Lets play world war II mix and match!

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

The point is that they shouldn't have wasted the man an materiel on prestige platform in the first place. Yamato had such significence that it could not be wasted in combat. As it's keel was laid in 1937, it is very likely that you could have built multiple useful platforms in time to serve during WWII.

yes, of course

But it seemed like a good idea at the time
I mean, in 1937 people still believed that the battleship is king

Also, Japan tried to compensate for having less ships with better ships.

They just never caught on with the convoy raiding

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

yes, of course

But it seemed like a good idea at the time
I mean, in 1937 people still believed that the battleship is king

Also, Japan tried to compensate for having less ships with better ships.

They just never caught on with the convoy raiding

A lack of commerce raiding did not lose the war for Japan. Poor production decisions did. They created and maintained a naval force that was ill-suited for the type of war that was fought. That is the fact at the heart of both tater's argument and my own.

[tater]

To be fair, I don;t think there is any plausible scenario where they could have made the right decisions and changed the outcome...

[Takeda Shingen]

I think you're absolutley right. Japan's entire strategy and composition was based around the quick strike; the one punch knockout. They were counting on a decisive blow forcing the US to sue for peace. Once it became a war of attrition, it was all but over for Japan.

[tater]

I read a stat once that the US built more tonnage from jan 1, 1943, until June '43 than Japan built from 1937 - 1945 combined. And we'd not really even hit our stride yet.

[Takeda Shingen]

The Arsenal of Democracy was indeed a well-deserved title.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

A lack of commerce raiding did not lose the war for Japan. Poor production decisions did. They created and maintained a naval force that was ill-suited for the type of war that was fought. That is the fact at the heart of both tater's argument and my own.

Well they didn't really have a bad fleet, but more bad doctrine
nothing wrong with their battleship orientated fleet, most navies were like that at the time

surprisingly Japan didn't (or was unwilling to) understand the importance of merchants and convoys

they only created a department for escorting merchants in 43, and only 2nd rate crews were for escort duty

before 43 they used fleet destroyers with crew trained for fleet engagements for escorts.

And the US couldn't have lost, with all those carriers and battleships built during the war