Effective use of the Mk27 Cutie

[Hoss1193]

These became available for me about 4 patrols ago, and am yet unable to find a comfortable way to employ them. Seems to me a Catch-22 to use the things. Can only fire them at <100ft depth (i.e., almost always above the thermocline...where I DON'T like to hang out with escorts around). And even then, I need a firing solution...and the one thing I like less than being above the layer is going up to PD.

I can accept having to sneak up to <100 ft to open the tube doors. But having to go up to PD to sneak a look and get a solution just seems suicidal. And moreover...am not 100% sure *why* I have to do that. If I have an aft-tending bearing on a DD, I don't quite understand why I can't just fire the Mk27 from stern tube as I'm diving and hope that it locks onto and homes to the target.

The critical point of engagement to me where Mk27 would be most helpful is during convoy attack as I'm beginning evasion. Just torped a merchant a two, going deep now now now. As I'm diving through 80 ft or so, pop out the Cutie just to give the escort something else to worry about besides finding ME.

I've tried delaying my dive to a) swing periscope around and lock onto pursuing DD, then b) turning stern toward the escort and firing the Cutie when within about 20degrees, c) THEN diving below the layer.

I generally find that this procedure just delays my dive too long. The DD is almost always too close at the point for the Cutie to arm, home, and impact on first pass; now the 12-knot Mk27 is slowly following around the DD while the escort is running around pinging me, dropping DCs, etc. End result: Cutie runs out of juice and sinks. Meanwhile, the time I gave up to shoot the Cutie is time that I gave the DD to get a ping on me, and now it's a lot tougher to shake him.

A secondary problem I've found with the Cutie is that once it begins homing...it can just as easily home on ME as it can the DD. More than once, I've been trying to avoid DC drops with a few seconds of flank bell, but had to come to all-stop to keep my Cutie from running right into my screws.

I did have one good success with them, but was in the middle of a rather chancy convoy scrape that I'd rather not repeat as a matter of my own standing tactical practice.

Bottom line...when I have the opportunity to use them, they're not really needed...and when they're really needed, not much opportunity to use them.

I'm just about ready to abandon the Mk27 (not to mention keep the 500 renown apiece in the bank) and go back to filling those two tubes with Mk23's (I've been deploying with Mk27's in Tubes 7 and 8 in my Balao).

What am I missing in how to use these things?

[SteamWake]

Just a few tips on the cutie... I havent had much sucess with them to be honest.

First they are very slow 10 knots I believe DD's can easly out run them. If your going to use one on a DD make sure it is un aware.

Second you do not have to be at periscope depth nor have a target 'locked' to use them. They can be launched at 90 feet deep and pointed in the general direction of the sound source. Out the rear tubes is best as it sends them away from you.

Third speaking of sound sources try not to be one. Once launched or just before cut your sound profile by slowing to 2 or 3 knots, and going deep.

The best use I have found for them so far is to launch them into the middle of a convoy that has broken up and sailing helter skelter. Hopefully it will find something to lock on to.

Im sure some others will have more technical tips on their use. Ive launched about a half dozen of these things and only had like 2 impacts.

[aanker]

Rockin Robbins made a good post a while back similar to this:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=968526&postcount=9

I don't think that is the original post I read but basically it is the same technique. Anywho, I thought I'd give his "Cutie on a leash" method a try and loaded some aft on my next few patrols. Eventually I found them taking up space better used (on my boat) for other torpedoes.

IMO the Cutie is great for special circumstances but it is a rare occasion that a Cutie does me any good.

The Cutie manual says to fire them at 199' however the un-modded game will only allow them to be fired at under 99'. This can be edited with a text editor like Notepad in:
(example: Data\Submarine\NSS_Balao\NSS_Balao.cfg) under the [Properties] section to:

TorpLaunchMaxDepth=60;meters .....which is close enough.

Happy Hunting!

Art

[Daniel Prates]

I found this old thread which seems to be useful. Apparently, nobody likes those cuties:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom//archive/index.php/t-134664.html

[Stealhead]

You dont really need any solution at all to use a cutie.I only carry them in the rear torpedo room the cutie is only really useful as an escort killing weapon it simply lacks the firepower to kill anything else.You can of course carry one fore if you wanted.

