it all becomes a "wargamers argument". The idea of a battleship versus battleship engagement is a little wild. Even in fleet engagement the two operational Yamatos would have been outnumbered by two Iowas and several South Dakotas/and or the two Washingtons. I mention two to two, because the last two Iowas (Missouri and Wisconsin) didn't reach the Pacific before the Musashi was sunk, otherwise your engagement is four to one for the Iowas (plus supporting vessel). The Japanese could have had a Nagato and acouple other "oldie goldie" rebuilts. The entire effort that the US used to produce six 1937-39-vintage BB's went into the two Yamatos. (In fact the Yamato was built to fight the Colorado class 1920-vintage 16-inch BBs and was expected to fight the Washingtons and South Dakotas - the Iowas were updated designs that the Japanese didn't equal). The Japanese put all their eggs into two very large baskets, while the Americans put out ten first rate modern battleships. Sure the IJN had Shinano building and one or two more they wanted to build, but the USN would have been able to quickly counter by finishing the other two Iowas that were started but not finished and we had the Montanas designed and ready to go after them. So if the mythical fleet engagement had happened we could have afforded to lose a BB or two if it meant destroying the Japanese battle fleet. By the time of our mythical engagement the US subs and carrier air power would have been able to to finish off any cripples (or even attrite them before the battle). So it really doesn't matter about who would beat who in a single ship battle, navies just don't operate that way anymore.
Most noteworthy Battleship of WWII
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 binder001 |
Iowa versus Yamato... | ||
|
Posts: 16 (01/15/04 16:54:45) |
|
||
|
Tiornu |
Re: Iowa versus Yamato... | ||
|
Posts: 87 (01/15/04 18:00:21) |
The "Battle of Bull's Run" would have pitted two Iowas with three CL and eight DD against Yamato, Nagato, Kongo, Haruna, three CA, two CL, and eleven DD.
|
||
|
binder001 |
Bull's Run | ||
|
Posts: 16 (01/15/04 20:06:44) |
You're quite right. I can't remember if Lee was with with Halsey or with the rest of the BB's. If Halsey had let Lee run the surface action than the US stood a chance. Lee would have been able to use the strengths of the Iowa and New Jersey against the weaknesses of Kurita's force. The bad news is that Halsey was in such a hurry that the action may have occurred at night, which even with radar still favored the Japanese. If the US had engaged in a delaying action instead of charging in, then the rest of TF38 could have joined in by the next day giving an overwhelming surface and air force. As with any "what if" it's hard to say who the fortunes of war would have favored. Bottom line: even if the US engaged and lost an Iowa to surface action it would have been embarassing, but Japan would still have lost the war. Yamato would still have failed in her mission to protect her country from its enemies. Who knows, the US could have embarrasassed the Japanese and crippled (probably not sunk) Yamato and she still would have died at the hands of US pilots, just about a half year earlier.
|
||
|
Tiornu |
Re: Bull's Run | ||
|
Posts: 87 (01/16/04 04:05:22) |
I believe Lee was in one of the slower battleships. There's a good web page for stuff like this:
www.warships1.com/index_oob/index.htm I find this scenario interesting specifically because it forces the Iowas into a position of inferiority, which was so rare for USN forces at that time. |
||
|
Gohbhined |
Re: "most noteworthy"... | ||
|
Posts: 55 (01/16/04 13:01:44) |
T- On speed, the Yamato is listed at 27 knots. SD and Washington at 28. Its only one knot, but still an advantage. On the radar FC, there is no substitute for it. At Guadal, the US BB's hit their target on the first salvo.
