But extremely lethal.

The Tone's were Cruiser/scout seaplane carriers that's why the mains were all up front so they could fit the 6 scout seaplanes on the stern

An update from Hinch:



The final 10 missions in Phase Two will be the Battle of Midway. Crucial in the battle was knowledge of where the opposing fleet was arrayed. Each side sent out scouts before dawn. In Rising Sun, the player will fly a PBY from Midway and an E13A1 off the Tone's catapult to find the opposing fleet given a general heading. The player must find the fleet and recover to a water landing at Midway or alongside the Tone at sea. There will be no memorized autopilot courses. You must record the heading and distance to the opposing fleet for the following strike missions to dead reckon. You must seek the fleet as they did, identify your target and press your attack. Then you must fly the reciprocal heading home, find your carrier (if still afloat) and land.

Think it was tough for them? You'll know how difficult it was.

A lot what some say here is untrue - example: Japanese Heavy cruisers had bad welding etc., were outclassed by the Baltimore class early in the pacific war is not factual. Early Japanese Heavy Cruisers of WW2 vintage like the Mogami was overweight(true), and suffered welding problems but this was overcome. THE MAJORITY of Japanese Heavy Cruisers were some of the best and toughest of cruisers of any nation in WW2. What the biggest fault of IJN cruisers was the very poor anti aircraft guns. Also excessive torpedo mounts and storage although early in the war was a factor in their victories. SO people read for example Osprey books and many like historical books and please get your facts correct before generalising and going on national pride ours is better than theirs please. By the way I think Japanese Heavy Cruisers look the most modern and best looking of just about any WW2 combatants. Mark AUSTRALIA.

Everyone's treaty cruisers had their plusses and minuses. I've always wondered about many of the Japanese cruisers lack of turret armor. I also however have to give credit to their gunnery and torpedo firepower. US Cruisers I do think were a match in terms of gunnery and protection, they just lacked the superb torpedo armament the Japanese cruisers had. The pounding some US Cruisers took before going down was impressive (both what they took and what the Japanese could dish out). Comparing them or treaty Japanese Cruisers to later designs like the Baltimores is not really fair.

Where the Japanese cruisers excelled in 1942 was in their tactical use. Their superb night optics and better tactics gave them a clear advantage from Java Sea to Guadalcanal. On the other hand, for many of the early engagements, the US side squandered their tactical advantage of radar. Once that was figured out things got a bit more even.

yes, Japanese cruisers in 1942 were indeed sleek and deadly!

Kevin

Who's talking about a 40-page read by Osprey? Many of the Japanese heavy cruisers were over weight on completion, which led to severe stability problems. Things were rectified, but given the length/width ratio for speed, they were over-gunned and always suffered draught problems.

[/quote]
Who's talking about a 40-page read by Osprey? Many of the Japanese heavy cruisers were over weight on completion, which led to severe stability problems. Things were rectified, but given the length/width ratio for speed, they were over-gunned and always suffered draught problems. [/quote]
Fair enough and true for some of the classes (like Mogami) but your line who's talking about a 40-page read by Osprey well I won't comment it obvious what you think but I also mentioned that as one example, I also mentioned historical books which I have and read on all the major combatants which I am sure many others do and read like yourself. As pointed out by others major cruisers of other nations had their fair share of problems. I just liked to balance the books. Have a nice day!

Hinch,

Any difference on the Chikuma visibly?

Mike,

Not really. The two ships served together as a cruiser squadron, and pretty much took refits for the same issues. I'm sure there are detail differences, but for a flight sim.....?

Fair enough and true for some of the classes (like Mogami) but your line who's talking about a 40-page read by Osprey well I won't comment it obvious what you think but I also mentioned that as one example, I also mentioned historical books which I have and read on all the major combatants which I am sure many others do and read like yourself. As pointed out by others major cruisers of other nations had their fair share of problems. I just liked to balance the books. Have a nice day! [/quote]



Notice all the main armament, magazines, etc., well forward on a narrow hull (see cruiser speed). Not a happy combination, especially with seas head on. Massive break up possible.