What I do is save them for when I get an aggressive escort I wait for him to start coming at me full speed and I let the cutie fly right at him if he is on my 180 I just simply fire the cutie though you can set up a solution on one if he is not right on your 180.Also you dont have to be deep to fire one but it is wiser.I always stop my engines and start diving when I fire one it is very wise not have your screws moving at all after you launch a cutie.Most times the cutie will head straight for my pursuer and because he is going full speed and making so much noise he has less a chance to be able to evade.

Other times I have used the leash thing.The trick with cutie is to only use them against a close range attacker who running at you at high speed that way you get the best use of the cutie which is very slow and wont work very well in other situations.

Mk.27s are very much a scalpel they are a useful weapon only for certain situations.I have seen on one occasion where my cutie was trying its best to keep up with this DD that was making DC runs but the DD kept speeding up past the 12knts of the cutie finally the explosions of the DCs attracted the cutie and when they faded it picked up another DD and hit it so in effect the DDs sister ship sank her.

[Daniel Prates]

Stealhead, I take it that you use the cutie sometimes. Tell me something:

1 - What's the cutie actual speed (presuming we are all using TMO)? i read contradictory things.

2 - It has a minimum arming distance?

3 - It really homes onto pursuing ships, or I must basically leave it in the path of the pursuer?

[Stealhead]

The speed is 12 kts. IIRC it has the normal arming range 400/500yds IIRC so dont let them get too close.It hears the prop noise in the water and "follows" that but it is not smart so it will track the loudest noise it hears if a full speed DD is 2000yds behind it wont notice it even if there is nothing else around so you want to fire the cutie so that its nose is pointed towards what you want it to target this why I use them against head on (towards me) attackers basically if all goes well they will follow a course right into each other.I my self always set them to 5 feet contact they 95% of the will kill any DD in one hit or at least he wont be attacking you any more also the others will be confused by this attack they are expecting a normal torpedo run and will counter this type of attack allowing you to escape.

[andy_311]

I use MK 27s all the time in late war and all my tubes are loaded with them,however i have altered the speed of my mk27s to about 30knots and a range of about 5000.you can alter the depth as mentioned before to what you want your torpedoes fo fire at.

I know launching these little fish at pd can be lethal not just to the enemy but to yourself as a found out a few times.

[Stealhead]

Yeah but you are modding them the OP is talking about using them more realistically you must also have modded your renown level to afford that.

[andy_311]

Yes I did :yep:, I also got myself a torp editor a while back from this site i think so if am out on patrol and do a rearm they cost me nowt.

[Armistead]

Actually the best way to aim a cutie is shooting 90 degrees or behind the enemy. I find shooting head on they usually can't turn in time to hit a escort.

In TMO they're basically a waste of time, seldom even damage a escort to any degree. I'll carry a few late war for use in Formosa.

If they go off course and near you, you can speed up and get them to home in on you and lead them to a ship, once pointed in the right direction, just cut engines and dive.

[Thrair]

I've said pretty much the same thing before, but I'll say it again:

I've found cuties are only really useful for attempting to blow the props off ships in a convoy or task force so you can leave them dead in the water to finish off when the escorts leave (especially in shallow water). In that respect, they're actually fairly effective.
They also have limited use for torpedo attacks in stormy weather with thick fog. But, once again, you are relying on taking out the props, as they will not be enough to outright sink a ship.



However, anti-escort weapons they are not. Especially in TMO, as Armistead says. They rarely do enough damage to a DD to sink or even drive them off (*EDIT* Oh yah, and that's assuming they even hit. They're rather slow). You're much better off using regular torpedos on escorts.

A tactic I'm fond of for dealing with escorts is to let them steam directly towards me, then fire two mark 14s. I intentionally miss with the first torpedo by sending it on a course *slightly* to one side of the escort, then have the followup torpedo set to the other side to catch the escort while it swerves to avoid the first.

[Stealhead]

Well this just shows you that everyone plays a little different because I find the cuties pretty useful only for killing DDs and useless for blowing props off why do that when you can "blow the hull off" with a regular torpedo?

For me if you use them in the correct situation they often kill a DD in one hit(TMO 2.0 have not used a cutie in 2.1 but I doubt the damage is different) and if I set them up right I get a kill 75% of the time.I do a agree that the DDT shot with regular fish is very effective though I will send a three spread to cover any possible jink.

