese decision to re arm aircraft from ship strike to land strike for a second raid on Midway Island would not have been given and the result of the "four minutes which changed the war in the Pacific" might have been very different.

[astraltrader]

I am with DFO on this subject.

My favourite IJN warships were their magnificent destroyers.

I loved the beautifully balanced Akizuki Class but in particular I have a soft spot for the one ship constructed of the insanely powerful Shimakaze Class.

What other destroyer could boast a main torpedo battery of 15x24 inch tubes combined with 6x5 inch guns and a 40 knots top speed!!

Thank god they could only afford to build the one ship!


Only known picture of Shimakaze.

[designeraccd]

Agreed...visually and functionally the Akizukis were beautys! Altho, IIRC, I read that those 3.9" had a very short barrel life (?).

Most of the modern (WW2) IJN DDs were very good looking tincans with effective firepower. The weak spot, as in many other Navies, was AA.The Shimikaze was, on paper, an extremely impressive DD, but fortunately more were not built and she did not do much herself...well, she did get sunk! Speaking of which I have seen at least two (fuzzy) pics of her under air attack. DFO ;):D

[sons of anzac]

I'd go with their heavy cruisers - Chokai etc. With those the IJN dominated / intimitaded the Allied presence in the Indian Ocean / Pacific theatre 1941 thru 43.

The CV's provided the heavy, loong range punch, the BB's the ability for a heavy brawl and the destroyer- light cruiser combinations were magnificent. Submarines did not live up to potential but their doctrine had them as fleet scouts and they did that role OK. Their fleet support ships should get kudos too- oilers and other re-supply ships. They also allowed the IJN to dominate for a long time.

But once the USN got its act together and the US recovered from the initial shocks and geared up to war production with aircraft, ships and submarines any IJN effort was doomed in the long run.

[Don Boyer]

I guess I would base my "favoritism" for a Japanese warship as based on their actual utility in battle. For the yen per ton value, I would say that the two Shokaku class carriers did the most for the Japanese navy. They were an excellent piece of design and construction work and performed outstandingly in the role they were designed for, absorbing heavy punishment yet returning to battle several times.

Japanese heavy cruisers were deadly pieces of work, particularly with the torpedoes they carried, and were certainly graceful looking, but the "ton per yen" ratio was horrible for all of them and the Mogami class as well. All had to be taken in for extensive modifications due primarily to being overweight and in the case of the Mogami class, weak of hull. If you read the excellent cruiser book now out, you can read about the multi millions of yen spent getting these cruisers sea-worthy and battle-worthy with extensive yard modifications. (Compare this to the building of the Cleveland and Baltimore classes in America. Money spent on modifications to those ships was to add more AA firepower, not correct seagoing deficiencies.)

This is NOT cost effective...think of the additional class members that could have been built had the yen not gone into yardwork after the fact. Additionally, building cruisers for special purposes like the Tone/Chikuma didn't help any. Gave you a cruiser with too few guns with poor arcs of fire and not enough aircraft to really perform the function expected.

Additionally, the heavy torpedo armament, carried outside the armor, proved to have contributed heavily to the loss of several of the cruisers that might otherwise have survived to fight another day (Mikuma, for examle).

After some initial problems with the Fubuki's (top heavy, weak bow), the overall group of WWII Japanese destroyers were excellent and battle-worthy sea boats that provided and excellent return for the yen expended.

Submarines were a mixed bag as to their utility and ton per yen ratio. Japan built many different types with "special" factors for a particular action instead of building one general class of high overall utility. This resulted in millions of yen expended on ideas or modifications of little real utility and not contributing to the prime function of submarines as other nations saw it. Airplanes on submarines, and the I-400s in particular, were really nothing to speak of when actually deployed and represented a large waste of money. The I-400 presented a cruiser sized sonar target and were very unwieldy underwater, prime criteria for an early death. Overall, the whole program was a waste. The kaitens were a better idea overall, although even they accomplished very little for the yen expended on building and deploying them.

The many aircraft carrier modifications of civilian and military hulls during the war did provide usable flight decks, but built on hulls totally unsuitable for combat conditions that carriers were likely to face. Junyo and Hiyo are particularly good examples of that. Hiyo was sunk by one torpedo, Junyo crippled easily and rendered useless. Military hulls would have done better.

One could go on -- the biggest waste in the Imperial navy had to be the two Yamato's, built too late for their role and using steel that could have built four Shokaku's. Those two battleships represent the tired thinking of the Imperial naval hierarchy at the beginning of the war. Their mouths said "aircraft carriers" but their brains and tactics were still locked in the "one decisive battle" era featuring the battleship.

And today, the "Yamato" is almost revered like a god in Japan (reference the model they made of it) as if it was something special. This is, of course, the same thinking that produces Japanese school textbooks that try to portray World War II in the Pacific as someone elses' doing and Japan as a hapless victim, the Rape of Nanking as a prank by a few soldiers, and prisoner of war treatment as a non-issue. Crap in the extreme.

So, if I had to vote for "my favorite" Japanese ships, based on battle worthiness and design criteria, I would have to go with the Fubuki's and their sisters -- for the money spent on them, they gave the best return in terms of battle results, and in being excellent fighting platforms.

Regards,

[tassie48]

Hi Don I no the TONE was a bit of a wasted effort but her looks and those Four fwd deck guns just shines for me the destroyers another fine look and design speed armament and great looks the big subs it seems that they had the look tassie48.

[Don Boyer]

I agree, the Tone's were handsome graceful ships. That's why I really like a lot of warships..they are pretty to look at, aside from their destructive capability -- but "best" in terms of utility is a bit different in my book.

