Board Thread:Event Community Discussion/@comment-25730832-20170511175819/@comment-26574811-20170513083320

Hyper Shinchan wrote: Vcharng wrote: Hmm, ok.

From the Japanese doctrines in 1938, however, such "escort" might be a bit different from our convoy escort, though. In terms of doctrine Japan didn't have any plan whatsoever for escorting civilian shipping before the war, they were Mahanian to the marrow after all, but escorting troop convoys and military supplies isn't substantially a different job, I can't really see how different they might have been.

In terms of design they were not optimised for escort duties, but that's deliberate for a multipurpose ship and to an extent the solutions adopted on later kaibokan were also the result of actual experience, for instance an increase in the stowage of depth charges can be observed in pretty much every navy, while the urgent need for some kind of dual purpose armament (the 10th Year Type 12cm/45 adopted with the Mikura class) wasn't appreciated to its full extent in pre-war destroyers either.

Nah, what I mean was that the IJN was very bad at their so-called escort effort, military or civillian ship alike.

Just in the second half of 1944, IJA lost about two divisions of men to sunken troop transport alone. That's after the Japanese finally embraced the concept of convoys. So I would say that there's no actual Japanese equvalent to what the Allies refer to as "convoy escort", as the Japanese "counterpart" are very far away from effective.