The bottom line is the the cutie in real life was designed with killing a charging escort in mind and real life subs did successfully use them in this way and you can in game as well some boats also sank merchants with them the Barb in one hit but in a manner that SH4 does not simulate.Which simply shows that there is more than one way to successfully employ a weapons system in WWII as in the game just as different skippers in real life used tactics that worked for them that others did not employ.It does not mean that anyone is wrong it just means that there is more than one way and one could try them all and use the one they have success or create their own tactics.

[Thrair]

I apologize if I came across as confrontational. I didn't intend to imply my opinion on cuties was the "correct" viewpoint, although re-reading my post, I can see how it might appear that way.

As to blowing the hull off with a regular torpedo, I fully agree. What I was getting at was in the odd situations where shallow water/escort/weather/finagle's law prevents getting a clean shot with regular torpedoes. This creates a (highly) situational niche use of attempting the prop-explodification.

[Armistead]

I've said pretty much the same thing before, but I'll say it again:

I've found cuties are only really useful for attempting to blow the props off ships in a convoy or task force so you can leave them dead in the water to finish off when the escorts leave (especially in shallow water). In that respect, they're actually fairly effective.
They also have limited use for torpedo attacks in stormy weather with thick fog. But, once again, you are relying on taking out the props, as they will not be enough to outright sink a ship.



However, anti-escort weapons they are not. Especially in TMO, as Armistead says. They rarely do enough damage to a DD to sink or even drive them off (*EDIT* Oh yah, and that's assuming they even hit. They're rather slow). You're much better off using regular torpedos on escorts.

A tactic I'm fond of for dealing with escorts is to let them steam directly towards me, then fire two mark 14s. I intentionally miss with the first torpedo by sending it on a course *slightly* to one side of the escort, then have the followup torpedo set to the other side to catch the escort while it swerves to avoid the first.

Totally agree, cuties were designed to take out props, the warhead was too small to do any other major damage. A few attacks were successful against small patrol crafts, totally worthless agains DDs.

I've tried several DTT shots from the stern on charging escorts with TMO 2 and 2.1 and got bow hits, never bothered DD's, but sank a few small escorts. The bigger issue is often the cutie would head directly at the bow but go right by and try to turn to follow the props, but couldn't make a radical enough turn and just went on away.

I long decided they're worthless except when I want to attack those late war large convoys in formosa, but I'll shoot them at escorts from about 90 degrees before I'm detected, that way they're going slow enough that cuties can catch them. Once detected I find them totally worthless,escorts go too fast.

I'll take M14's everytime. Nothing sucks worse when you have a nice capital ship damaged and going slow and all you have left is cuties that have no effect on large warships in TMO.

[Anthony W.]

I load 2 in the rears just in case of a DC run. IF they even guide in the first place, the damage just pisses them off enough to get them to break.

Like shooting a deer with a BB. All you're gonna manage to do is piss off the deer.

But I think I'll try some of the tactics - I learned a lot reading this

Great post - thanks

[Daniel Prates]

I did some save-game experiences and tried out the cutie in several ways. They are a disapointment most of the time (in TMO at least). Basically, in 9 out or 10 situations it will lock on a DD, but not be in such an angle that it can hit it in an interception course - causing this ridiculous chase of a 12kts mine against a 30kts ship.

Although designed for anti-escort reasons, isnt' actually it more useful agains convoy ships? Imagine such a situation where you emerge too close or even inside a convoy - in such a position where you cannot aim and fire torpedos with the calm or room that you would want. Isn't this the perfect time to crudely aim some cuties and leave them to chase their targets as thei please?

As long as you draw the escorts elsewhere, they will follow the merchants (which speed is more suitable to the cutie), possibly cripling them.

[Anthony W.]

I did some save-game experiences and tried out the cutie in several ways. They are a disapointment most of the time (in TMO at least). Basically, in 9 out or 10 situations it will lock on a DD, but not be in such an angle that it can hit it in an interception course - causing this ridiculous chase of a 12kts mine against a 30kts ship.