[scjon]

I actually am going to go with I think was the most innovative ship and probably the best design they had during the war. My interpretation of best is going to be the ship that COULD have been a star had it had the opportunity. In this light I pick the carrier Taiho. Armored deck, good speed, good aircraft capacity, well designed ship. Cut down before her first battle by one torpedo from the Albacore, but it was faulty damage control that led to her early demise. You just cant fill a ship with petrol vapors and get away with it!

Although for some reason I also always liked the looks of the Kongo class as well. The photo of Haruna sunk ar her moorings after the war always seemed to me to be the epitome of a defeated navy.

Don which cruiser book were you talking about? Lacroix?

[INVINCIBLE]

I'd go with their heavy cruisers - Chokai etc. With those the IJN dominated / intimitaded the Allied presence in the Indian Ocean / Pacific theatre 1941 thru 43.

The CV's provided the heavy, loong range punch, the BB's the ability for a heavy brawl and the destroyer- light cruiser combinations were magnificent. Submarines did not live up to potential but their doctrine had them as fleet scouts and they did that role OK. Their fleet support ships should get kudos too- oilers and other re-supply ships. They also allowed the IJN to dominate for a long time.

But once the USN got its act together and the US recovered from the initial shocks and geared up to war production with aircraft, ships and submarines any IJN effort was doomed in the long run.


The TAKAO class, which included CHOKAI had such massive superstructure, which rather over balanced their otherwise graceful lines

[nigelweysom]

I'm not really up on Japanese ships but i did see a programme recently about finding the wreck of the Yamato and that seemed impressive to me
Nigel

[John Odom]

How were the handling characteristics of the IJN ships with massive superstructures like Chokai? From their looks it would seem they would be top heavy and have poor stability in a seaway.

[astraltrader]

That was my view as well John. The definitely did not look to be balanced ships.

[irishyank]

According to combinedfleet.com (a fantastic website ready to fulfill any dreams you have about the IJN in WWII), Chokai's "massive bridge structure, complete with "greenhouses" at the three upper levels, would not have disgraced a battleship. Not surprisingly, this class proved to be somewhat top-heavy..."

As far as my favorite IJN ship in WWII, I'm going to go with Shokaku & Zuikaku. I agree with Don's view on these twin sisters and agree that they did the most good (for lack of a better term) for the Japanese war effort. The Yamato's, while intimidating as hell, were essentially a waste of steel and the way Yamato especially met her fate was down right criminal. Imagine what would have happened had our Navy, given a reversal in situations, decided that one of our Iowa's would go on a suicide mission.

I'll let the thought of peals of mocking laughter echoing through the halls of CINCPAC close out my post.

[astraltrader]

I will still stick with the vastly underrated super destroyers of the IJN.
They never achieved the fame and renown of Yamato or Musashi or even of the Japanese cruisers but they proved to be far more useful and were involved in every operation of WW2.
To me their only rivals as "the best Japanese warship of WW2 were the carriers mentioned in the previous posts....

[skipperbob]

Would have to agree that the Japanese destroyers were the best at what they were designed for, surface fleet action. Their tactics were well thought out, night training was superb and of course they had the advantage of the deadliest weapon in the Pacific - the "Long Lance" torpedo.

[INVINCIBLE]

Would have to agree that the Japanese destroyers were the best at what they were designed for, surface fleet action. Their tactics were well thought out, night training was superb and of course they had the advantage of the deadliest weapon in the Pacific - the "Long Lance" torpedo.

You are absolutely right - many people do not realise what an awesome weapon the Long Lance torpedo was. It truly was the deadliest weapon in the Pacific. There is one in the museum of naval firepower in Gosport, which I have studied and photographed. I will post the photograph - when I can find it, but what impressed me most, compared with many of the other torpedoes on display was the sheer size and weight of it. If ever the Japanese had supplied such weapons to their allies in the west (the Germans would have had to adapt their U boats to operate them, but that would not have been impossible) then the Battle of the Atlantic could have had a very different outcome!

[designeraccd]

Of course the-fortunately-deadlier weaponS that helped overcome the Long Lance were RADAR and large NUMBERS of USN warships, newly built and ever arriving while the IJN had very few new ships to replace their ever increasing war losses!

Given the Western pre war hype about the Japanese and their equipment the earlier actions, especially the mainly destroyer led ones around the Solomon's, were very nasty suprises to the ALLIED Navies!!

For those who haven't read it: Japanese Destroyer Captain is still a must read. The training and DISCIPLINE the IJN went through (pre war) are all but incomprehensible to most "Western" civilians (and politicians...)today. DFO ;):D

[designeraccd]

Given the comments about Shokaku and Zuikaku earlier...here is a typical not clear photo of the launch of Shokaku. Fairly unusual view, at least here in the "West".

Also, a view of SHIMIKAZE under air attack; forgot I had saved it!!! It would appear she DID keep all 6-5", despite reports to the contrary. The 3 quintiple tube mounts are visible, too. Not much help against USN aircraft!!!........DFO :eek: ;)

[Don Boyer]

Speaking of the Long Lance torpedo that made the Japanese destroyers so effective, during the course of the war the USN captured several varieties of this torpedo here and there. Yet even in the new book on the US Navy's terrible troubles with its torpedoes, there is no mention anywhere of any analysis done on these torpedoes by anyone during the war. Certainly they were looked at by somebody somewhere (?) and if there were any usable innovations you'd think someone somewhere would have mentioned it. Yet nary a peep. Aside from casual mention of torpedoes being recovered, not a word.

Of course the US would never have adopted oxygen fuel, but that was not the only "good point" about the torpedoes by any means.

