Changing Destiny (Kancolle)

Yeah I know, if it looks crasy and works, then it is not crasy.

Mmm, how different is a modern steam turbine with a jet-engine powered turbine that is put on most modern (medium) warships?
To add on to what others have said, gas turbines require that more advanced materials science because the interior of a gas turbine is much harsher than a WWII steam turbine.

Aside from that, gas turbines offer a number of advantages over steam turbines, which is why they're used today instead of steam (unless you're running nuclear). Most of these are related to the lack of boilers: they have much superior power-to-weight ratios, and response time that would completely throw off anyone from World War II. Gas turbines accelerate more like your car, while steamships need to build up steam (nuclear ships are something of an exception, but even they can't match gas turbine ships). This could be seen when the Spruance class entered service, and also in Zipang when the Mira's was attached by that submarine.
 
also in Zipang when the Mira's was attached by that submarine.
The ship's name is JNSDF Mirai, which can be translated as "future" depending on the Kanji.

And the most dramatic demonstration wasn't in the submarine incident that attacked (not "attached" :) that's lewd!) her, but before that, basically when Mirai appeared in WW2 in plain sight of IJN Yamato and her escorts. Mirai faked normal WW2 speeds and accelerations until the point where one DD and one CL (IIRC) were almost ready to close Mirai's escape route. At that point, Mirai engaged flank speed and passed between the two ships.
 
The ship's name is JNSDF Mirai, which can be translated as "future" depending on the Kanji.

And the most dramatic demonstration wasn't in the submarine incident that attacked (not "attached" :) that's lewd!) her, but before that, basically when Mirai appeared in WW2 in plain sight of IJN Yamato and her escorts. Mirai faked normal WW2 speeds and accelerations until the point where one DD and one CL (IIRC) were almost ready to close Mirai's escape route. At that point, Mirai engaged flank speed and passed between the two ships.
Goddamn autocorrect!
 
The ship's name is JNSDF Mirai, which can be translated as "future" depending on the Kanji.

And the most dramatic demonstration wasn't in the submarine incident that attacked (not "attached" :) that's lewd!) her, but before that, basically when Mirai appeared in WW2 in plain sight of IJN Yamato and her escorts. Mirai faked normal WW2 speeds and accelerations until the point where one DD and one CL (IIRC) were almost ready to close Mirai's escape route. At that point, Mirai engaged flank speed and passed between the two ships.

The other being the moment where her CIWS, Sea Sparrows, and FCS/Radar operated 5" were used to SHOOT DOWN incoming 19" shells fired by the Yamato herself. I actually asked about that the last Seafair up here at Seattle, and the answer was pretty much, 'yup, can do', if the rounds were fired from near max range due to needing the flight time in order to pull it off. Was also told it probably* won't work on anything smaller than 10" shells, as anything lighter than than might just be missed by the CIWS, Sea Sparrows, and/or the 5".

*dunno if this is true or not, considering some of the lighter anti-ship missiles aren't really all that big in their cross-section when viewed from directly ahead.
 
So, I don't know if this has been brought up yet or not, but there's one easy, but very useful development to bring up: armor-piercing bombs.

The Japanese already have armor-piercing and semi-armor piercing bombs. They're generally made by converting warship shells of varying caliber into bombs that dive bombers can carry.

Why is this significant? Well, an HE bomb has very limited penetration--against Japanese carriers, they'd penetrate the flight deck and explode in the hangar. While this can fatally damage a carrier if said carrier has a sufficient number of planes fueled up and armed at the time, it isn't fatal if said carrier has already launched its air group. This is why Shoukaku survived several 1000-pound HE bomb hits on multiple occasions. It's also why Mogami and Mikumi weren't sunk by dive bombers at Midway--well, Mikumi was fatally damaged, but only because she hadn't jettisoned her torpedoes ahead of time, and the resulting fires ignited the torpedoes, which did fatally damage the ship.

AP and SAP bombs can actually cripple and even fatally damage a ship, because they penetrate into its lower spaces--its boilers, its engines, its water supply, its magazines, etc--leaving it dead in the water and without power. This happened many times to US carriers hit by Japanese dive bombers--off the top of my head, it happened to Yorktown, Lexington, Hornet, and Langley (IIRC). Even if it doesn't sink the carrier by itself, it will still prevent it from going anywhere (and thus leaving it vulnerable to further attack, especially from submarines, assuming the position of the carrier is reported to submarines)--only a tow by cruiser or above can help, and those are hard to set up. They can potentially cause flooding, depending on where and how the bomb hits.