Although designed for anti-escort reasons, isnt' actually it more useful agains convoy ships? Imagine such a situation where you emerge too close or even inside a convoy - in such a position where you cannot aim and fire torpedos with the calm or room that you would want. Isn't this the perfect time to crudely aim some cuties and leave them to chase their targets as thei please?

As long as you draw the escorts elsewhere, they will follow the merchants (which speed is more suitable to the cutie), possibly cripling them.

Those convoy ships are larger and take a lot more flooding to sink.

If you flood one average compartment in a DD, she'll be put out of action. 2 compartments in the same section of the ship, and its pretty much over.

The larger warheads of other torpedoes are better for sinking larger ships because the bigger explosion sets off explosions and starts fires. I bet that flooding alone from a torpedo hit didn't sink many ships - rather it was the resulting fire or explosion that took most of them down.

[Daniel Prates]

I bet that flooding alone from a torpedo hit didn't sink many ships - rather it was the resulting fire or explosion that took most of them down.

Indeed none of my cutie hits sunk a ship. They either rended the DD almost motionless, or semi-sunk but operational (I tried to emerge about 3500 meters away and try to sink it with the deckgun. Huge mistake).

[Anthony W.]

Indeed none of my cutie hits sunk a ship. They either rended the DD almost motionless, or semi-sunk but operational (I tried to emerge about 3500 meters away and try to sink it with the deckgun. Huge mistake).

I do so hate when a DD has its rear end raised in the air looking like its bobbing for apples, and its still firing.

[Stealhead]

The larger warheads of other torpedoes are better for sinking larger ships because the bigger explosion sets off explosions and starts fires. I bet that flooding alone from a torpedo hit didn't sink many ships - rather it was the resulting fire or explosion that took most of them down.[/QUOTE]

The best way to sink a ship is to over whelm its crews abilities to control the damage suffered so you are right on this.That is why the general rule was to fire a three or four torpedo spread(more for a very large ship or capital ship) at various sections of ship the more spread out the damage the better the odds that the crew will be unable to maintain effective damage control and down she goes.Even a smaller tonnage ship has(talking real life WWII here) a good chance to survive a single torpedo hit so long as it did not break the ships back though many did go down due to over whelming flooding for sure maybe more than did by explosions alone a ship completely going up in huge explosion was actually pretty rare and was the talk of the town when a sub witnessed/felt it.In fact in WWII the hardest merchant vessel type to sink was any larger sized tanker due to the added bouncy of it load sometimes they took several hits to go down and often the ships that did explode like the Fourth were cargo vessels loaded down with munitions.

At Truk Lagoon in 1944 a Navy aircraft attacked a merchant loaded down with ammo and the resulting explosion was so powerful that it engulfed the attacking plane which was a few thousand feet away and nearly his wing men gives you an idea how hazardous a true surface attack could be.

When they did detailed studies after the war using Japanese data the US Navy found that many ships that appeared to have suffered serious damage and where listed as probables turned out to have made it back to port but in war that is still a loss some what because the ship will be out of service for a time being repaired.I am sure a few Japanese merchants that got hit by duds(in real life these would have penetrated the hull sometimes) that where patched up only to be sunk later by one that did work and others that survived solid torpedo hits only to go down a few months or years later.

The same can be said for the US Navy we had outstanding damage control crews on our ships and that saved us on more than one occasion like at Midway.

By the way Anthony if you are lookng for the most accurate ship damage/sinking simulation then you may want to give Real Fleet Boat a spin it is different in several respects from TMO but is just as good a super mod in its own way.

[Daniel Prates]

The best way to sink a ship is to over whelm its crews abilities to control the damage suffered so you are right on this(.....) the more spread out the damage the better the odds that the crew will be unable to maintain effective damage control and down she goes.

Since we're already on the damage subject: and what about gunfire? According to the above quoted point of view (which I agree), where then should gunfire be centered in?

From afar (say 3000 meters), it's hard to be picky, but as close as 1000 meters (in one of those rare ocasions where the merchant isn't armed) you can actually choose a point in the ship where to fire upon. What are the most tender points?

[Anthony W.]

Since we're already on the damage subject: and what about gunfire? According to the above quoted point of view (which I agree), where then should gunfire be centered in?

From afar (say 3000 meters), it's hard to be picky, but as close as 1000 meters (in one of those rare ocasions where the merchant isn't armed) you can actually choose a point in the ship where to fire upon. What are the most tender points?