I've always considered it rather strange that an instrument of war that caused the US Navy so much grief and pain gets nary a look by BuOrd or some other interested party. in any of the war histories. Any sub dudes out there know anything different?

Regards,

[astraltrader]

I am not sure when it was first realised but by the end of WW2 the Allies realised that the Long-Lance had almost as many drawbacks as it had things going for them.

It wasnt just the biggest problem of its overall volatility but also the negative side of being such a powerful weapon.

It was perhaps the worst of both worlds to have a torpedo renowned for spontaneously combusting yet when it did was more than likely to sink the destroyer or boat launching it because of the ultra heavy warhead.

One of the major reasons so many of the finest Japanese destroyers were lost during WW2.

[steve roberts]

Hi Don.We dabbled in torpedo fuel after the war.Mainly High Test Peroxide(HTP).This as far as I know was from material captured from German sources.We also tried it as a Submarine fuel.After several accidents the most notable being the sinking of HMS/M Poseidon in Portland Harbour.These tests and consideration of this fuel was discontinued.It is entirely possible that the Germans obtained some technical know how from the Japanese,But strange that neither HTP or Oxygen was used as a German torpedo fuel?.Perhaps your BuORD decided that the fuel was too volatile as Terry suggests,and the risks outweigh the operational usefulness...Regards Steve.

[Don Boyer]

The Long Lance did have it's drawbacks, for sure. Contributing to blowing up one's own ship was just one issue out of many (Mikuma is the best example of that). However, the submarine versions, as far as is known, didn't seem to be much of a problem.

My comment was more directed at the fact that one does not see, in the American record of torpedo development history, ANY sign that anyone even seriously looked at captured examples. To form an opinion of their lack of utility to the US Navy, at least SOMEBODY must have, but the records don't seem to be there. Post war, I believe the US technical mission took a hard look at them, but we had captured versions long before then.

The US Navy -- particularly the Bureau of Ordnance -- had a lousy record of developing functional torpedoes, unlike the standard British fish that worked so well by comparison, and it's interesting that, in addition to not looking at our own torpedo problems until forced at gunpoint, they apparently didn't much care for looking at ANY torpedo. Note that ALL the defects of steam torpedoes the USN started the war with were discovered by tests conducted by submarine fleet units, not BuOrd, and ALL corrective measures were developed by the same groups. NONE of the fixes came from the organization responsible for developing and testing torpedoes. Heads should have rolled, but did not.

There is a book out on the subject I believe, entitled "Iron Men, Tin Fish" and it doesn't measure up in my estimation as a thorough analysis of the torpedo troubles -- too many excuses for the bureaus responsible. the Japanese torpedo gets no mention at all in that book.

[INVINCIBLE]

Hi Don.We dabbled in torpedo fuel after the war.Mainly High Test Peroxide(HTP).This as far as I know was from material captured from German sources.We also tried it as a Submarine fuel.After several accidents the most notable being the sinking of HMS/M Poseidon in Portland Harbour.These tests and consideration of this fuel was discontinued.It is entirely possible that the Germans obtained some technical know how from the Japanese,But strange that neither HTP or Oxygen was used as a German torpedo fuel?.Perhaps your BuORD decided that the fuel was too volatile as Terry suggests,and the risks outweigh the operational usefulness...Regards Steve.

Slightly off this thread but you are right Steve, the RN commissioned two experimental HTP submarines, EXPLORER in 1956 and EXCALIBUR in 1958. They were based on a German HTP u-boat, U 1407, which had been scuttled at the end of the war. U 1407 was salvaged and then commissioned into the RN as METEORITE for trials and evaluation. EXPLORER and EXCALIBUR were both assigned to the 3rd Submarine Squadron but spent little time at sea. The fuel as you say was highly unstable and very dangerous. EXPLORER was known as "EXPLODER" as a result of several serious accidents and EXCALIBUR was known as "EXCRUCIATOR". Although they achieved a very impressive 25 knts submerged they were too dangerous and it became clear that the way ahead was nuclear power.

[INVINCIBLE]

The Imperial Japanese Navy "Long Lance" (Type 93) was a very advanced torpedo. The pictures below are of the Long Lance torpedo in "Explosion!", the museum of naval firepower, at Priddy's Hard, Gosport. The Long Lance, very appropriate as she was very long and heavy, was capable of fast speeds (38 knts) and very long ranges (over 20 nautical miles), but it used volatile highly compressed oxygen. They were designed for Japanese destroyers and cruisers. There was a different torpedo for IJN submarines but I have no information on that torpedo.

[John Odom]

Thew cutaway views are nice. The one on display at Yakusuni Shrine is not cut away. There is also a Kaiten on display at Yakusini.

[Don Boyer]

John: We've all heard and read a lot regarding the Yasukuni Shrine. You apparently got to visit. I would love to hear about the place if you ever get a chance -- originally for honoring the war dead, it seems as if it has been "politicized" if it has military displays and the like. What is the place like today?

Regards,

[designeraccd]

As far as USN "studying" the Long Lance....NIH to the extreme perhaps? Given the pathetic record of USN torpedo failures for way to much of WW 2, it makes the apparent non-interest in the quite successful IJN torpedo even more troubling: human nature at its "best"? DFO :eek:

[John Odom]

Don, Yasukuni is well described in the Wiki article. I tried to get a visit arranged on my first two trips to Japan but wasn't able to do it. Arranging for the supervision of the students with me was a problem. I was also told Americans wouldn't be welcome there. On my last trip I was able to arrange a days activity for the kids, and I got my "Japanese Granddaughter," Sayuri, to take me. We only looked at the outside of the actual Shrine, then we went to the museum part. I got a lot of icy stares as we entered the museum. I understand why some of my Japanese friends didn't want to take me. Sayuri is a very independent minded young woman And just smiled and said he is my friend in Japanese as she paid the admission. Many of the visitors were obviously veterans. There was a middle school group there with their teachers.