As for the homogenous turret facing, that represents a very small target area. Even with 50 feet of depleted uranium, any hit on the front is going to disable a gun or more. The Yamato, although well-armored, was a big target and most non-critical areas on the ship could easily be penetrated, bringing the fate of the Hiei to mind (~500 5" -8" hits?), or even the Bismarck (all fire control knocked out, fires), even though her machinery and turrets might be operational. In the end, the only thing that would matter would be how many shells hit, penetration in a critical area like a turret facing or the bridge would just be a bonus. Superior FC and speed gives you the opportunity to do that. Consider the case of the Graf Spee, which had an early form of radar fire control. She had the advantage there, but was too slow to get the better firing solutions on the faster cruisers. It would have been a different outcome if she had had another 6 knots. Not saying it would be a cakewalk for the Iowa, but my money would be on her. A more even battle would be with the SD or Washington, where the speed difference is marginal, but protection and firepower are less. |
||
|
Tiornu |
Re: "most noteworthy"... | ||
|
Posts: 87 (01/16/04 17:16:41) |
At Guadalcanal, SoDak scored no hits at all the entire night. Washington's first 42 rounds (not sure how many salvos) all missed. Her next salvo may have scored a hit, and the one following that certainly did.
They highest speed Yamato attained was a touch over 28 knots. Without detailed info on load, time out of dock, etc, it's not possible to say which ship would have a speed advantage in any given situation. They're just too close. Yes, Yamato had an all-or-nothing armor scheme, just like American battleships. This is why I couldn't understand previous references to Yamato's having "plate everywhere." Hiei was not an AoN ship. She did suffer scores of hits, but I think 500 would be a hyperbole. She was engaged at a range where her skimpy belt was vulnerable to cruiser shells. It appears the critical blow came in the form of one or more 8in hits (perhaps duds!) that caused flooding into her rudder compartment. Unlike Hiei, Yamato had her rudder in an armored box with plating as thick as that for the vitals. American design practice was similar in this regard. Bismarck was another ship armored in the pre-AoN model, though with updates. What's interesting about her is the rapidity with which her guns were knocked out. Yamato has reasonable prospects for knocking out Iowa's turrets; the reverse is not true. Both Bismarck and Hiei were hammered at extremely short range. If Iowa and Yamato ever got that close, it would probably happen only after the issue had been decided. It is not true that any hit to a turret face will disable the turret. A German battlecruiser at Jutland had a plug knocked out of her turret face by a 15in shell; one gun was temporarily put out of action until it could be coupled to the other gun. After WWI, the US conducted extensive tests to simulate high-velocity hits on turret faces, and the turrets suffered only slightly. |
||
|
binder001 |
gunnery considerations for BB56... | ||
|
Posts: 16 (01/16/04 22:22:47) |
Ironically the USS Washington's most famous engagement wasn't the one she really trained for. According to Ivan Mucant's "Battleship At War", the story of the Washington, the US Navy trained for a daylight battle at range. Plunging fire would have been the prevalent hits in that engagement. There is a story about the Washington's service in Scapa Flow when the US officers went to exchange info with their Royal Navy counterparts, they were shocked to learn that preferred British practice was to close rapidly and fire more directly. Instead of the fight they thought they were preparing for, the Washington ended up in a night time "barroom brawl" firing almost horizontal. Washington still scored enough 16" hits on Kirishima to sink her. South Dakota screwed herself and her maneivers made her a great target. She was never in danger of sinking but sure was combat ineffective.
|
||
|
Tiornu |
Re: gunnery considerations for BB56... | ||
|
Posts: 87 (01/17/04 04:46:38) |
In a sense, the US preference for long range and the British preference for short range grew out of the same considerations.
The Americans apparently were much impressed by the catastrophic potential of plunging hits. This prompted an emphasis in the anti-deck capabilities in shells, which had its culmination in the 2700-lb shell. I believe this idea was borne out by the Casablanca experience, where Jean Bart (the best-protected of the treaty battleships with regard to deck armor) suffered damage that would likely have destroyed her if she'd been at sea--and this from only 5-6 hits. And the British apparently agreed. They saw that just a few hits could quickly change the tactical situation, even going to the extreme of evening the odds of a previously lop-sided match-up. Since the British figured that the Royal Navy would usually be on the Happy Side of any such mismatch, it was not in their interest to see dramatic changes. The fact that few British battleships were modernized with thick decks and increased gun elevation reinforced this conviction. Thus they settled on a range band of 12-16,000 yards as the best way to go. Please note that Hood had just entered this range band when she began her turn to bring Bismarck onto her beam; Holland may have had this doctrine in mind when he planned his course, but the fatal hit came right at this critical juncture. If Hood had completed her turn, Bismarck almost certainly would have been pounded to scrap with little subsequent damage to the British. |
||
|
USAFcop |
Re: "most noteworthy"... | ||
|
Posts: 136 (01/17/04 19:03:20) |
OK I'll see if I can get thru this, without my computer crashing again.