I have better luck shooting the command deck and visible cargo

Also - remember how an Exorcet hit a British cargo ship in the Falklands, but failed to go off, however it sank later due to fire

[Stealhead]

The gun fire depends on what version you are playing in stock and TMO it wont matter so much thanks to type of damage model so shot until it sinks in Real Fleet Boat you/d want to target areas that where already flooding or again shot until it sinks I aim for the water line myself.

Though I only use the deck gun on lone ships that need a coup de grace to finish them off so I don't usually fire but a maybe 10 shells at the most talking larger torpedo worthy ships here that have already suffered hits from fish.

Some of you guys are confusing what can happen in real life with what can happen in the game they are not the same.Unless you have a mod that simulates fire damage fires are nothing but eye candy in game just like the holes form torpedo and shell hits and if the something blows up or not it is all eye candy.

[Daniel Prates]

Some of you guys are confusing what can happen in real life with what can happen in the game they are not the same.Unless you have a mod that simulates fire damage fires are nothing but eye candy in game just like the holes form torpedo and shell hits and if the something blows up or not it is all eye candy.

So real fleet boat is the one, regarding actual damages?

[Anthony W.]

Unless you have a mod that simulates fire damage...

Ship Fire Damage Mod (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=180920&highlight=ship+fire+cause+damage) :D

[Stealhead]

That mod only does ship fires the mod that Real Fleet Boat uses simulates the entire ships systems and compartments and is there fore the most accurate.

Based on reading the thread for the fire mod some say it seems to little others say it does alot that seems very inconsistent to which is why I passed on it a few weeks back.

So to Dan yes RFB is the best for damages(without adding anything to it seeing as it part of the RFB files)... the fire mod is questionable realism wise just read the thread on it people are getting different results I am not saying that it is bad just that it may not be very accurate or consistent it is also a port of an SH5 mod so keep that in mind.There are different things effecting damage and explosions so folks with tons of mods who knows what will happen this is why I only use a handful of mods keep it simple and consistent.With lots of mods you cant know for sure in many cases if they will have strange effect when combined with another mod.

[Daniel Prates]

the fire mod is questionable realism wise just read the thread on it people are getting different results I am not saying that it is bad just that it may not be very accurate or consistent it is also a port of an SH5 mod so keep that in mind.There are different things effecting damage and explosions so folks with tons of mods who knows what will happen this is why I only use a handful of mods keep it simple and consistent.With lots of mods you cant know for sure in many cases if they will have strange effect when combined with another mod.

Thanks man, i'll be sure to check it out. From what i've been reading, this mod does not conflict with the most popular supermods.

An regarding the 'different reasults' which motivated my quote above, it should be pointed out that, at the end of the day, what would happen in real life is that there were no rule of thumb in most cases... some ships would take an unbeleivable ammount of hits and not sink, whereas others would blow apart with an aparently harmless hit... so maybe the mod comes closer to real life that it would appear.

[Stealhead]

Thats fine you can use any mod you want really I was just saying that not all of them are realistic that mod was made for those who really wanted to fire do damage that's all I can use my imagination and get the same result like how some guys will dive during a storm in game to let their crew rest that is not in the game they are just role playing so to speak.

[Daniel Prates]

:salute:

[Anthony W.]

An regarding the 'different reasults' which motivated my quote above, it should be pointed out that, at the end of the day, what would happen in real life is that there were no rule of thumb in most cases...

USS Yorktown - long live the ship that sank once for the Americans, and twice for the Japanese :salute:

Does anybody know about when they found out about having NOT sank two carriers, only one?

[magic452]

I would guess about the time planes from the second one sank their last carrier. :know:

Magic

[Torplexed]

USS Yorktown - long live the ship that sank once for the Americans, and twice for the Japanese :salute:

Does anybody know about when they found out about having NOT sank two carriers, only one?

Frankly, they may have never figured it out. If they did, it probably wasn't ever officially admitted. Japanese intelligence and recon became so muddled during the Battle of Midway that as night fell with the last Japanese carrier out of action, Nagumo was convinced he was still facing four intact US carriers. Two of the Yorktown class, and two of an unidentified class. It was at that point that Yamamoto with his surface forces too far from the scene of the battle and no fleet carriers left, decided to throw in the towel and cancel the invasion of Midway.