The museum is a wonderful collection of war memorabilia. Tanks, trucks, planes, swords, everything including torpedoes. Many photographs of action in various places. None of the labels are in English. Sayuri translated for me. The whole museum is unabashedly patriotic from the Imperial Japanese point of view. The Japanese military is portrayed as always right, and no hint of any abuse or exploitation of the Asian populations is even hinted at. The imperial Army was liberating Asia from the imperialists. The victories are emphasized. America is a villain that used the inhumane atomic bomb. We are also portrayed as inhumane over the incendiary bombing of Tokyo and other cities.

Our visit was much too short. I could have spent a week there. The National Museum in Ueno also has a good display of military hardware of the era.

[scjon]

That is amazing. I would have thought that as demure as they have become they would at least see the culpability of their part in starting the war. I guess the A-bomb was a big no-no but kamikazes and attacks on Sunday mornings before war is declared are okay? Something told me it would be that way though.

[Don Boyer]

John, nothing you said surprises me in the least. I did look through the Wiki article and assumed all was not revealed.

I love many things Japanese, especially from the best of the arts and such of the old Japan, but I intensely dislike the modern Japan for exactly what is displayed by that -- the intense "face-saving" for the Imperial Army and the Imperial Way that they supported until the bitter end.

This is perfectly in line with refusing to allow free access to the real story on the war in the schools. Desperate face-saving.

The Showa Emperor would be ashamed of them.

Regards,

[VirtualF]

Personally I think the "Kongo" class deserve an honarable mention.Designed before WW1,reconstructed during the 30's and served well in WW2.Yes 2 were sunk at Guadalcanal,but they were taking on much newer vessels and in the case of South Dakota and Washington,far more powerful vessels.Useful ships,good carrier escorts and far more handy than some of the battleships of the same age.

[Don Boyer]

Virtual F has a good point. Of all the "upgrades" done to Japanese ships (some to modernize, some to correct serious defects) those modernizations applied to the four Kongo's seemed to have provided the best bang for the yen and to have really improved an already serviceable class of ships.

Lengthened, strengthened, re-engined and with some additions to armour provided "fast battleships" from what were once considered battlecruisers; these ships were therefor ideal for carrier escort duties as they could keep up with the carriers in most scenarios. Hiei and Kirishima did most of this duty with Kido Butai early in the war. All four were in on the Indian Ocean operations.

There one weakness appeared to be their WWI scale of armoring. Hiei's steering gear was crippled by 8" shell fire at Guadalcanal, leaving her helpless against the next day's air attacks. Kirishima had no chance at all the next night against Washington's 16" shells. (And she was hit by far more than the nine 16" mentioned in Morison's history. A later analysis [Lundgren] shows 20 16" hits. Few battleships of the era could survive that number of armour-piercing hits.)

Kongo was sunk by three electric torpedoes from submarine Sealion (Kongo blew up) and Haruna was pounded into junk in shallow inland waters at the end of the war. They were undoubtedly the most utilitarian of the Japanese battleship classes.

[designeraccd]

Agreed...the Kongos provided more useful service than ALL the other 8 IJN BBs combined. As noted, despite the major, expensive improvements they did have weak spots. Overall tho they did provide very useful service in WW2 for the IJN. Compared to the two, monster "floating hotels " (Yamatos) they were, IMO, extremely cost effective!!!

How ironic that the 2 largest BBs ever built were never "allowed" to "endanger" themselves....except againist the USN's aircraft which showed how obsolete the two monsters really were.

One could wonder @ our USN's 100K ton super carriers in today's potential combat environment........ DFO :eek::D

[Don Boyer]

Agree, Designer. The big expensive ships all seem to have a great big target painted on them. They represent such a threat that the response to them almost always borders on overkill, with good reason.

I would bet, however, that a supercarrier has a much better chance at survival in today's naval environment than the poor Yamato's did when we could toss eight or ten deckloads of aircraft at them if we wanted. They would have been tough antagonists in a gun duel, but with the next to useless Hotchkiss-derived triple 25mm, one of the worst AA guns around (comparable to our 1.1 we started the war with) they had a real problem dealing with aircraft despite the huge load of AA on board.

A Yamato with quad Bofors 40mm. would have been like our Iowa's -- almost invulnerable to aircraft. (That's a big "almost" of course, considering torpedoes).

I'm sticking with my choice of the Fubuki destroyer and it's derivatives as being the best overall product of Japan's shipyards, considering, cost, utility and fighting abilities.

[CGRET]

I would have to agree with Don on his choice.
A lot has been said about the capital ships having targets on there bow's, That in part is correct, moreover it wasn't learned until after the war that the IJN Naval Unit's were also poorly trained in damage control and the compartmentization was also of sub-standard design as compared to the USN.

Regards
Charles

[MelQuick]

The Japanese had some beautiful ships but some of their crews were less attractive as the Atrocities thread in this website clearly illustrates.

Mel

[astraltrader]

Agree, Designer. The big expensive ships all seem to have a great big target painted on them. They represent such a threat that the response to them almost always borders on overkill, with good reason.

I would bet, however, that a supercarrier has a much better chance at survival in today's naval environment than the poor Yamato's did when we could toss eight or ten deckloads of aircraft at them if we wanted. They would have been tough antagonists in a gun duel, but with the next to useless Hotchkiss-derived triple 25mm, one of the worst AA guns around (comparable to our 1.1 we started the war with) they had a real problem dealing with aircraft despite the huge load of AA on board.

