Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: War Dept. Basic Field Manual ID of IJN Vessels, 12/29/41 |
|
|
Perhaps they simply assumed that the IJN would continue to produce pairs of half-sisters as they had done in case of Hiryu/Soryu (and also with Akagi/Kaga, but there the differences are more substantial, because of the loss of one hull, which was replaced by a battleship hull).
Perhaps they simply assumed that the IJN would continue to produce pairs of half-sisters as they had done in case of Hiryu/Soryu (and also with Akagi/Kaga, but there the differences are more substantial, because of the loss of one hull, which was replaced by a battleship hull).
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 12, 2018 1:37 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: War Dept. Basic Field Manual ID of IJN Vessels, 12/29/41 |
|
|
MatthewB wrote: I do have a digital copy of Janes from 1933 to 1945.
But I cannot find anything in it that suggests the Shōkaku is a completely separate class from the Zuikaku. But then I have only looked at the 1941 edition, and I might need to look earlier, since the US Naval Ship ID booklet was likely assembled from a 1940 or earlier edition of Jane’s Fighting Ships.
MB Could the field manual have confused Zuikaku as the lead ship of the Hiryu class (which they incorrectly named Zuikaku class) rather than a member of the Shokaku class?
[quote="MatthewB"]I do have a digital copy of [i]Janes[/i] from 1933 to 1945.
But I cannot find anything in it that suggests the Shōkaku is a completely separate class from the Zuikaku. But then I have only looked at the 1941 edition, and I might need to look earlier, since the US Naval Ship ID booklet was likely assembled from a 1940 or earlier edition of [i]Jane’s Fighting Ships[/i].
MB[/quote]
Could the field manual have confused Zuikaku as the lead ship of the Hiryu class (which they incorrectly named Zuikaku class) rather than a member of the Shokaku class?
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 2:48 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: War Dept. Basic Field Manual ID of IJN Vessels, 12/29/41 |
|
|
I do have a digital copy of Janes from 1933 to 1945.
But I cannot find anything in it that suggests the Shōkaku is a completely separate class from the Zuikaku. But then I have only looked at the 1941 edition, and I might need to look earlier, since the US Naval Ship ID booklet was likely assembled from a 1940 or earlier edition of Jane’s Fighting Ships.
MB
I do have a digital copy of [i]Janes[/i] from 1933 to 1945.
But I cannot find anything in it that suggests the Shōkaku is a completely separate class from the Zuikaku. But then I have only looked at the 1941 edition, and I might need to look earlier, since the US Naval Ship ID booklet was likely assembled from a 1940 or earlier edition of [i]Jane’s Fighting Ships[/i].
MB
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 8:44 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: War Dept. Basic Field Manual ID of IJN Vessels, 12/29/41 |
|
|
Matthew, Do you have access to a 1941 JANE"S ALL THE WORLDS FIGHTING SHIPS? They have pretty much this same info in there. Battleships listed as New Construction with nine 16-in guns; NISSIN TAKAMATU KII OWARI TOSA But, Jane's doesn't mention any Aircraft Carriers under construction. Allied INTEL wasn't very good on the IJN as to ships under construction prior to the war. Human agents were few and access to IJN Yards was restricted. The USN and RN took photos of IJN ships in fighting with China in the 1930s, gaining a lot of insight on many ships that way. The code breaking would likely not have revealed names during the war, much less actual ship parameters like armament. USN and RN construction was public record, most details of the ships were not released, but names were. In many cases anyone could get good views near ship yards. Chances are, whoever wrote this Field Manual used Jane's as a reference source. Although the Allies likely had a better insight to IJN carriers than Jane's did in 1941. But not their actual names.
Matthew,
Do you have access to a 1941 JANE"S ALL THE WORLDS FIGHTING SHIPS? They have pretty much this same info in there.
Battleships listed as New Construction with nine 16-in guns;
NISSIN TAKAMATU KII OWARI TOSA
But, Jane's doesn't mention any Aircraft Carriers under construction.
Allied INTEL wasn't very good on the IJN as to ships under construction prior to the war. Human agents were few and access to IJN Yards was restricted. The USN and RN took photos of IJN ships in fighting with China in the 1930s, gaining a lot of insight on many ships that way. The code breaking would likely not have revealed names during the war, much less actual ship parameters like armament. USN and RN construction was public record, most details of the ships were not released, but names were. In many cases anyone could get good views near ship yards.
Chances are, whoever wrote this Field Manual used Jane's as a reference source. :smallsmile: Although the Allies likely had a better insight to IJN carriers than Jane's did in 1941. But not their actual names.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2018 11:39 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: War Dept. Basic Field Manual ID of IJN Vessels, 12/29/41 |
|
|
Does anyone have any speculation about the "Zuikaku-class ship named the Takasago?
Or why they would list Shōkaku as a separate class?
MB
Does anyone have any speculation about the "[i]Zuikaku-class[/i] ship named the [i]Takasago[/i]?
Or why they would list [i]Shōkaku[/i] as a separate class?
MB
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 7:36 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: War Dept. Basic Field Manual ID of IJN Vessels, 12/29/41 |
|
|
I can't help with the specifics but it is interesting to note that the Japanese often refer to "Enterprise type" or "Saratoga type" rather than Yorktown and Lexington. My guess is that you are right about the battleships. They were highly secret projects so the info would be sketchy.
I can't help with the specifics but it is interesting to note that the Japanese often refer to "Enterprise type" or "Saratoga type" rather than Yorktown and Lexington. My guess is that you are right about the battleships. They were highly secret projects so the info would be sketchy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2018 3:22 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: War Dept. Basic Field Manual ID of IJN Vessels, 12/29/41 |
|
|
It was the best that the US naval attache (the overt spy) could do. Don't think the US had any covert spies in residence in Japan before the war.
It was the best that the US naval attache (the overt spy) could do. Don't think the US had any covert spies in residence in Japan before the war.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2018 12:47 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
Re: War Dept. Basic Field Manual ID of IJN Vessels, 12/29/41 |
|
|
Interesting example of spying - likely some truth in the information (number of battleships), but all the details wrong. At least slightly better than what we seen in the last decades.
Interesting example of spying - likely some truth in the information (number of battleships), but all the details wrong. At least slightly better than what we seen in the last decades.
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2018 11:42 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: |
War Dept. Basic Field Manual ID of IJN Vessels, 12/29/41 |
|
|
I have this new book, and in it are a few things that confuse me.
The book seems to think that the Japanese were working on three 40,000+t Battleships in 1941 (Two finished, one unnamed) called the Nissin and Takamatu (obviously these would be Nisshin and Takamatsu in actual Japanese) with a Third as yet named.
I notice the book excludes the Yamato and Musashi. Would these two BBs be referencing the Yamato and Musashi (and as yet uncompleted Shinano)?
The book also references a Zuikaku-class CV by the name of Takasago, and lists the Shōkaku as a completely separate class.
Was "Takasago" just a misreading of "Shōkaku?"
I have tried looking up the Kani, but can find nothing to suggest this as yet (given the readings of quite a few of the Kanji are now deprecated in modern Japanese).
MB
I have this new book, and in it are a few things that confuse me.
The book seems to think that the Japanese were working on three 40,000+t Battleships in 1941 (Two finished, one unnamed) called the [i]Nissin[/i] and [i]Takamatu[/i] (obviously these would be [i]Nisshin[/i] and [i]Takamatsu[/i] in actual Japanese) with a Third as yet named.
I notice the book excludes the [i]Yamato[/i] and [i]Musashi[/i]. Would these two BBs be referencing the [i]Yamato[/i] and [i]Musashi[/i] (and as yet uncompleted [i]Shinano[/i])?
The book also references a [i]Zuikaku-class[/i] CV by the name of [i]Takasago[/i], and lists the [i]Shōkaku[/i] as a completely separate class.
Was "Takasago" just a misreading of "Shōkaku?"
I have tried looking up the Kani, but can find nothing to suggest this as yet (given the readings of quite a few of the Kanji are now deprecated in modern Japanese).
MB
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2018 11:09 am |
|
|
|