Afterwards, Japan claimed officially to it's people, that they won a victory sinking two US carriers, while losing only one. Incredibly, Tojo wasn't told of the defeat until a month after the battle. Even in the dark days of 1944, when anyone could see the war was lost, Japan's military never had the moral fortitude to revise it's inflated claims of enemy ships sunk, or to admit that it had lost a single battle to date.

[Stealhead]

The Japanese where not the only ones that mistook sinkings.We at first in the Coral Sea thought that we had sunk a full size carrier which was not the case.This is the nature of the fog of war no nation during war is willing to let its capacity be known so you have to rely on what you intel you have and what see or think you see sometimes pilots can get over excited in the heat of battle and think they attacked something other than what they in fact did or over estimate the damage they did.Hell a Japanese pilot got confused during the Coral Sea battle and attempted to land on the Yorktown!! the Yorktown's crew also thought it was a friendly plane that was about to land until it very close I assume that pilot got rather surprised when he saw AA fire come up at him.

We got very lucky at Midway to be honest the Japanese had damaged the Yorktown pretty well at Coral Sea and rightly expected it to be out of action for some time they underestimated our need for aircraft carriers.It turns out that we did major repairs on her in a short time(24 hours I think) not enough to be like new but enough to operate at the battle of Midway.Many people in hindsight forget that a wars out come is unknown until it actually happens.WE defeated the Japanese Navy soundly in WWII but had done very little to the majority of its ground forces and the Japanese showed at Iwo Jima and Okinawa that each battle was going to be more and more costly for the US so it is good that the war ended without having to invade the main Japanese islands the outcome may have been different.(it might not have been an unconditional surrender)

The Battle of Leyte Gulf is another battle that we got lucky with as well maybe even more so than at Midway.

Few people know that the US government did not make public the full extent of the damage incurred during Pearl Harbor because they where concerned that the truth would cause panic.During WWII few nations where fully truthful about certain events because of the need to maintain public support.This is why sinking reports of US subs where not publicly known for several months mainly because enemy agents could have fond this data useful if it was known to be very fresh which is another reason for media control.

[Torplexed]

Indeed. While Spruance and his staff were convinced the day after the battle that the Japanese carriers Akagi, Kaga, and Soryu had been dispatched, they thought perhaps the carrier Hiryu only crippled. And no one could discount the possibility of a fifth carrier out there. Like the Yorktown, the Japanese carrier Zuikakau could have been present at the battle. She was unscathed except for her heavy loss in pilots at the Coral Sea. Had she combined her decimated air group with that of the damaged Shokakau she would have only been a few planes short of her nominal establishment. But the Japanese were evidently convinced enough of another impending victory that working Zuikaku into the mix wasn't deemed worth the effort.

[Torplexed]

The Battle of Leyte Gulf is another battle that we got lucky with as well maybe even more so than at Midway.



I don't think Japan ever had a prayer at Leyte Gulf. Despite Admiral Halseys' blunders and arrogance, had Admiral Kurita broken through to MacArthur's anchorage, there were sufficient supplies and munitions unloaded ashore already to ensure that the loss of shipping need not threaten Sixth Army. Even if the Japanese had destroyed Taffy 3, or all three Taffys, the US would have suffered embarrassment rather than a disaster, as we had almost a hundred carriers in commission at that point in the war. The shocking double loss of the Japanese heavy cruisers Atago and Maya to submarine torpedoes before action was even joined showed a tactical carelessness amounting to recklessness as no ASW precautions were taken even though the Japanese knew via intercepted transmissions that US subs were in the area. The Japanese behavior throughout the battle suggest a resignation to death and a going through of the motions, more than a will to fight.

[WernherVonTrapp]

I wouldn't exactly say that we did very little to the majority of it's ground forces. The Japanese culture was imbued with the philosophy of death before surrender. This made them fierce in battle and yes, little was (or could be) accomplished in changing that aspect among their ranks. Though fierce as the later battles proved, they also proved that despite altering their tactics away from the early Banzai charges, little could be done to change the casualty ratio between them and their U.S. counterparts. Even in the battle of Iwo Jima, a unique landscape with every possible advantage to the defenders and where U.S. casualties outnumbered the Japanese (casualty lists included number of wounded), the Japanese deaths were three times higher than the U.S..