A Yamato with quad Bofors 40mm. would have been like our Iowa's -- almost invulnerable to aircraft. (That's a big "almost" of course, considering torpedoes).

I'm sticking with my choice of the Fubuki destroyer and it's derivatives as being the best overall product of Japan's shipyards, considering, cost, utility and fighting abilities.


Now you are talking Don although my choice of IJN destroyer class would be the Akizuki class.

[Don Boyer]

The thread of atrocities runs through all World War II Japanese naval history, although it has to be admitted, they were less motivated in the navy than in the Imperial Army. Shipping prisoners about in unmarked transports, gunning survivors of sinkings or refusing to pick up all but Japanese from sunken vessels, and many other cruel acts are well documented in the record -- and those are Japanese records, not something made up by Europeans.

The bigger atrocity today, although less bloody, is their absolute refusal to admit to it in their history books or allow their children to read anything other than their sanitized brand of history in which the poor poor Japanese were victims of Imperialist aggression (we cut their oil off because of their actions in China: truth be, the decisions leading to war were made well before then), the United States was cruel and heartless in firebombing their cities and dropping atomic bombs (true -- but then there are no other tactics that win wars against fanatics), The Rape of Nanking was actually just some schoolboy pranks on the part of some less-disciplined parts of the Japanese Army and the Bataan Death March was a Boy Scout hike. Actually, the latter two aren't even mentioned in the books, nor is the Death Railroad or anything else remotely like these acts.

The war as portrayed at Yasukuni Jinja is the only true picture of the war in which the kind and good-hearted patriotic Japanese were only trying to free Asia from European Imperialist domination. (Strangely, this is the one part where they were in a sense successful, but not as a liberating force themselves.)

This blind stupidity is glaringly apparent when you talk to Japanese tourists visiting the Arizona Memorial, home of the Imperial Navy's great victory over the Imperialist Americans (it was one of the biggest mistakes by a navy in history).

I have a great number of Japanese friends here in Hawaii, but I intensely dislike the "homeland" history brew, and make no bones about it. Even educated Japanese here with close ties to the homeland don't buy their intensely propagated revisionist history.

[BB-39 USS Arizona]

For me it would be the Shigure, or the Shiratsuyu class. Shigure took part in many naval battles throughout four years of the Pacific War, for two of those years as the flagship of Captain Tameichi Hara (author of the book Japanese Destroyer Captain). Three times the US Navy sank all the ships in her squadron; each time Shigure escaped. But her luck finally did run out in January 1945.

Like all Japanese destroyers, Shigure was heavily armed and very speedy for her size. The Japanese naval architects tended to skimp on sturdiness and protection, in favor of offensive striking power, consistent with Japanese military doctrine in all arms. 341 feet long and displacing 1,368 tons, Shigure carried eight torpedo tubes and five 5-inch guns. With a flared bow and long low flush deck, typical of Japanese destroyers, she must have cut an impressive picture, slicing through The Slot at 34 knots.

Shigure took part in the action at the Battle of the Coral Sea (May 7-8, 1942) and, in October of that year, in the desperate battles around Guadalcanal. On the night of October 14-15, she escorted transports bringing army reinforcements to the doomed Japanese on that island. On the night of November 12-13, Shigure participated in the confused, bloody melee known as the Battle of Guadalcanal.

Admiral Abe led a Japanese force of two battleships, a cruiser, and fourteen destroyers to bombard Henderson Field. They met American naval forces before reached their intended target, and overall, inflicted more damage than they took. But Abe's flagship, the battleship Hiei, took more than thirty hits from American cruisers and was crippled. After 0200, as the battle ebbed, Hiei, burnly fiercely, took refuge off Savo Island to the west. Shigure and other destroyers accompanied the battered warship. A bit like worker bees tending assiduously to their larger, but helpless, queen, the destroyers stood by, protecting and assisting as they could.

On the night f 6-7 August, 1943 four IJN destroyers, including Shigure, were bringing troops and supplies to Kolombangara. Six U.S. destroyers pounced. As no cruisers were present on either side, it was the first destroyer-on-destroyer battle of the war. Laboring with over-worked engines, Shigure lagged 1500 yards behind her sisters as they headed south through Bougainville Strait. In the dark, visibility was barely 2000 yards. Just before midnight, Shigure's reported: "White waves! black objects! Several ships headed toward us!" Heading north to meet them, the US Navy destroyers, with superior radar, had picked up the IJN force ten minutes earlier. Even before Shigure's watch saw them, the Americans had launched a deadly spread of twenty-four torpedoes. It was all over in minutes. Shigure loosed her own fish; but almost immediately the American torpedoes hit home.

An eighth torpedo hit holed Shigure's rudder without exploding while two torpedoes passed within twenty yards. As more gunfire smashed into the stricken ships, they began to sink. By 0018, all three had gone under, barely half an hour after Shigure had first spotted the enemy ships.

Shigure and her comrades fought on stubbornly. On the night of 6-7 October, 1943, Shigure, eight other destroyers, and many small transports steamed south from Rabaul to rescue 600 troops stranded on Vella Lavella. A smaller USN destroyer force intercepted, and in the ensuing battle, both sides lost one ship, but the Japanese accomplished their mission; their transport barges rescued the troops and returned them north. The Japanese night fighting skills could still produce victories, but by late 1943, successful withdrawals were the best victories that could be obtained.

More of the naval war of attrition followed, with the US Navy always pushing forward, the Japanese being forced back, and Shigure managing to survive. She even eluded destruction in the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

Shigure's luck finally ran out on 24 January 1945, when she was torpedoed and sunk by USS Blackfin (SS-322) in the Gulf of Siam.

