Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/6/2008 10:03:29 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		Fuso was sunk by numerous torpedo hits from several destroyers.

I'd say that Scharnhorst was sunk by torpedoes fired from both destroyers and cruisers.  Duke of York slowed her down, but the torpedoes are what sank her.

Same with Bismarck; assuming she wasn't scuttled, then Dorsetshire should take the honors for firing the torpedoes that sank her.


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 211
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/6/2008 10:09:04 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		No.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 212
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/6/2008 10:09:05 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		You're still talking classification where I'm talking armor. The discussion was about what bombs might do to BBs. The conclusion was to some that "given the evidence from for example Yamato, Musashi" etc "bombs could not substantially penetrate the armor of battleships in WW2."

Your point is that Hood was as well armored as any British "battleship" laid down before 1920. Fair enough. But considering that R-class armor protection was on the order of half to one-third of more modern BBs, it doesn't really seem so applicable to call them "battleships" or else if one does accept that these are "battleships" then one must conclude that "battleships" were indeed quite vulnerable to bombs during WW2.

Hood was almost up to KGV standards. And KGVs were nothing special in re armor protection among modern BBs. They certainly weren't as well-armored as Yamato, Richelieu, SoDak or Iowa.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 3/6/2008 10:23:50 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 213
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/6/2008 10:11:31 PM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

quote:

Hood had nothing like a BBs overall deck armor protection and therefore was not remotely construable as a BB.

That's incorrect. Hood's deck protection was superior to that of the "R" class battleships that preceded her. Any pre-treaty British battleship would have been as vulnerable to the fatal hit as Hood, if unmodernized like Hood. The primary difference between older types and the "R"/Hood design is the position of the armor deck, but not the thickness.
Here's a quote from ADM 1/9387 showing early discussions on the KGV design: "Following the principle worked to in the case of the Hood, a battle cruiser's protection should be the same as that of a battleship...."


I tend to agree with this, Hood at the time of her construction (1920) was very well protected. That said, she was never modernized or refitted since then so when WWII rolled around she was sadly outdated. The Hood's design seems more in line with the KGV class (built in 1940) in my opinion; fast, well protected and decent firepower. Of course, this is comparing them to their contemporaries when built.

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 214
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/6/2008 11:29:05 PM   
Tiornu

 

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

But considering that R-class armor protection was on the order of half to one-third of more modern BBs, it doesn't really seem so applicable to call them "battleships" or else if one does accept that these are "battleships" then one must conclude that "battleships" were indeed quite vulnerable to bombs during WW2.

I don't know why we'd hesitate to call a WWI battleship a "battleship." What else would we call it? If it musses a generalization about bombs--maybe the generalization needs some tweaking. I think the distinction between unmodernized battleships and modern/modernized battleships is fairly significant.
The KGVs actually had good armor protection, but it was not predicated on the same crieria used by other navies. The percentage of protected buoyancy and the percentage of armored waterline are both excellent, among the best of all modern battleships.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 215
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/6/2008 11:35:37 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

What else would we call it? If it musses a generalization about bombs--maybe the generalization needs some tweaking.


Fair enough.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 3/6/2008 11:37:44 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 216
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/6/2008 11:51:40 PM   
Darth Michalek

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 1/25/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Hiei eventually sunk by torpedoes from dd Shigure

Yamashiro eventually sunk by torpedoes from Melvin


btw Bretagne was sunk by Hood, Barham and Resolution at Mers-el-Kebir (July 3rd 1940)

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 217
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/7/2008 1:33:46 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Hiei was going to sink because of the USN and USMC with or without Shigure having anything to do with the situation. Hiei's number was up. She'd bought the farm, purchased the recondominium, thrown in the towel, tossed her final roll of the dice, and crossed the Rio Styx. She was an ex-parrot.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 3/7/2008 1:34:55 AM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Darth Michalek)
Post #: 218
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/7/2008 1:56:36 AM   
marky


Posts: 5780
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Hiei was going to sink because of the USN and USMC with or without Shigure having anything to do with the situation. Hiei's number was up. She'd bought the farm, purchased the recondominium, thrown in the towel, tossed her final roll of the dice, and crossed the Rio Styx. She was an ex-parrot.



lol agreed, her time was up



_____________________________


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 219
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/7/2008 4:06:08 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		When a vessel is attacked and receives significant damage from multiple platforms, it is problematic to ascribe the "sinking" of the vessel to just one of these platforms. An initial attack might not have been fatal, nor a subsequent attack. Perhaps the final attack was required to prevent the vessel from surviving, yet in many cases, this final attack might not have happened had not the earlier attacks been successful.

Bismarck (haha) is an example. Without the damage from the Swordfish, the surface battle probably would not have happened. So to say she was "sunk" by surface battle is not a complete statement. Likewise, for the "scuttle theory" fans, she would not likely have been scuttled, had there not been prior damage.