Even Peleliu, American deaths were about 1,200 compared to about 10,000 for the Japanese. By the time Okinawa was over, these contrasts in numbers killed would grow even larger. About 12,500 (U.S.) to about 95,000 Japanese. In my opinion, we rendered their ground forces ineffective. This, by no means, trivializes American casualties or the sacrifices our armed services made. If the Kamikaze was self-evident of anything, it was proof of the desperate measures needed to offset the ineffectiveness of their naval and ground forces.

We destroyed their ability for troop deployments and resupply. During some of the battles, the Japanese reverted back to the useless Banzai charges with nothing more than spears or bayonets affixed to poles. These are not the actions of an effective fighting force. It was their mere Bushido Code that not only kept them fighting, despite the futility, but also caused the catastrophic differences in the actual number of those killed. Wounded would consequently not be a standard of their casualty lists.
Yes they had the men, but I don't believe they had the means. Our tradition of holding life sacred, which I believe is superlative, causes us to count the casualties (rightfully so), that much more valuable.
:salute:

[Stealhead]

Honestly I am basing my opinion more books written men on the ground not just general history books alone(though you can find many with differing views on this) a great book is With the Old Breed by Eugene Sledge a US Marine who fought with the Marines this is the view of a man in combat nothing more nothing less.Also do not forget that even Eisenhower was concerned about the war going on much longer and having to invade Japan he and others where concerned about war weary troops would refuse to fight that someone as wise as Eisenhower had this concern should not be taken lightly.At Okinawa 14,000 troops listed as "combat stress reactions" the highest rate for this in the entire war.

Also if you look at total casualties we lost 9804 which is pretty close to the Japanese estimated losses.(wounded men in most cases are no longer combatants)
add to Okinawa 38916 wounded and you have lost some for good others for less time 131571 American fighters.By listing only deaths you are ignoring much of the picture because you
ignore other losses that have an effect on a military force.Now clearly this trend would have been the same(or higher) upon invading main Japanese islands and likely would have been worse and god only knows how many indoctrinated Japanese would have been killed or killed them selves.Some US units on Iwo,Peielu,and Okinawa suffered 60% casualties that is a very high loss rate for an enemy that supposedly lacks the means and most cases was out numbered by the US and they had the intent to die so of course more of the Japanese died but that did much damage on the way down.Also they never count the troops that died of their wounds months or a few years later.I am not sure where your idea that they where inflicting less total casualties against us when in fact in each battle they where inflicting more is coming from.

Hitler chose to commit to the Battle of the Bulge because he felt that a major blow when they appeared beaten would have a negative effect on public opinion about the war in the Allied nations allowing him to sue for peace and this may have been possible we will never know because he failed to reach Antwerp.

The fact remains that there was still a large number of Japanese troops able to fight and taking into consideration the level of indoctrination they where still a very dangerous enemy any force willing to fight at the fanatical level is very dangerous.The loss rates suffered at Iwo Jima and Okinawa where not received well by public opinion one should not under estimate the effect of public opinion during war in a democratic nation like the US.

This is my opinion based years of studying the subject of the Pacific War and I wont change this view if your is different there is not much point on us tit for tatting each other seeing as our views are not the same.:salute:

[Anthony W.]

one should not under estimate the effect of public opinion during war in a democratic nation like the US.

The US - during WWII - a democracy? Hardly. Roosevelt was running this country like some sort of moderate dictatorship.

[Stealhead]

Well I could say what I feel about that post but I wont.Though I will say that in any nation no matter the government public opinion has an effect this is why the Nazis had Herr Goebbels.