Mostly from the book; Japanese Destroyer Captain by Tameichi Hara and Fred Saito

Although Shiratsuyu class, none survived the war. The damage cause by the these 10 destroyers, cause more damaged to American, Australian, British, Netherlands ships, then most would believe.

[John Odom]

No doubt, IJN Shigure was agreat, and lucky, ship.

[GaryH]

Well its hard not to admire the floating monster Yamato.
But as others point out she spent more time as a "hotel" than a warship.

The best BB's in terms of value for Yen would of course be the Kongo's.
Nagato was maybe a little better battleship than some would give her credit for.
Fuso was just ugly.
It was almost an act of vandalism to mutilate Ise and Hyuga.

As for heavy cruisers, it would be the Takao's - they were quite active during the war and they look mean as hell ;)

[designeraccd]

Agree with Terry about IJN AKIZUKIs...very handsome design that functioned quite well! DFO ;):D

[Don Boyer]

The Akizuki's were fine seaboats from all accounts. If anyone had to point a finger at any shortcomings it would be that the 3.9" gun, optimized for anti-aircraft fire (as the ships were intended to serve as carrier/battleship escorts) was very lightweight as an anti-surface round, not comparable to the Japanese or American 5" in that department or the 4.5" and 4.7" popular in other navies, despite a relatively high velocity. Also, rapid barrel wear was a problem and lack of adequate radar-based firecontrol was a definite drawback. They still carried that heavy torpedo armament and were dangerous opponents at anytime.

Torpedo armament aside, they were no match for a Fletcher in a gun duel.

[designeraccd]

I've also read that the 3.9" had a short barrel life??

Akizukis were handsome, but give me Sumners or Gearings....for that matter, IMhO, USN could use capable, well armed, hard to sink/diasble DDs like that today!!! DFO ;)

[astraltrader]

The Akizuki's were fine seaboats from all accounts. If anyone had to point a finger at any shortcomings it would be that the 3.9" gun, optimized for anti-aircraft fire (as the ships were intended to serve as carrier/battleship escorts) was very lightweight as an anti-surface round, not comparable to the Japanese or American 5" in that department or the 4.5" and 4.7" popular in other navies, despite a relatively high velocity. Also, rapid barrel wear was a problem and lack of adequate radar-based firecontrol was a definite drawback. They still carried that heavy torpedo armament and were dangerous opponents at anytime.

Torpedo armament aside, they were no match for a Fletcher in a gun duel.

I agree Don that if they had been equipped with the far better 5 inch gun along with as you say a radar-based fire control they would have been amongst the best destroyers of WW2.

[davyjones]

In my humble opinion No.1 Shimakazi, No. 2 Shokaku/Zuikaku, No. 3 Akitsuki.
Shimakazi especially has a fascination as it seems so little is known of her. If anyone does know anything new I would be grateful to hear it. I do wonder though if she was bordering on a light cruiser rather than a destroyer?

[GaryH]

The Mogami's (as CL's) have a mean look to them too

[culverin]

The best this, that or the other never existed.
You should never look for the best ship.
We need to look for the best crew who manned that ship, and the fortunes crew and ship enjoyed jointly, or otherwise.
Ultimately, in time of war, the best ship is the one most recently sunk or damaged, the threat being removed.
It is always the best result you can hope for. The fact that ship and/or crew is or was best is now irrelevant.
This applies to every Navy, from any era.

[John Odom]

My vote goes to the crew of the Kumano, who even earned the respect of Adm. Bull Halsey!

[ludsie]

I like the agano class light cruisers they've got a nice well balanced look without the massive superstructure

[jainso31]

I agree wholeheartedly with culverin-it is not about the ship; but the men who crew her-if they are good- they will endeavour to make their ship the best.

jainso31

[Don Boyer]

Frankly, I have no difficulty at all in comparing ship types to find which was "best" in terms of how it's design and construction measured up to the expectations made about the ship and how it actually performed under the combat operations and sea-going demands made upon it. I find it pedantic to just try to compare "armor" or "guns" or "speed" and call one ship intrinsically better than another. The entire ship package is what has to be evaluated, measuring pluses AND minuses.

On the other hand, it is also quite possible to view a ship in terms of how it served the crews who manned it in combat operations and how the combination worked to achieve victory in battle. It's not a mutually exclusive club.

Of course the whole package is compromised by the fact that the great majority of warhsips manufactured have been built, served and scrapped without ever answering to the sound of the guns. Who knows how they would have measured up gun to gun. So one compares operational reliability and crew satisfaction, along with economic factors and come up with a "best" criteria... :)

[astraltrader]

The best this, that or the other never existed.
You should never look for the best ship.
We need to look for the best crew who manned that ship, and the fortunes crew and ship enjoyed jointly, or otherwise.
Ultimately, in time of war, the best ship is the one most recently sunk or damaged, the threat being removed.
It is always the best result you can hope for. The fact that ship and/or crew is or was best is now irrelevant.
This applies to every Navy, from any era.


With due respect you are just playing with words.

This thread in the main discusses the best type or class of Japanese warship in WW2. Whilst the answer is bound to be subjective to a large degree, it is a perfectly reasonable subject to discuss, as can be seen by the number of members who have given their views....