It goes beyond just carriers, too. It allows you to cripple and actually sink heavy cruisers, battleships, tankers, oilers, etc.

---

Oh yeah, and the Army and Marines really need some training on how to actually attack ships. Namely, that level bombing and glide bombing is very inaccurate--dive bombing is a must to actually hit a ship--and that you need to get as close as possible when dropping torpedoes if you want a decent chance at actually hitting the target. And that trying to bomb ships from high altitude is extremely unlikely to hit anything--but it at least forces the enemy to evade while you're above them, which is useful against carriers.

Time and time again, Army and Marine aviators just failed to damage their targets, even when said targets were easy pickings. The best that can be said is that they consistently forced the enemy to take action to defend against air attack, which was certainly useful (disrupting carrier operations, disrupting salvaging/damage control efforts, etc).
 
HE bombs are very good against Carriers. They can carry more explosive filler than an AP or SAP bomb of similar weight. The explosion from a contact bomb puts a hole in the flight deck of a Carrier. Hole in flight deck means no Carrier operations for several hours.
 
HE bombs are very good against Carriers. They can carry more explosive filler than an AP or SAP bomb of similar weight. The explosion from a contact bomb puts a hole in the flight deck of a Carrier. Hole in flight deck means no Carrier operations for several hours.
Yes, but hole in boilers as a result of AP bombs means no carrier left to run flight operations, on account of being unable to move, thus making it a sitting duck for future attack waves. Honestly, I'd recommend using a mix of AP and HE, but as was said above AP is better for actually sinking the ship.
 
The ship's name is JNSDF Mirai, which can be translated as "future" depending on the Kanji.

And the most dramatic demonstration wasn't in the submarine incident that attacked (not "attached" :) that's lewd!) her, but before that, basically when Mirai appeared in WW2 in plain sight of IJN Yamato and her escorts. Mirai faked normal WW2 speeds and accelerations until the point where one DD and one CL (IIRC) were almost ready to close Mirai's escape route. At that point, Mirai engaged flank speed and passed between the two ships.
A note for the peanut gallery: the prefix for JMSDF ships is not JMSDF, but either JDS (ships commissioned pre-2008, Japan Defense Ship) or JS (ships commissioned post-2008, Japan Ship). Mirai's prefix would be JDS, as the manga was written and anime aired before 2008.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but hole in boilers as a result of AP bombs means no carrier left to run flight operations, on account of being unable to move, thus making it a sitting duck for future attack waves. Honestly, I'd recommend using a mix of AP and HE, but as was said above AP is better for actually sinking the ship.

Exactly. The Dive Bomber Attack on the USS Hornet CV-8 during the Battle of Santa Cruz is an exellent showing of that. Most of the bombs that Hornet took were AP, but she did take an HE bomb which thoroughly wrecked the flight deck.
 
It's like this.

HE will blow a hole in the deck.

AP will punch a hole in the flight deck, and then explode.
 
Live torpedoes against manned friendly targets is an exceedingly bad idea, yes. It's the kind of thing Court Martials are meant to handle.

However: Easy way to check running depth of torpedoes:

Step 1: Make an underwater target, with circles around 'perfect hit at perfect depth', and depth lines. Make it out of something that will get marked by the torpedoes underneath.
Step 2: Take a standard torpedo, change out the explosives for the same weight in steel so weight and balance remains the same. Leave the detonator so 'detonation at target' can be tested. Detonator blown up = torpedo worked.
Step 3: Get a few observers, preferably from a few torpedo boats, and make a contest of it. A dozen dropped torpedoes by plane, a dozen torpedoes fired from torpedo boat at equivalent range at speed. Maybe get an uboat captain in on it if you can.
Step 4: Make doubly certain all results are checked and noted down exactly.
Step 5: Watch fireworks.

Thing is, uboats use theese torpedoes. Torpedo boats do. Some other surface ships as well. Remember, those torpedoes work the WORST if you hit the target straight on. If they can tell their colleagues honestly that 'Well, sorry, half our torpedoes simply did not work, even if they hit. Oh, and of the rest some ran deep enough to go under the target'? Well. Getting it solved now is much easier than later on, when it could be hidden under the excuse of 'wartime secret, our enemies must not know, shut up about it'. It's still peacetime.

If that does not work? Something is very rotten in the state of Denmark. Hoover would almost certainly work, but might actually result in him taking over in the 50's or sixties sometime.
It's even simpler and easier than that. Just get a fishing net with a known length, hold it taut, then have a submarine fire a torpedo with its warhead removed (but an equivalent weight put in its place; this part is key), then see where the torpedo impacts (or cuts through, as the case is likely to be) the net. Lockwood (the eventual commander of the submarine force and initial commander of the subs operating out of Australia) had this test done in Australia with a shoe-string budget, and it was very easy.