To be honest we are going way out of topic the last few posts here so If you want discus this a thread in general topics is much more appropriate but wont work out well such a topic relating to governments/actions in WWII will go down hill before you can say "jumping Jehovah" because there are so many folks with differing views about the whole thing and often feel very strongly what ever they think one reason I try to avoid such topics except among friends who have the same general view that I have.
It is much easier to discuss WWII with those who are like minded other wise you go from talking about WWII to acting out WWII in a thread and then it gets nasty and somebody gets put in the brig or keelhauled trust me it has happened before on subsim.And believe it or not once in a British enlisted club at an airbase in Germany I saw a brawl over such a topic it was Americans and Brits vs. other Americans and Brits disagreeing about WWII one of the enlisted club employees was German though she did not get involved well I think she called the MPs :rock:


I know I am saying this after posting my opinion but this can be hard to resist on something that I feel so strongly about I have had an interest in all things WWII since I was 8 years old.:salute:

[WernherVonTrapp]

I think my previous post was misinterpreted and/or misunderstood. I've read and can suggest more books than I care to remember but that is not the point. I was merely trying to make a point about, what I perceived as, a gross understatement concerning our armed forces actual effect on the Japanese ground forces during WWII.
I only digressed to the reference of casualties because I anticipated it as a potential point of distraction in a future reply. Incidentally, a Casualty is that which causes a soldier to become "combat ineffective". It doesn't necessarily mean that the soldier cannot return to fight another day, obviously depending on the type of illness or injury. A casualty can last merely the duration of a battle/campaign or it can last the entire war. Therefore, wounded men are not necessarily "in most cases no longer combatants".

Some may takes days, others weeks and other still, months to recover, but for the immediate necessity, they are considered casualties because they can no longer fight effectively in the battle at hand. As far as ignoring other losses, I'm not sure what you mean by that; Trench Foot, Dysentery, Malaria perhaps? The same things that effect the enemy troops fighting in the same area?

Anyway, back to my original subject which opened and closed my previous post. One of the best indicators that an engaged enemy is combat effective, is that his army/troops go on the offense and advance. One of the first indicators that his army is becoming less combat effective is that he is forced to withdraw or go into a defensive mode. I'm not talking a tactical defense, which can sometimes be implemented to sustain an advance, I'm talking strategically, on a grander scale involving all of the enemy's resources, including his ground forces.
I think it was Bull Halsey who quoted, "Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure -- after Guadalcanal he retreated at ours."

Retreating is an act by an enemy who has lost, or is losing, his combat effectiveness. This should be self-evident, unless of course, it is used as a ploy or in a tactical manner to maintain a position pending reinforcements. This however, was not the case concerning the Japanese Army.
I didn't tender my perspective in order to change yours. I don't need to list my own study references in order to try and sway your opinion. I was simply expressing some facts that I believe are self-evident. Some things just don't need any further explanation. Like, if a car veers off the road and strikes a tree, the tree cannot be blamed for the driver failing to maintain control of his vehicle.
I'm not upset in the least bit and I apologize if I upset you with my different perspective. I was only addressing the issue of "doing little to affect their ground forces".http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused005.gif

[Daniel Prates]

Hitler chose to commit to the Battle of the Bulge because he felt that a major blow when they appeared beaten would have a negative effect on public opinion about the war in the Allied nations allowing him to sue for peace and this may have been possible we will never know because he failed to reach Antwerp.

It is hard to say that he was doing rational choices by this period.

[Anthony W.]

It is hard to say that he was doing rational choices by this period.

Hitler's generals wanted peace. He was still insane enough to think he had a chance.

[Torplexed]

I wouldn't exactly say that we did very little to the majority of it's ground forces. The Japanese culture was imbued with the philosophy of death before surrender. This made them fierce in battle and yes, little was (or could be) accomplished in changing that aspect among their ranks. Though fierce as the later battles proved, they also proved that despite altering their tactics away from the early Banzai charges, little could be done to change the casualty ratio between them and their U.S. counterparts.

I think my favorite quote regarding Japanese soldiers was made by a British officer in Burma who called them "first-class soldiers in a third class army." They showed an incredible capacity for enduring hunger, privation, brutality by their higher-ups and sustaining staggering losses among their ranks. It became quite normal for them to fight in a condition of semi-starvation and non-existent medical services. But were often indifferently equipped with virtually obsolescent weapons, and often poorly led by militant junior officers of a violently aggressive stripe who loathed ever being on the defensive for long.

[Thrair]

Once upon a time, this was a thread about a torpedo.

[Daniel Prates]

Once upon a time, this was a thread about a torpedo.

:haha:

[WernherVonTrapp]

:haha:Yes it was.:03: But I assure you now that, Stealhead and I (and our cohorts), have since relinquished our weapons and returned the helm to the skipper, with our apologies.:salute: