Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Japanese navy (was Re: Militaries)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:33:13 +0100
Forbidden Delirium said on 18:16/13 Nov 96...

> Hmm.. does it say in the books that Japan has a substantial navy? I would
> tend to think that Japan would maintain only a very small defensive navy
> and rely primarly on other countries for protection?

That depends. From about 1900 to 1945, Japan had quite a substantial navy,
modelled mainly on the British Royal Navy. They defeated a much larger
(though more poorly quipped) Russian force during the Russian-Japanese war
(that was before WWI, I forgot the exact year) and during WWII the US Navy
got to them, but I think only because the US Navy was much larger, and
Japan had big fuel problems toward the end of the war (I believe that,
after the battle of Leyte Gulf, it took them about 3 months to get enough
fuel together for another major battle...).

In SR, Japan has gone back to its "glory days" of over a hundred years
earlier, and that leads me to believe they constructed a large and
well-equipped navy. They have imperial marines, so that points to a navy
as well -- it would make little sense to have marines but nothing to
support with them as they land...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
superficial urgency
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 2
From: Sight Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Japanese navy (was Re: Militaries)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 21:56:19 -0500
>That depends. From about 1900 to 1945, Japan had quite a substantial navy,
>modelled mainly on the British Royal Navy. They defeated a much larger
>(though more poorly quipped) Russian force during the Russian-Japanese war
>(that was before WWI, I forgot the exact year) and during WWII the US Navy
>got to them, but I think only because the US Navy was much larger, and
>Japan had big fuel problems toward the end of the war (I believe that,
>after the battle of Leyte Gulf, it took them about 3 months to get enough
>fuel together for another major battle...).
As I recall, another advantage we had was our decks for aircraft
carriers were mad of wood, while theirs were metal. Seems that at this
stage, it was a lot easier to repair wooden decks than metal ones. So I
recall from that PBS special. <smirk>







Peace and Long Life,

Scott
Message no. 3
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Japanese navy (was Re: Militaries)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 00:15:34 +0000
In message <3.0.16.19961114175638.2ecfe596@****.utexas.edu>, Sight
Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU> writes
> As I recall, another advantage we had was our decks for aircraft
>carriers were mad of wood, while theirs were metal. Seems that at this
>stage, it was a lot easier to repair wooden decks than metal ones. So I
>recall from that PBS special. <smirk>

Actually, this is severely wrong.

The US Navy and Imperial Japanese Navy both used wooden decks. The
British favoured armoured steel decks, at fairly considerable penalties
in weight and fuel consumption.

The tradeoff, of course, was that a kamikaze hit would typically take a
US Essex-class carrier out of action for three months to a year, since
she would need dockyard repairs. A RN Illustrious needed five minutes, a
fire hose and a broom to be ready for action again after a kamikaze hit.

The US designs were better for a large navy with 20+ carriers operating
in the Pacific. The UK designs were optimised for the Mediterranean
theatre, where land-based bombers were a constant threat and carrier
numbers severely limited.

The US switched to armoured decks with the Midway class as a result of
their experiences off Okinawa, when the need to make their carriers more
survivable became evident.

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 4
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Japanese navy (was Re: Militaries)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 11:53:42 +0100
Sight Unseen said on 21:56/14 Nov 96...

> As I recall, another advantage we had was our decks for aircraft
> carriers were mad of wood, while theirs were metal. Seems that at this
> stage, it was a lot easier to repair wooden decks than metal ones. So I
> recall from that PBS special. <smirk>

I call that a disadvantage. Wooden decks don't provide much resistance to
incoming bombs -- one bomb into the fuel or ammo storage and there goes
your carrier. Armored (metal) decks prevent this from happening.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
A little bit more on-edge.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Japanese navy (was Re: Militaries), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!