The best way to do it is to have the local submarine commander conduct the tests themselves (with an impartial witness), without bothering with permission. The results will shield them from any consequences--the anger will be directed at BuOrd and the Newport Torpedo Station for fucking up something so fundamental with the torpedoes.

As for the magnetic exploder: it's just not going to be fixed to the point of reliability with WW2-era tech. Christie tried for an absurd amount of time; he had technicians try to experiment with ways to fix its problems. None worked at all. Similarly, the British and German magnetic exploders had the same reliability problems and disabled those exploders long before the US entered the war.
Either way, it's a BAD technology unless you can get it to a high point of reliability (which just isn't going to happen); it causes prematures, which knocks the rest of the torpedo spread off target, alerts the target that torpedoes are incoming (and from where), tells the escorts where the enemy sub is, and it sometimes even prematures so close to the firing sub that it causes damage to said sub.

This reveals another problem, though: American torpedoes have less explosive in them than Japanese torpedoes do, which results in less damage (which is a problem). The magnetic exploder was supposed to fix this, but obviously they never even tested the thing. New torpedoes--preferably oxygen torpedoes, to get both speed and the wakeless factor, but electric torpedoes too--should carry more explosive.

Regardless, the submarine force will have other serious problems besides horrible torpedoes. Bad, unimaginative commanders who basically deploy submarines everywhere except the probable approaches for invasion fleets, don't even attempt to employ wolfpacks, who don't bother to move submarine commands/bases/stations out of the range of enemy air attack, who prioritize putting submarines in the most highly patrolled waters (outside of enemy ports) over putting them in choke points in Japan's merchant shipping (the Luzon Strait in particular, but also off the coasts of Japan) that are not effectively patrolled, etc. Very bad peacetime training which practically enforced extreme cautiousness to the point of absurdity--doctrine which would be promptly thrown out the window basically at the outset of war, in what could only be described as farcical), putting large numbers of submarines in Australia instead of basing them at Pearl Harbor (where it was actually easier, with a submarine tender established at Midway to refuel and rearm subs, to reach Japan and the Luzon Strait)--stretching logistics wastefully and creating friction between commands, lots of submarines being diverted to pointless special missions (like landing token raiding parties, bringing in extremely meager amounts of supplies to besieged forces that would make little difference in the end, etc) at MacArthur's behest (which Nimitz, Lockwood, English, and Christie didn't protest), submarines being sent to act as scouts (not even for major battles, just in general--which is absurdly wasteful and rarely useful), heavy emphasis placed on attacking fast, agile, well-defended warships instead of attacking slow, sluggish, poorly-defended merchant shipping, the Newport Torpedo Station being a complacent group of snobbish and prideful idiots who were incapable of expanding torpedo production to meet wartime demands at any point (or even lending their expertise to held their eventual competition work out the bugs on their electric torpedo), the submarine force commanders telling their sub skippers to fire fewer torpedoes at targets so as to not use up the critically limited supply of torpedoes, rather than going straight to King and saying that there is a crisis and Newport Torpedo Station is not providing nearly enough torpedoes and that they recommend expanding torpedo production and development outside of NTS immediately, and not nearly enough submarines in general (an especially sore point, since every seemed to want to use submarines for their own ends, but none of the people who could have advocated for greatly expanded submarine production did so).


1. Saying Marines first and then having Army scream in jealousy is a good way to get Army ordnance management off its ass and buy some.
2. He knows HVARs were a thing. He should know shaped charges were a thing. "Rocket + shaped charge = gud vs armor without much firing recoil" is one more step that I doubt a flag officer is unable to make.
This is not as effective as you think. Shaped Charge rockets only inflict damage in a small area; this is fine against tanks, since tanks are quite small. But warships? You're just not going to do that much damage. Shaped charge weapons don't like spaced armor, and warships have lots of space and many layers of metal.

About the best thing you could hope for is penetrating the flight deck of a carrier and hitting the avgas lines in several places...or starting serious fires in multiple places (from multiple hits) if there are plenty of fueled and armed planes in the hangar...but then, you'd actually knock out the flight deck with an HE bomb whether or not there were plenty of fueled planes in the hangar. Generally, you would hope to start small fires in lots of places in rapid succession, and hope that overwhelms damage control, sets off ordnance, or knocks out something critical.