[jainso31]

Making a choice in this thread is not easy; but I will go for the Fubuki Class destroyer- much favoured by R/Adm. Raizo (Tenacious) Tanaka.
Of the order of 2050t displacement, 38kts rated top speed and a range of 8000nm. Armed with 6x5" guns and 9X24" torpedo tubes.Crew 219.
In the hands of a Captain such as Tanaka; and a fervent crew- they were a formidable foe.

jainso31

[Admiral Von Gerlach]

The IJN officers I have discussed this with thought like many of you the destroyers were among the "bravest" of their ships. It is hard to describe the way that they viewed their fleet, and the value placed on some ships and some types of ships was beyond the utilitarian power or projection of force or even effectiveness in combat, some were literally floating shrines of national Kami. that is hard to convey to a western person. The high command was still split between the big gun navy that was inherited from the Russo-Japanese war and the years that the IJN learned under the RN...and the Air and more mobile side of the service..ie the light units, and submarine service. Though greatly trained and effective the air arm lacked the protection and support that the crews warrented as an irreplaceable resource....the Samurai ethos of attack vs defense prevaded the entire service.

So the fleet of foot destroyers and lighter ships and the focus on speed, and attack with the superb torpedo technology had the hearts of many of the leadership.

I would personally say the Fubukis...tho the I 400s were a marvel and a potential game changer if they had been used properly. Fortunately for the Allies, the Naval service was dominated by one clan since the early modernization of Nippon and the Army by another so their rivalry which ran deep at the highest levels of command caused the failure to back the ambitious and potentially catastrophic attacks planned on both the Panama Canal and the main west coast cities with biological weapons.

There was and is still a deep cultural difference between the western nations and Japan, even tho they modernized with characteristic focus and force, they have their own destiny and have had to deal with major challenges of resource, and balance of industrialization and cultural goals. The United States replaced the other European powers in the 1930s even tho the real politic situation had not caught up, and both the UK and the other colonial powers that had slices of the Pacific region were bankrupt by the second year of the war....Japan viewed the rest of the world as split between east and west and were determined to be leaders in the east. I do not argue that they did not and still do not project their own view, my own family paid a high price in the conflict....and my own interest came from having family in the USN for generations...but I respect them and their creation of the fleet as a remarkable and powerful balanced force was even more remarkable when you consider the small size and and scope of their economy for that era...

their ships of almost all classes are remarkable, and it is indeed hard to select just one or two.... but it is an interesting challenge none the less.

[Don Boyer]

I would tend to agree with you, Chris that the Fubuki class and their descendants were certainly the best of their kind in the Japanese navy based on performance in action, i.e., fighting value for the yen spent on them. The I400 class submarines were basically useless by the time they came into combat service, and I find it doubtful they would have been able to carry out their intended role so late in the war. Code-breaking would most likely have given them away if nothing else.

As to the rivalry of the Satsuma and Choshu clans, as they were constituted in the navy and army, it was ruinous to the entire Japanese war effort.

(By the way, I saw your Santa Fe art. I lived there for over 19 years, and your works really captured the unique light and colors of the area, I really liked them!)

[Hank]

I'm partial to an understanding of the premise rather than the tools here. Admiral Yamamoto stated that his organization would see a period of some success following Operation Z, followed by a period of attrition, and loss.

What made a vessel "best"? How about a quality of service criteria? Survivability? Kills to losses? Connect the dots.... Regards

[Admiral Von Gerlach]

Thank you Don, appreciate those kind words. I did enjoy working in the Southwest, the light was very beautiful. I built a home in Galisteo and had a studio on Canyon Road just up the road from El Farrols.

The I 400s were indeed large beasts and their dive and surface time like many of the IJN subs was ruinous.... and i tend to agree, 50% re the code breaking, however, sometimes they got lucky, depending on the captain, some were heavy on the signal key and some very proud of their independence, and the skippers of those boats were the elite of the elite....so they might, tragically for the US, have gotten luck with at least one or two of the attacks, but we will never know now. We have been researching the IJN sub arm in detail and it has been very interesting, there is quite a bit of historic information knocking around and I chanced to find the USN officer who was CINPAC who also was at the scuttling of those subs after the war they were, like the Yamatos, mega machines over engineered for their purpose but the Japanese designers still tend to do some very bizarre things in terms of scale. Strangely enough one of the major problems of those boats was rats and vermin aboard ship, when two of them were taken over by USN prize crews after they surrendered at sea, they had to fumigate and do a major rat hunt to carry on, I guess the unwelcome visitors came aboard with the rice bags.

Back to the topic, it might actually be more accurate to rate ships by class and type, tho the destroyers did in the end paradoxically deliver the most bang for the yen, but that probably is wrapped up by the conflicting goals and focus conflicts of high command.

[Graham Barnes]

I admire this Junyokan and her splendid sister myself...

[designeraccd]

I rather like the well known shot of Chikuma SANS her stern; quite clear, too.........DFO ;)

A copy of that photo is here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/images/chikuma4_usn_g287537.jpg

[Graham Barnes]

Oh, yes indeed, and these as well are fine images, including a rare shot of CHIKUMA's last moments, immediately prior to her capsizing off Samar.

Re the famous overhead shot at Santa Cruz on 26 October, 1942, (far right) I recently heard from a veteran officer of the IJN junyokan who informed us--via my translator in Japan, that is--that after being transferred to another warship, he visited the cruiser in late 1942 at Kure as she was repairing these wounds...and that her casualties had been quite severe.

[jainso31]

Further to#58 some additional details of the FUBUKI class; for those who may be interested.

jainso31
http://www.coatneyhistory.com/Fubuki.htm

[Graham Barnes]

Yes, the FUBUKI tokugata (Special Class) destroyers were revolutionary, although the link is rife with factual errors as well as misinterpretations.

Fubuki was most certainly not "surprised and knocked aside" by HMAS Perth and USS Houston; on the contrary she shadowed them undetected for time enough to send accurate reports back to the covering forces commander (VADM Hara Kenzaburo in light cruiser Natori)...

