Tokyo Express

German Kriegsmarine 1935-1945.
Post Reply
User avatar
von_noobie
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
Location: victoria

Tokyo Express

Post by von_noobie »

I ave recently finished reading a book, Not very helpfull but you never know, any way.... It's called VICTORY IN WORLD WAR II: THE ALLIES' DEFEAT OF THE AXIS FORCES by Nigel Cawthorne, and on pg: 305 it states and i qoute "On the night of 12 November, the planned to land 28,000 more troops and add two aircraft carriers, four battleships, eleven cruisers and fourty-nine destroyers to the Tokyo Express.

Is this even true?
If so what were the names of these ships please?

and on a what-if note, IF the japanese had been able to bombard Henderson without the american ships stopping them what could the out come of the battle have been?
C.GILLONO
Supporter
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:45 am
Location: Paris-France

Post by C.GILLONO »

Amateurs talk tactics, historians study logistics, but what about amateur historians?
User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil »

On the night of 12 November, the planned to land 28,000 more troops and add two aircraft carriers, four battleships, eleven cruisers and fourty-nine destroyers to the Tokyo Express.
Sounds like utter nonsense to me. I can't recall a single battle in the Pacific war where the Japanese managed to employ 49 destroyers. That would have been the bulk of their modern destroyer fleet. Japan began the war with 113 destroyers, and built 63 more during the course of the conflict. A total of 134 were sunk. This gives you an idea of what the committmet of 49 destroyers to a single campaign would have meant.

Best,
David
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

I think more than just the total number of destroyers is a bit off here, Dave, TWO carriers, operating so close in shore as this would mean? Tactical suicide.....

phylo
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

These are more like totals for the WHOLE of the Solomons campaign.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil »

I agree Phylo, but even so, they appear to be on the high side! And you're right about the two carriers--Japan didn't have two carriers to spare at the time and never would have committed them to an area in reach of land-based aircraft--sheer suicide!

Best,
David
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....
User avatar
von_noobie
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
Location: victoria

Post by von_noobie »

I think the japanese were smart enought not to deploy carriers close to land,

Maybe they wanted to use the ships to put up a blockade in the night while also bombing Hendarson at night
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

VN, Henderson field was well useful, but only in the sense that the Americans could then deploy heavier ground attack aircraft with greater payloads. Number for number there were still far greater GP and SX carrier-borne air assets available in theatre. Henderson was a valuable target but you do NOT waste something as valuable to the Japanese as a carrier to attack it....neither the carrier itself nor the planes and pilots. And remember in attacking Henderson theyd be up against Army Airforce fighters, not the sometimes overweight underpowered carrier fighters

phylo
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
User avatar
von_noobie
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
Location: victoria

Post by von_noobie »

A naval bombing of Henderson would destroy 50% or more of the planes there, Then an air attack should knock out another 25% of there aircraft, Then launch more naval bombings.

Yes army airforce fighters were good but at times at Henderson they had less than a dozen I dont think they ever had anymore than 40 aircraft of all types.
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

Well, your argument was that this was why these strange carriers were being brought so close to the islands.... No raid would have got through the naval CAPs around the island to do anything like that damage. Henderson WAS actually bombed a few times, but the Marine aviators and the Navy kept the Japanese off, just Dinahs under fighter escort. Henderson was built under attack, and operated in the main under attack. I think, like Dave says, the book is most probably wrong, its by NO means the first time THAT has happened, let alone been corrected here on Feldgrau.....
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
User avatar
von_noobie
Associate
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
Location: victoria

Post by von_noobie »

Well thanks for your help guys.
Post Reply