That's not to say that they'd be useless, but you're generally better off attacking enemy capital ships with large, AP or SAP bombs and torpedoes. The rockets would probably be preferable against destroyers, submarines, and oilers/tankers, though.

3. *Sarcasm mode* Corsairs firing rockets totally never had any effect on Japanese surface targets.
Not against warships, really.
 
@SaltyWaffles
HVARs with shaped charge warheads are about as useful as tits on a fish in the Pacific, I specifically mentioned conducting some tests so as to make an American Panzershreck early on, to give to the Army for Europe.

However, there is ONE situation where a shaped charge on a rocket might be quite effective against warships:
-Turrets

Spaced armour on a turret roof or side? Well, you COULD have AA mounts up there (see WOWS loading screens showing Japanese ships) for the highest turrets, but... that doesn't count, and one shaped charge penetration of a battleship's turret roof has a significant chance of disabling the turret at least... yes, bombs are more effective, BUT you can't carry as many bombs as you can rockets, so if you want to elevate chance-to-hit...

And then there's cruiser and destroyer turrets which probably have some ammo stowed inside. Le BOOM?

I suspect SAPHE-warhead (e.g. thickened nose, delayed detonation) rockets vs unarmoured ships (destroyers, merchants) would be reasonably effective at setting them on fire and generally making any torpedo attacks harder to dodge by way of superstructure (bridge) damage, flames, etc hindering reaction time or even spotting the torps. It can also count significantly as SEAD.
 
conducting some tests so as to make an American Panzershreck early on, to give to the Army for Europe.
Bazooka - Wikipedia
M18 recoilless rifle - Wikipedia
However, there is ONE situation where a shaped charge on a rocket might be quite effective against warships:
-Turrets
What do you think the bombs they use already are?
Spaced armour on a turret roof or side? Well, you COULD have AA mounts up there (see WOWS loading screens showing Japanese ships) for the highest turrets, but... that doesn't count, and one shaped charge penetration of a battleship's turret roof has a significant chance of disabling the turret at least... yes, bombs are more effective, BUT you can't carry as many bombs as you can rockets, so if you want to elevate chance-to-hit...

And then there's cruiser and destroyer turrets which probably have some ammo stowed inside. Le BOOM?

I suspect SAPHE-warhead (e.g. thickened nose, delayed detonation) rockets vs unarmoured ships (destroyers, merchants) would be reasonably effective at setting them on fire and generally making any torpedo attacks harder to dodge by way of superstructure (bridge) damage, flames, etc hindering reaction time or even spotting the torps. It can also count significantly as SEAD.
At this point, Richardson knows how he needs to dictate tactics. That being said, nobody will listen. There isn't a need to change what they're doing. He was involved in a thorough 'discussion' after he showed how to properly use strike aircraft from his own plane, teaching Thach his own manuever in the process. Your arguments are reminiscent of the tribunals after Pearl. A lot of peacetime officers trying to scramble into war footing. A Navy order early on was to dye all Cracker Jack (white) uniforms using coffee. The logic was that it would make the sailors harder to see from the air. What none of the Brass realized was that, if the Japs were that close, it doesn't matter anyway. You're making arguments that either have already been covered in the pages you skipped, or are already taken care of, either through prior innovation, or in progress already.
 
Bazooka - Wikipedia
M18 recoilless rifle - Wikipedia

What do you think the bombs they use already are?

At this point, Richardson knows how he needs to dictate tactics. That being said, nobody will listen. There isn't a need to change what they're doing. He was involved in a thorough 'discussion' after he showed how to properly use strike aircraft from his own plane, teaching Thach his own manuever in the process. Your arguments are reminiscent of the tribunals after Pearl. A lot of peacetime officers trying to scramble into war footing. A Navy order early on was to dye all Cracker Jack (white) uniforms using coffee. The logic was that it would make the sailors harder to see from the air. What none of the Brass realized was that, if the Japs were that close, it doesn't matter anyway. You're making arguments that either have already been covered in the pages you skipped, or are already taken care of, either through prior innovation, or in progress already.

I am fully aware of the Bazooka. I am merely stating that the Panzershreck was found better in the field by US troops, so the navy developing a rocket launcher in early 1941 might encourage the Army to develop a bigger launcher.

The bombs are better, certainly, but it's a matter of slug versus birdshot. If you miss with a slug, well, you miss. Birdshot is harder to miss with and still does some damage.

Progress can almost always been sped up to some degree. Inter-service rivalry is a good way to give a couple nudges in this sense. After all, when Thompson has Roosevelt convinced, he'll almost certainly be favoured enough by FDR that he can float a few ideas over dinner with the President...
 