Yorktown is probably another example. Without the damage from the air strikes I would think it doubtful that the I-boat and the CV would've crossed paths nor would the Yorktown have been moving as slowly. Yet without the sub attack, the Yorktown possibly would've survived. All the attacks she suffered may have been required to sink her.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to marky)
Post #: 220
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/7/2008 5:27:09 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: darth_michalek

Hiei eventually sunk by torpedoes from dd Shigure



Probably not: according to "Combined Fleets" - this is what happened at the end:

"As 1800 and sunset both drew on, the laborious task of removing HIEI's huge crew was at last completed. Even Captain Nishida had been forcibly removed and hauled reluctantly from his turret perch to safety at Abe's command. With the battleship's stubborn skipper at last out of the way, Abe was able to proceed with the unseemly business of sinking the wounded queen by his own hand. He ordered Captain Setoyama Yasuhide of Desdiv 27 in the soon-to-be famous SHIGURE to do the job with torpedoes, but at 1838 appeared a final roadblock to his determination. A signal arrived from Combined Fleet, from Admiral Yamamoto no less, ordering that Abe "not do so". The HIEI was not to be sunk by Japanese hands, Yamamoto instructed, but left afloat to perform the final service of drawing American fire away from the approaching transports and the secondreformed bombardment group led by her sister, KIRISHIMA. There is some question as to whether the seacocks had already been opened, or even torpedoes fired, but in any case, Abe suspended the scuttling forthwith. (His insistence on scuttling clearly irritated Yamamoto, for he immediately relieved him of all further command.)

With that, a doubtless vexed and frustrated Abe could do nothing but circle the HIEI wearily. At 1900 he ceased to do even that and took his five destroyers out of sight to the west so as not to cause confusion among Admiral Mikawa's incoming cruisers. The HIEI, forlorn and abandoned, was left behind in the gathering darkness alone. When last seen, she was listing 15 degrees to starboard, and the quarter-deck was nearly awash. No one ever saw her again. When Abe in YUKIKAZE finally returned with the others at 0100 14 November,the stricken battleship was nowhere to be found. He searched for half-an hour more, but still nothing. Sometime in the six long hours between 1900 and 0100 the HIEI had gone with 188 of her company to her final resting place at the floor of "Ironbottom Sound". She was the first Japanese battleship lost in World War II and the first sunk by the U.S. Navy since 1898."

see:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/atully03.htm

(in reply to Darth Michalek)
Post #: 221
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/7/2008 5:13:38 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		Well, JW, I hear ya and agree, however, it seems to be "human nature" (?) to want to find a specific cause, as in the straw that broke the camels back, or a specific name, as in who's ultimately responsible for the American failure to defend the fleet at Pearl Harbor.

So, your trying to pee upwind. I suggest, therefore, that you turn that attitude right around and go with the flow.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 222
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/7/2008 8:42:30 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Hiei might well have been salvaged had she not been wallowing within spitting distance of Lunga. The key facet was the damaged and flooded steering engine room which the Japanese damage crews labored for hours too drain and repair. Unfortunately Hiei came under increasingly intensive air attack throughout the next day. There is much confusion over what hit what. The US side reported at least several torpedo hits yet Hiei seemed unimpacted by all of it and it was suspected that what may have been interpreted as full hits were either splahes from near misses or partial low-order detonations. (US sources - six waves ; 21 dive bombers (four hits), 1 TBF with bombs, 14 B-17's (4 hits), 25 torpedo planes (8! reported hits per 1st MAW), 35 fighters and an unknown number of P-39's....all assailing the battleship.

The Japanese counted sixty enemy planes between 0730 and 1230, suffering 3 direct bomb hits, and numerous near misses but no torpedo hits. The bomb hits caused further superstructure damage while some of the near misses loosened plates and caused a small amount of progressive flooding and a small list.

Per Lundstrom, despite all this, the Japanese made real progress towards repairing the steering engine room and contained the fires raging forward of the foremast.

The seventh (and fatal) strike arrived around 1405 after a LR CAP left the scene due to low fuel. 8 x Marine SBD, 6 x USN TBF's and 14 Marine F4F's. No bomb hits were scored but the torpedo pilots reported 3 more hits. This was immediately countered by other observations (other pilots reported seeing two hits) and again doubts on the weapons reliability came into question. Regardless, it appears at least ONE torpedo did strike and detonate......unfortunately for the Japanese along the stern again, which undid all the work the Japanese had acheived with the steering engine room.

The Japanese reported two hits...one just under the B turret (which doesn't appear to have done much...possibly the torp hit the armor belt reducing the effect) The 2nd of course, hit near the unprotected steering engine room. That doomed the ship because without being able to move/maneuver.....the ship obviously coudn't escape.