I must say that the rest of the thumbnail on the Battle of Sunda Strait is among the very worst I've ever read, and that's saying something, frankly. Virtually every sentence written after that--with the sole exception of the business about her [nine (9) Type 90] torpedoes missing--is partially if not wholly wrong. For this tremendous inaccuracy alone, though, it bears remembering...if only to give a good chuckle...:rolleyes:

"Fubuki's own career was somewhat checquered. Responsible for defending the transports in Sunda Strait at the west end of Java, the night of Feb/Mar42, it was surprised and knocked aside by Allied cruisers USS Houston and HMAS Perth. It then fired torpedoes at them which missed. (If Houston and Perth had laid smoke against the Japanese warships outside the mouths of strait and gone back for the transports, there might have been a massacre of ships and troops that would have crippled further Japanese expansion, and they then might have escaped in the panic and confusion. Instead, they sailed on through and out to be accosted and sunk by heavy cruisers Mikuma and Mogami.)
It should be remembered that Houston's aft turret had been previously destroyed, because her captain had thought radical evasive maneuvering was unnecessary against horizontal bombers and that, after the Battle of the Java Sea, she had only 20 shells per 8" gun left at the start of this battle.
However, sustained fire from her galleries of 5" secondary guns could have been lethal against the heavily and explosively laden transports full if Imperial troops."

This must be some kind of record, in any event, for succint factual inaccuracy.

[Don Boyer]

Thank you Graham, I read it, thought the same thing. Plus it gets totally sidetracked from the destroyer issue entirely. You beat me to a post that would have said about the same. Whoever wrote that is a gasbag needing to go back and read some primary sources and the like.

[jainso31]

Abject apologies for the attachment at #66-I had inserted an attachment that I thought "fitted the bill" pretty well BUT it got corrupted-so I deleted it and went back to website to try again; and as now can see I got the WRONG link I am truly mortified.:o:o:o:o
PS. It is said that the man who never made a mistake-made nothing but I really must do better next time

jainso31

[jainso31]

This for better or worse- was what I intended to post-do sincerely hope that I haven't shot myself in the foot again.:o:o:o:eek:

jainso31
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/fubuki-dd.htm

[designeraccd]

By end of WW2?? However, when they first "came out"; superior to any other DD in the world. Quite a design feat! DFO :D

[Don Boyer]

I think that "superiority" needs to be qualified just a tad. The greatest portion of that superiority rested on carrying the Long Lance and reloads. Other than that, the guns and engines/boilers were not as high a quality as the US was producing and these ships were pretty "bare bones" in the communications department and other support functions, especially damage-control. They were, with the Long Lance at hand, better "fighters" than anything in the world at the time, that I do agree with whole-heartedly!

[designeraccd]

Of course, they did not originally have the "Long Lance". However, given their size, the 6-5" armament-when new-was superior to USN or RN DDs: 4 or 5-5" singles and with RN 4-4.7" singles. Within a few years, as a response, both USN and RN were building DDs to match them in "reply" though.

By early WW2 with Fletchers and J,K,M class's all were equal to IJN DDs of time-except for that nasty suprise called the Long Lance. Then with Allied units advancing in radar, helped change things plus of course the rapid numerical inferiority of IJN building programs. DFO :D

[Don Boyer]

DFO, the Fubuki's were specifically designed to carry the 24" torpedo from the start from what I've found in the ol' references. The six 5" in enclosed mounts was a big upgrade in gun power over those in other navies, but in the first few of the class they were not really AA capable (40 degrees elevation), later units upgraded to guns with 70 degrees elevation. The gun itself wasn't much different than the US Navy's 5"/38 other than being slightly longer. The US gun was faster in train and elevation and loading, for that matter. The Fubuki's were good ships and they inspired the type of upgrades in other destroyers that created the fine ships of WWII and even after.

[Hank]

One item pertinent to the construction of the Japanese vessel post-1938 would be the large-scale use of welded structures. I haven't been able to pin down a source of their instruction regarding the techniques used, nor their initial source of the technology. Any knowledge of where some information might be?

The constant carving away of Japanese Airpower and the resulting effects apon those IJN vessels who might have had benefit or survived lack of coverage might be one item of criteria used in determining a "best" standard.

I'm considering the lack of usage of what airpower was in MacArthur's influence in the Phillipines at the outbreak of hostilities. That MacArthur did not field the Far East Air Force first, due to weather conditions, is another historical point that put the Allies in position as also-rans early in the game. FEAF was under MacArthur's direct command through MG Lewis H. Brereton, the available force of 91 servicable P-40 fighters and 34 B-17 bombers, though vastly outgunned by the 604 airframes opposing it as strength of the 11th Kokukantai, might have played the equalizer if put in offensive motion first. The Japanese had by the end of November, 1941, crossed the line as far as anyone with a valid chain of events could attest to. Orders sent from Oahu while the attack of December 7 was ongoing stated, "Unrestricted warfare to be staged by aircraft and submarine forces." Even at that late time period a chance still existed for Allied aviation to get theirs in first, though this meant forming up and attacking in the rain. Probably next to no training among the crews for that scenario. Regards

[jainso31]

DFO, the Fubuki's were specifically designed to carry the 24" torpedo from the start from what I've found in the ol' references. The six 5" in enclosed mounts was a big upgrade in gun power over those in other navies, but in the first few of the class they were not really AA capable (40 degrees elevation), later units upgraded to guns with 70 degrees elevation. The gun itself wasn't much different than the US Navy's 5"/38 other than being slightly longer. The US gun was faster in train and elevation and loading, for that matter. The Fubuki's were good ships and they inspired the type of upgrades in other destroyers that created the fine ships of WWII and even after.

Don
I would say, that which is in bold, speaks volumes for this class of ship- be it of any country.:cool::cool:

jainso31