"""""""If you want to continue your worship of Americana, then I guess it's appropriate to cherry-pick your facts. How come you trumpet Japanese failures, but fail to mention how SoDak fared in her first battle?"""""""""" Agreed So Dak should have done better. If I remember right there was plenty of moon on that evening an the enemy was allowed to close where optical sighting had the advantage. Besides SoDaks FCR was damaged. Such are the chances of war. I dont "trumpet" Japanese failures. I do however point out that they made the wrong strategic choices regarding naval planning. SoDak and Iowa were not "Battleships" per say. They were designed to be escorts/screeners for Essex class carriers, which were themselves the DOMINANT hammer in the Pacific. As was air power. Where was Yamato during Midway? Why did her belt fail on "X"Mas day '43 when the "Skates" one torpedo forces her to abandon her mission? Why did a "supposedly modern" battleship have to dry-dock twice for AA refit, or was it 3 times? In fact she spent more time in dry-dock then at sea, "and during wartime"! She never even fired her guns in anger until Jun '44, and at her own airplanes? Why was she so helpless against aircraft and 1,000 lb bombs? I could go on and on. I mean what was her purpose? Why would such a small country, with such limited resources pour so much into 2 battle wagons as these? "Of course they learned their error which is why there wasn't a 3rd" And why there never was a USS Montana. Were her 18.1's bigger? Of course. Were they more destructive? Looking at the small picture "yes". Did they have 50 more fps? Yeah for all the good it did. Did she have more armor? Of course. Did the Japs have better optical sights? Yeah, but this was becoming ancient history. Was she a better battleship then the Iowas? NO!!!!!!! The Iowas shells, RFC, speed, made up for any paper deficiencies. And besides, it didn't matter anyway. The days of behomeths slugging it out were over, long over. The fates of the Yamato class were an in-glorious chapter of the new realities of naval warfare. They both died shameful deaths. Your playing to many computer games my friend. Instead read history. They Yamato class was a "trophy" nothing else, a fine platform to host Imperial dinners on and show off to fellow Axis dignitaries. Her deathbed at the bottom of the sea was pre-ordained and the Japs should have seen it coming. Her class accomplished nothing, Yamato and Musashi were militarily irrelevant. They both died in shame. The new age was upon us. The age of the fleet carriers and their fast escorts. Were still in it now. This realization will ensure American maritime dominance for the foreseeable future. |
||
|
Tiornu |
Re: "most noteworthy"... | ||
|
Posts: 87 (01/18/04 09:51:59) |
If there's a real problem, you can type your post in your own word processor then paste it here. I know some folks who have gotten frustrated enough to do that.
>>If I remember right there was plenty of moon on that evening an the enemy was allowed to close where optical sighting had the advantage.<< I think SoDak's biggest problem was the disorientation of losing her electronic eyes. >>I dont "trumpet" Japanese failures. I do however point out that they made the wrong strategic choices regarding naval planning.<< Oh yes, the Japanese made some serious strategic woopsies. For instance, GOING TO WAR WITH THE US.... >>SoDak and Iowa were not "Battleships" per say. They were designed to be escorts/screeners for Essex class carriers, which were themselves the DOMINANT hammer in the Pacific.<< This is factually untrue. You haven't cited any references for your statements. Why do you think the US designed SoDak as a 28-knot carrier escort? Iowa was indeed designed with an eye toward escorting lesser vessels, though I can't say that was their raison d'etre. Both ships most certainly were "battleships," designed specifically to fight enemy battleships. >>Where was Yamato during Midway?<< Yamato was with the Main Body at Midway, serving as Yamamoto's flagship. >>Why did her belt fail on "X"Mas day '43 when the "Skates" one torpedo forces her to abandon her mission?<< Because the joint between her main and lower belts was too weak. The torpedo that hit her had an explosive charge equal to 1000+ lbs of TNT, and it defeated the joint. The faulty joint in the Iowas was in a different place, farther down near the double bottom. >>Why did a "supposedly modern" battleship have to dry-dock twice for AA refit, or was it 3 times?<< To get more AA weaponry. >>In fact she spent more time in dry-dock then at sea, "and during wartime"!<< The rigid Japanese thinking required her to be held in reserve against the day of the Decisive Battle. Unfortunately for the Japanese, they didn't recognize that the Decisive Battle was taking place around Guadalcanal while the battleships were sitting around crocheting and flicking the remote. >>Why was she so helpless against aircraft and 1,000 lb bombs?<< Because she was a battleship. >>I could go on and on.<< Agreed. >>I mean what was her purpose? Why would such a small country, with such limited resources pour so much into 2 battle wagons as these?<< If you actually want an answer to your question, a good place to start would be Kaigun by Evans and Peatty, really an excellent book. >>Were her 18.1's bigger? Of course. Were they more destructive? Looking at the small picture "yes".<< The small picture! Thanks for the Sunday morning laugh. >>Was she a better battleship then the Iowas? NO!!!!!!!<< Agreed, except for the overabundance of exclamation points. >>The Iowas shells, RFC, speed, made up for any paper deficiencies.<< Iowa was not especially deficient in paper. Where she came up short was in protection and firepower, the natural consequence of being 15,000 tons smaller. >>Your playing to many computer games my friend.<< Sometimes when I'm tired, I play solitaire. Is that bad? >>Instead read history.<< Isn't this rather gratuitous from someone who's unfamiliar with even the basic references on the warship design he's discussing? Nevertheless, if you would like to name some of the warship references you've based your comments on, it might prove instructive. |
||
|
USAFcop |
Re: "most noteworthy"... | ||
|
Posts: 136 (01/18/04 18:38:39) |
""""""""">>SoDak and Iowa were not "Battleships" per say. They were designed to be escorts/screeners for Essex class carriers, which were themselves the DOMINANT hammer in the Pacific.<< This is factually untrue. You haven't cited any references for your statements. Why do you think the US designed SoDak as a 28-knot carrier escort? Iowa was indeed designed with an eye toward escorting lesser vessels, though I can't say that was their raison d'etre. Both ships most certainly were "battleships," designed specifically to fight enemy battleships.
""""""""""""""""""" South Dakota= "Built by New York SB, Camden, NJ. Laid down 5 July 1939, launched 7 June 1941, commissioned 20 March 1942. Operated in the Pacific through most of WWII, mainly in support of the fast carrier forces, and some shore bombardment duty" Iowa= "The final US battleships to be completed; generally considered to be the best US battleships ever, and among the finest in the world. This design was conceived as functional equivalent of the South Dakota class, but capable of 30+ knots for carrier escort duties, and to oppose the fast Japanese Kongo class ships. " Now T, you are a serious student of WW-ll battleships and naval warfare. I think you know what Im saying here. American naval wafare strategy placed battleships primarily as carrier escorts. Of course they were built to fight alone as well, but what was the main purpose of their being built? Along with shore bombardment? """""""">>Where was Yamato during Midway?<< Yamato was with the Main Body at Midway, serving as Yamamoto's flagship."""""""""" Yeah, uh uh, Right "main force"? Another of Yamatos delusions. Tell me this guy was living in 1942? His idea of a main force is to keep his carrier striking force 300 miles ahead of his new, shiney, fancey toy,with the big guns .. "Then" his, "2nd force"? gets shredded, the Japs basically lose the war, and he turns his "main force" around without fireing a shot. Especially his fancy new toy with the big guns he can pretend is really his penis. Yeah, this guy was a real genius. We did the Japs a favor by shooting him down. """"""""Because the joint between her main and lower belts was too weak. The torpedo that hit her had an explosive charge equal to 1000+ lbs of TNT, and it defeated the joint. The faulty joint in the Iowas was in a different place, farther down near the double bottom.""""""""" Ooooooh. Is that why she ran like a scared Jap when two little bitty torps, from a little itty bitty Yank destroyer? Takeing herself out of a major battle? When she was supposedly on a suicide mission anyway? "We dont want to lose our shiney little trophy ship". """">>Why did a "supposedly modern" battleship have to dry-dock twice for AA refit, or was it 3 times?<< To get more AA weaponry.""" Certified in 1942 without squat for AA? Nice!!!!! """""">>In fact she spent more time in dry-dock then at sea, "and during wartime"!<< The rigid Japanese thinking required her to be held in reserve against the day of the Decisive Battle. Unfortunately for the Japanese, they didn't recognize that the Decisive Battle was taking place around Guadalcanal while the battleships were sitting around crocheting and flicking the remote."""""" What did they get right? The first thing they could have done is to have used the two hulls of the Yamato class and turned them into fast carriers, like they did the third. They were sneaky treacherous little devils. I'll give em that. """"">>I mean what was her purpose? Why would such a small country, with such limited resources pour so much into 2 battle wagons as these?<< If you actually want an answer to your question, a good place to start would be Kaigun by Evans and Peatty, really an excellent book.""""""" Ive read a bit, but thanks. Always want to learn more. I think Ive based my thesis pretty well here. For an ex flyboy. """"""">>Was she a better battleship then the Iowas? NO!!!!!!!<< Agreed, except for the overabundance of exclamation points. >>The Iowas shells, RFC, speed, made up for any paper deficiencies.<< Iowa was not especially deficient in paper. Where she came up short was in protection and firepower, the natural consequence of being 15,000 tons smaller. >>Your playing to many computer games my friend.<< Sometimes when I'm tired, I play solitaire. Is that bad? >>Instead read history.<< Isn't this rather gratuitous from someone who's unfamiliar with even the basic references on the warship design he's discussing? Nevertheless, if you would like to name some of the warship references you've based your comments on, it might prove instructive. """"""" Tio you have very good knowledge of the nuts and bolts of battleship design, better then I. I , however, look at any ship not as a "one" but as a force multiplier. What is the purpose of the design? How does she fullfill that design role? How does she perform in combat? What is her battle history? And finaly, how does she die, or survive? The Yamatos were deeply flawed. They were irrelevant in the big picture, both in design and action. They were another strategic mistake made by a flawed Govt./military "that yes also included going to war with the US in the first place." The jap order of naval battle was deeply flawed in most major battles. To think a commander of Yamatos stature would send his striking carriers 300 miles ahead, and consider the Yamato group a "main striking force" reflects the outdated and flawed Jap strategic thought and naval battle plan, includeing warship design. And this was more then just "semantics". They thought Pearl was such a huge victory just by sinking some battleships. They misunderstood the Pacific war even then. "Tho some had the brains to know they never should have attacked". As a trophy? Yeah they were pretty cool. The Japs got to walk a bunch of hotshots around her and show her off. I admire them too. Dont mis-understand some of my flippancy for insult. I do it to make a point. Thanks for a fine discussion..........Rich |
||
|
Tiornu |
Re: "most noteworthy"... | ||
|
Posts: 87 (01/18/04 23:22:24) |
>>Of course they were built to fight alone as well, but what was the main purpose of their being built? Along with shore bombardment?<< American battleships were built to fight and defeat enemy battleships. This corresponds to the purpose of battleships in other navies.
I'm looking at the rest of your response, seeking in vain yet again for a source. All I find is a series of comments unworthy of comment--childish, irrelevant, uninformed. With all due respect, you did succeed in making a point, but I'm afraid it's not the one you intended. You don't have to worry that I feel insulted by your style, but I am frustrated that you devoutly refuse to engage in a constructive chat. When I have offered information and sources, you have clung to refuted misinformation and declined to list any sources of your own. It is no flaw of yours that you haven't yet familiarized yourself with the battleship design process, the relative capabilities of carriers and battleships at the time when Yamato began to take shape, or even the specifics of certain ships. But given the nature of our exchange here, I see little prospect of your advancing in knowledge. You give the appearance of one who wants to know without first going to the trouble of learning. But that's just my opinion, and not worth very much. |
||
|
Pz gen |
based??? | ||
|
Posts: 47 (01/19/04 13:07:35) |
Quote: Which had no pre-war basis, but forced by the loss of the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour. |
||
|
Tiornu |
Re: based??? | ||
|
Posts: 87 (01/19/04 15:35:05) |
The USN paid special attention to the potential and proper deployment of carriers in its interwar Fleet Problems. Wartime events have gone far toward obscuring the actual capabilities of carriers prior to their great successes. The key step in making carriers the threat they later became was the development of rugged, long-ranged aircraft. These planes burst on the scene just as the war got started, and amid the world crisis the USN did not enjoy the freedom to explore the changing situation as it had in previous years.