The bombs are better, certainly, but it's a matter of slug versus birdshot. If you miss with a slug, well, you miss. Birdshot is harder to miss with and still does some damage.

Turrets are the single most massively armored part of the ship. The turret face usually matches or exceeds the thickness of the belt, and the roof isn't much thinner. (Notably, SoDak's turret roof bounced a 14" shell from Kirishima) Against any major surface combatant, rockets will mostly annoy the deck division because they have to do more scrubbing, chipping, and painting after the battle.
 
Turrets are the single most massively armored part of the ship. The turret face usually matches or exceeds the thickness of the belt, and the roof isn't much thinner. (Notably, SoDak's turret roof bounced a 14" shell from Kirishima) Against any major surface combatant, rockets will mostly annoy the deck division because they have to do more scrubbing, chipping, and painting after the battle.

Guess I was thinking of Japanese cruiser turret roofs too much then (because IIRC those roofs were not over 100mm). Still effective for extra fighters not needed in air superiority to be able to suppress/mangle destroyers while the DBs and TBs lolpwn the capitals though.
 
I am fully aware of the Bazooka. I am merely stating that the Panzershreck was found better in the field by US troops, so the navy developing a rocket launcher in early 1941 might encourage the Army to develop a bigger launcher.






The only real differences are a blast shield, and diameter.

Turrets are the single most massively armored part of the ship. The turret face usually matches or exceeds the thickness of the belt, and the roof isn't much thinner. (Notably, SoDak's turret roof bounced a 14" shell from Kirishima) Against any major surface combatant, rockets will mostly annoy the deck division because they have to do more scrubbing, chipping, and painting after the battle.
It would hazard AA gunners. That's about it.
I am fully aware of the Bazooka. I am merely stating that the Panzershreck was found better in the field by US troops, so the navy developing a rocket launcher in early 1941 might encourage the Army to develop a bigger launcher.

The bombs are better, certainly, but it's a matter of slug versus birdshot. If you miss with a slug, well, you miss. Birdshot is harder to miss with and still does some damage.

Progress can almost always been sped up to some degree. Inter-service rivalry is a good way to give a couple nudges in this sense. After all, when Thompson has Roosevelt convinced, he'll almost certainly be favoured enough by FDR that he can float a few ideas over dinner with the President...
Again. IT. IS. PEACETIME! How can Richardson convince Roosevelt to make these changes without practically screaming 'War is coming?' Which will mean he will be escorted into one of two places. Either an interrogation cell, or a Loony Bin.

 
I think MC's best chance for getting doctrine changes made is things he can pass off as suggestions from the shipgirls, "because no one knows how to handle a ship better than a ship." This would include things like aircraft tactics because the carriers can sense through their planes (and with radio sets being big bulky things that might not be in all models of shipboard plane, that alone could be a significant benefit to having contact with the shipgirls) and possibly even light vehicles or infantry tactics if they get some troop transports/landing ships into the circle, but is still a fairly sharp limitation. A very junior (in years and experience) Admiral getting that kind of attention will only exacerbate the office politics aspect of things, though...
 
Last edited:
The only real differences are a blast shield, and diameter.

Again. IT. IS. PEACETIME! How can Richardson convince Roosevelt to make these changes without practically screaming 'War is coming?' Which will mean he will be escorted into one of two places. Either an interrogation cell, or a Loony Bin.

The blast shield and bigger diameter make a big difference (EDIT: Always Late kindly reminds me below that the Shreck can fire its motor for longer, which should mean no loss of range despite the bigger round), the former in comfort (presuming your rocket was fast) and the latter in penetration. 3 rockets unable to pen < 1 that can pen in terms of utility.

FDR is not a moron, he knows full well that war is inevitable with Japanese not backing down over the China issue and the Germans being a menace over in Europe.

If Thompson was familiar with counter-insurgency at all, which he should have been trained in before the Abyssal War, he should be able to engineer a primitive version of the RPG-7 based on known tech of the time (initial recoilless rifle operation is something that is already understood, then after a brief delay--another known tech--the rocket fires).
 
Last edited:
The only real differences are a blast shield, and diameter.
And the blast shield on the 'shreck is because the german rocket motor was still burning when it left the barrel, and earlier models even required the user to wear a gas mask and heavy poncho. The M1 never suffered from those problems. The rocket motor burned out before it left the barrel, and the backblast was not toxic or massive.
But you also forgot the weight issue. 'shreck's heavier, which is bad for the infantry.
 
Back
Top