Now it gets complicated to quote someone

Tired of the inncesent attacks, and Hiei's increasingly long odds of ultimate survivial, Abe ordered her scuttled at 1530. Hiei's captain and officers, (Nishida) objected, still hoping to regain power and steering. They delayed the order to abandon ship. At Truk, officers there also wrangled with the problem of what to do. Worsening weather also became a concern

at 1745 an eighth strike arrived reporting one bomb hit (8 x SBD) and attempted a mostly ineffective attack in the now foul weather situation. (2 would be lost because of it) When last seen the battleship was reported adrift and being abandoned. After dark Nishida completed the abandonment of the hulk and during the night, unobserved by friend or foe, she sank. [Lundstrom]

According to Frank however, there's more to the drama, Abe again ordered Hiei's abandonment due to concerns over mounting damage to his destroyers but Nishida again hedged hoping to save the ship but Abe remained adament. Nishida also reputedly received an faulty report from the engine room that sealed the deal and led to his compliance to abandon ship. Despite rigourous protests from the crew who still felt the ship could be saved, Kingston valves were opened in the engine room and the crew assembled forward and abandonment proceeded. So it would appear the ship was ultimately abandoned and scuttled. Not that it matters in the end. Dead is dead and there was never any "Bismarck" type pride controversy regarding either Kirishima or Hiei's loss.







_____________________________


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 223
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/7/2008 8:46:16 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Interesting Nik.

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 224
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/7/2008 11:48:07 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		"(US sources - six waves ; 21 dive bombers (four hits), 1 TBF with bombs, 14 B-17's (4 hits), 25 torpedo planes (8! reported hits per 1st MAW), 35 fighters and an unknown number of P-39's....all assailing the battleship. "

What i find interesting is the fact that the B-17s acheived a higher hit ratio than the SBDs in this action. These were not skip-bombing attacks, IIRC.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 225
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/8/2008 4:04:04 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

What i find interesting is the fact that the B-17s acheived a higher hit ratio than the SBDs in this action. These were not skip-bombing attacks, IIRC.


Maybe this indicates the results of just one well-aimed stick. If so, it has implications for the contention that only one bomb per stick be allowed to register a hit (in WITP).

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 226
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/8/2008 7:13:39 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		A virtually motionless ship isn't nearly as hard a target to hit as one that's maneuvering vs. a flight of level bombers.



_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 227
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/8/2008 9:14:03 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Most certainly, Nik, but one would still expect better results from the dive bombers than from the heavies. Maybe the Dauntless pilots forget that they didn't need to lead the target?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 228
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/8/2008 4:50:08 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline 		Basically the lesson that can be taken from World War II is that if you on a ship in an area where the enemy has air superiority you'd best know how to swim, because you will be swimming soon.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 229
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 3/8/2008 11:32:45 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		This debate is struggling because it is mixing its drinks very thoroughly. Some valid points have been made, but no one has strung it all together. In no particuar order:

- Comparing Hood (initially designed before Jutland, and modified after the 3 BC firework display before completion post war), with a late thirties design finished in 1940 is a little unfair. 20+ years is equivalent to comparing Hood with a pre-dreadnought. In addition aircraft were a minor issue in 1916

- we need to define our terms. Hood was sunk by one 15" (probably) shell: difficult to argue this, and what we would call a critical hit. Ark Royal was also sunk by a single hit (torpedo in that case, leading to complications). What would have happened if the fatal hit to AR had happened, and then 2, 3 or even 5 torpedoes had subsequently hit her: would we still say one hit did sink her, or would we say more? She took a long time to sink, and the first torpedo did it on its own... The only thing you can ever be sure of is when a ship doesn't sink, in which case you know what didn't sink her. Even that can be problematic, because you actually only know that the sequence of hits did not sink her with her then current level of damage control.

- even in simple cases it is difficult to assign a cause to a sinking. Take Yorktown. The initial hits were taken in hand and she looked like she was going to be OK. The last torpedo started a chain of events that caused aviation fuel explosions and sank her. However had the initial hits done damage that the later hit exloited? If so, now what sank her?

- Whether Bismarck was scuttled or sunk is probably moot. I have no doubt that the crew opened the sea cocks. But what was her flooding state at the time, and how was it worsening? Similar to Ark Royal, a small leak and no pumps will eventually sink anything if there is any compromise of the bulkheads. Depending who you believe, (and acknowledging the Titanic was a merchant ship not a warship), 12sq ft of hole sank 46000tons of vessel in 2+hrs. You don't need great holes in armour to sink things (although it helps). You need some holes (which may be quite small) and no power or no people to control flooding. Near misses can sink a ship. (In fact the best way is to not hit the ship at all - expload a few hundred pounds of explosive 30ft beneath the keel - this will sink most things! The shock wave hurts, but "falling" into the resultant low pressure hole breaks the ship in a really bad way!)

- I suspect the Yamato and Musashi are flattered by the weight of the attacks over quite a short period (c 2 hours in Yamoto's case). I think they would have gone down without much of the follow up damage. Certainly multiple bombs and torpedoes hit Yamoto, but she blew up (possibly due to fire in the secondary magazines). May be one bomb did started that, and the others just hindered the fire fighting. Or maybe she was going down and the explosions were completely irrelevant to her fate (like Barham in the Med - she blew up as she rolled over - not the cause of her sinking...)

- No one has yet remembered that Bismarck was making 20+kts (IIRC). You need to subtract this from the swordfishs' speed (or at least a component of it. I believe the wind was quite stiff that day as well. And no I struggle to see that anyone in their right mind would dive a torpedo armed Swordfish at terminal velocity on a cloudy day to within a few hundred feet of the sea. And the limitation on speed is not likely to be structural integrety but drag.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 230
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.969