Comments by "WALTERBROADDUS" (@WALTERBROADDUS) on "IJN I13 / Type AM class - Guide 398" video.

@bkjeong4302 where do you see in history anyone thinking long-term? It's not just Japan. I don't think anyone who came up with the 100 years War were planning for it to the last that long? And I don't think the guys running the Crusades had logistical plans based on centuries?
10
 @allangibson8494 where in history do you see anyone actually contemplating a long-term War?
7
@John.0z No one in Russia had any idea they would still be fighting in 2024. And they most certainly never contemplated 400,000 plus dead and Black Sea Fleet functionally gone. So it's safe to say, there was no long-term logistical planning. No one two years ago thought they'd be going to North Korea to get ammo.....🇰🇵😏
7
@allangibson8494 just reinforcing the point I made. No one really plans out Wars that far or long. We would be hard-pressed to engage anyone in serious War right now in 2024.
4
@allangibson8494 I think we have different ideas of what's considered long-term?
3
@allangibson8494 now that you happen to bring it up? There are stories today in the news about shipbuilders of the Titanic. Harlan and Wolf of Belfast. The future is very much in doubt for the ship yard.
3
@akula9713 it's very hard to conduct a war and not go to war with the United States. The United States has the Asiatic Fleet based in the Philippines. The Philippines and Guam are both US Territories. They sit with in Arms reach of your supply lines to the Dutch East Indies. Trying to interdict shipping out of San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle? Your faced with now the technical problem extreme range. San Francisco to Tokyo is 5,138 MI. Now the submarines like the i-400 do have the long range to go there; perform Patrol and return home. But their numbers are far too few to generate the reward versus risk. They only built a handful.
3
@laudennis8633 the best counter to aircraft; is a combat air Patrol. HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse Showed the Battleships were not the best method.
2
@AdamMGTF Well, we can use a more Current example. The War on Terror. No one had any idea on 9/12/ 2001 that would turn into a generational conflict. And some might say , it is still not over. 😔
2
@orbiradio2465 I think the idea is just lacking the technology to use it better. For example, in just a few more years they would have the ability to Launch both cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Instead of a float plane; drones can achieve many of the same reconnaissance capabilities. And get rid of the kinky era launch and recovery system.
2
@BleedingUranium actually the Germans were kind of pushing in that direction. They were coming up with plans for Subs to fire V1 or V2 Rockets. Eventually the US Navy did in the 1950s. The first missile submarines were nothing but converted V1 Rockets. You could definitely have used the hangar to house something like the Japanese Suicide Baka.
2
@bkjeong4302 a Pacific strategy of commerce raiding doesn't really work. Once you've captured all the major ports. Hong Kong, Singapore, Manila. What trade are they to interdict really? You could have enforced a submarine campaign to isolate Australia perhaps? But the Navy has other priorities.
2
@Willindor not much. Armed merchant cruisers have limited value. And they don't have troops to transport anyplace. No such ship is reaching any of their African or far Eastern colonies. So what do you intend to do with it? You have a really big ship, that has no place to go.
2
@skysamurai4649 Time and fuel management. The planes don't have the same cruise speeds. The Fighters are faster than the torpedo and dive bombers. You want ty hem to fly together. For protection and navigation reasons. It takes time to bring aircraft on Deck, spot them for takeoff, then launch. That means burning fuel waiting to form up. None of this is helped by the ships having Centerline elevators. Most carriers of the times not use catapults. That means using the entire length of the deck to take off. Again adding to your time and management problem. Last you have the need to have a combat Air Patrol as well as a reserve. So sending In Waves tends to be the result.
2
@Wee_Langside you are misreading the conversation. Winning a war in a week, is hardly logistical planning is going to support one that's going to Last 5 Years.
1
@laudennis8633 how do you even figure this? Their primary design is not anti-aircraft defense.
1
@akula9713 by the middle of 1942, Japan already has control of the Western Pacific. all the major port destinations are under their control. Intercepting traffic to Hawaii is at best hard to do. You have anti submarine forces patrolling the area the amount of shipping is limited.
1
@bkjeong4302 🤔What do you call the Asiatic Fleet? Hardly the Pacific Fleet, but hardly insignificant. Probably more dangerous than British, Australian or Dutch forces.
1
They are not a bad idea though. They are just using the wrong technology.
1
@christopherwatson34 they did use submarines for some long-range cargo transporting from Germany.
1
@CAP198462 August of 1945 ; the Russian Pacific Fleet has like two Cruisers, 10 Destroyers and 78 submarines. There's not a lot for them to shoot at or add to the party. They are simply going to take the Northern Territories of Japan like they historically did.
1
@lassipohjannoro2253 the basic answer is that Marines didn't do any of the rigging or deck handling.
1
@letsmusashiplay59 There is no significant change to the outcome of World War II. All the problems of World War II were already found during World War I using such strategy.
1