Some people still believe that Billy Mitchell proved the battleship was obsolete. |
||
|
USAFcop |
Re: based??? | ||
|
Posts: 136 (01/19/04 17:20:36) |
""""""""" But that's just my opinion, and not worth very much. """""
You said it, not me. For wasteing a lot of net space on jibberish, which BTW did not address my thesis. If your going to insist on makeing 100% of your posts personal then Im going to bow out, "50% I can handle". As for my "contempt of all things Jap" I assure you its sincere and simply drips off me. Everytime I am reminded of their war crimes against innocent's, and most of all Americans, I would say to them "they" were lucky I was not in charge of prosecuteing the war against them. I would have made Le May look like a Boy scout. Billy Mitchell DID prove the battleship was obsolete, at least in the role it was originally intended for. The Iowas fit the new role ; They were designed for it. There is no greater impetus to develope new tactics, and to change with fluid situations, then times of war. We Americans developed and changed ; The Japs didnt. Leyte Gulf marked the end of the battleship being a major player in naval surface warfare. But in reality it happened much, much sooner. While the developement of better aircraft did play a large part in increaseing the lethality of carriers. So did the developement of proper force structures to escort them. Battleships and cruisers, destroyers and subs...ect All these were much more expendable then CVs or CVLs. To me Leyte was probably the one naval battle, in modern times, that set the longest benchmark regarding future naval operations and superiority. From the superior AA ability of the carrier escorts, to the shameful yella bellied running away of a superior Jap force at Samar, to the assasination of Surigao, and all beginning with the ambush of "Darter" and "Dace". This battle turned the worlds oceans into an American lake, and they still are. It all came together at Leyte. I consider it even of more "impact" then Midway. Leyte WAS the future. And I might add the Yank sailor was far more brave, agressive, smarter, ingenious, and successful then their Jap counterparts. Yeah the Yamato running right out of a ,supposedly, suicidal battle due to two torps from a destroyer. And then assasinated by a few itty bitty airplanes. Sure, a great design. A great ship............haha.........Rich |
||
|
Tiornu |
Re: based??? | ||
|
Posts: 87 (01/19/04 19:02:25) |
Just for the sake of anyone lurking here, I'll point out that the above post by USAFcop is packed with errors of fact and inference; it should not be assigned any shred of credibility. For the person interested in learning about the rise of the aircraft carrier and the vanity of Mitchell's ideas, I can recommend several titles. Two-Block Fox by Melhorn is a good choice to start with, readable and fairly accurate.
|
||
|
binder001 |
Iowa design considerations... | ||
|
Posts: 16 (01/19/04 19:06:49) |
re: earlier comments that the Iowas were designed primarily o escort the carriers. I've been buying and/or reading every book on the Iowas that I have been able to find since about 1960 (when I built my first Revell model of "Missouri"). The Iowas' original design was a true battleship, that is it was meant to stand toe-to-toe with an enemy fleet in surface combat and come away a winner. Even though the USN had been developing carriers and improving their capabilities, the "gun club" still ruled the roost. Peral Harbor changed everything, the carriers HAD to become the first line fighting force.
Due to the lateness of the Iowas' design, there were considerations to operations with carriers, i.e. the speed. Fortunately also, the Iowas' came late enough to benefit from lesson of air power and their AA suite grew tremendously from the original design drawings. Sometimes it helps to arrive second! As far as references I suggest Sumrall's "Iowa Class Battleships", Stillwell's "Battleship New Jersey" and "Battleship Missouri", Muir's "The Iowa Class Battleships", as well as the various smaller books available, plus Fiedman's excellent books on various US navy types and their development. |
||
|
Gohbhined |
Re: Iowa design considerations... | ||
|
Posts: 55 (01/20/04 06:56:11) |
Usaf, I want to comment on yours about all the wasted resources on the Yamato class. True, in hindsight, all battleships not completed by 1940 should have been scrapped or converted to carriers. Back to the Japanese, although they were obviously profient at using carrier power, they were still a battleship navy. Their doctrine and tactics and leaders favored battleship-style battles until the end of the war. Too bad the US couldnt oblige them. Even the old WW1 US battleships outmatched anything except the Yamato class and were at least an even match vs the Nagato. Plan Orange anybody? The Yamato received several AA refits, in response to the threat. Either way you go, USAF, they were good ships, the Musashi taking 17 bombs and 19 torpedos before she went under and the Yamato taking a similar pounding.
T- the US navy history page states Washington hit a light cruiser on her first salvo during Guadal battle. The Hiei's belt was not penetrated by any shells, she was just torn up from the sheer volume of fire and damage to her superstructure and other unprotected areas. Where are you getting your info an the "experimental" BB AA shells? Every source I have read said the "Sanshikidon" were experimental and not standard issue. In the "Pacific War", by John Costello, on the Mushashi firing one, says that she took herself out of the battle when she tried to fire one, "doing more damage than the planes attacking her, wrecking the main armaments' barrel". /agree SD taking herself out of the battle is almost funny, but what are you to do when you lose all electrical power. I read one account that the problem originated with hidden damage sustained during an apparent inneffective bomb hit on her turret suffered some time earlier. At least she soaked up the hits and attention and enable the Washington to cripple the Kirishima. |
||
|
Tiornu |
Re: Iowa design considerations... | ||
|
Posts: 87 (01/20/04 10:00:44) |
Washington claimed some hits on a "large cruiser or battleship" after firing 42 rounds over the space of about four minutes; it was thought this ship was sunk. In fact, this was the light cruiser Sendai, and she was not damaged at all.
Hiei's rudder was not protected by the main belt; there was only a 3in plate along the waterline. She also suffered damage in her machinery spaces, though I don't know its exact nature. The Type 3 shell is well described in Campbell, Skulski's Fuso book, and probably his Yamato book as well. I also have information from my research assistant Sander Kingsepp, not to mention from American wartime reports. Kongo fired 104 Type 3's during the October bombardment of Henderson Field. In the Battle of Friday the 13th, San Francisco and Atlanta were both hit by Type 3's, which left the Americans completely confused as they'd never seen such a thing before. The action reports recorded these as 8in hits, but later investigation caused the re-rating to 14in in the BuShips reports. I don't know why this shell has been subject to such misinformation. The first I ever heard of it was in a Japanese source, I-Boat Captain by Orita (of all places). Even he didn't understand what the Type 3 was. He describes it as an anti-ship submunitions delivery shell. The SoDak's all had electrical gremlins. Massachusetts had problems during the Casablanca battle just days before 2nd Guadalcanal. And I believe it was Indiana's captain who raised a major stink during his ship's trials. In SoDak's case, it appears someone tried to prevent the problem by locking the circuit breakers. History has not been kind to this person; he certainly kept the circuit breakers from tripping, but apparently he forgot that circuit breakers are supposed to trip--otherwise you might wind up with power outages all over the ship.... The idea that Yamato's completion reveals backward thinking in the IJN, as opposed to the progressive intellect of the USN, really is silly. After 1941, the Japanese completed one battleship; the Americans completed eight. They even laid down two, more than two years after the last Japanese BB was laid down. |
||
|
binder001 |
Washington's hits... | ||
|
Posts: 16 (01/20/04 15:53:00) |
Quote -"Washington claimed some hits on a "large cruiser or battleship" after firing 42 rounds over the space of about four minutes; it was thought this ship was sunk. In fact, this was the light cruiser Sendai, and she was not damaged at all."
I suppose it was mice that sank Kirishima? Everyone's claims during combat are suspect. How many times did the Japanese "sink" the USS Enterprise? |
||
