RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Terminus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/5/2008 10:25:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

I think you should consider battleships taken out of action for extended periods. That's a rather long list. Sure, battleships were survivable, but all you usually wanted was a mission kill. Anchoring a heavy ship within air attack range just so the ship would be available when needed--read what I wrote--was simply asking for a load of hurt.



Then why wasn't the Home Fleet destroyed at Scapa Flow?



Nikademus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/5/2008 10:25:35 PM)

I would disagree because deactivated, skeleton crewed vessels that can't maneuver or fight back effectively are little more than floating targets. Also the mining effect of close near misses further skews things. Hence i don't personally count them.



niceguy2005 -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/5/2008 10:53:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

[active] battleships sunk by SAP or AP bombs alone were:

Marat
Tirpitz
Arizona
Roma

(not counting the sinkings of the inactive remenants of the Japanese fleet sitting in their harbors, nor the two greek pre_dreadnought BB's sunk at their moorings)

This actually looks like quite a list on the surface, but as pointed out, Tirpitz (and I would argue Arizona) were special cases.

But, I would argue that 4 BBs taken out by bombs is considerable. How many (in fighting condition) were taken out by other BBs (during WWII)?



Nikademus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/5/2008 10:58:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
But, I would argue that 4 BBs taken out by bombs is considerable. How many (in fighting condition) were taken out by other BBs (during WWII)?


Five

Bismarck
Yamashiro
Kirishima
Scharnhorst
Hood

edited!



sprior -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/5/2008 11:00:00 PM)

Do you mean in general surface actions or specifically by other BBs?



Nikademus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/5/2008 11:00:37 PM)

additionally, two ships were taken out or disabled but not in "fighting condition"

Bretagne
Jean Bart



Terminus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/5/2008 11:01:14 PM)

Well, I think that since he said "by other BB's", that was probably what he meant...[;)]



sprior -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/5/2008 11:05:24 PM)

Some of the ships listed above were not sunk by BB gunnery alone but by ship launched torpedoes too. That's why I asked.



niceguy2005 -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/5/2008 11:14:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sprior

Some of the ships listed above were not sunk by BB gunnery alone but by ship launched torpedoes too. That's why I asked.

Well, my thinking specifically was that I wanted to exclude the Bizmark as she was critically damaged long before the BBs showed up.



Nikademus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/5/2008 11:17:04 PM)

well you asked what BB's had been "taken out" by their own bretheren. Bismarck was most certainly "taken out" by Rodney and KGV. [:)] But yes, they wouldn't have caught up to her had she not been stopped by a torp to the rudders.

I made a boo boo though. Fuso was not taken out by a BB. She was killed by a mass torpedo attack prior to the bombardment. I'll edit accordingly. [;)]



mdiehl -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/5/2008 11:47:28 PM)

Hood wasn't a BB and should not be on the list of BBs sunk by gunfire. It was a CB with that class' known deck armor weaknesses. Any of the larger bombs in the USN and IJNs arsenals could have penetrated Hood's deck armor.

Roma was sunk by a bomb. The means of guidance is immaterial. IIRC, several of the Fuso class were sunk by bombs dropped from B-29s as well. Possibly there were more BBs sunk by bombs during WW2 than were sunk by other means.

And yeah, the last of those end-war Japanese BBs were not at sea. But as this thread was about whether or not a few bomb hits could do sufficient damage to a BB to sink one, I'm not sure the objection is germane. Those ships did have crews and were at action stations (and presumedly with watertight integrity and damage control teams on board) when they were sunk.



niceguy2005 -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/5/2008 11:59:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

well you asked what BB's had been "taken out" by their own bretheren. Bismarck was most certainly "taken out" by Rodney and KGV. [:)] But yes, they wouldn't have caught up to her had she not been stopped by a torp to the rudders.

I made a boo boo though. Fuso was not taken out by a BB. She was killed by a mass torpedo attack prior to the bombardment. I'll edit accordingly. [;)]

I understood your reasoning for including Bismark. [:)]



herwin -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/6/2008 1:56:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

I think you should consider battleships taken out of action for extended periods. That's a rather long list. Sure, battleships were survivable, but all you usually wanted was a mission kill. Anchoring a heavy ship within air attack range just so the ship would be available when needed--read what I wrote--was simply asking for a load of hurt.



Then why wasn't the Home Fleet destroyed at Scapa Flow?


Been there. (They remember my family, but not with love.) It was garrisoned by a large number of troops and fighter squadrons.



Tiornu -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/6/2008 1:58:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Hood wasn't a BB and should not be on the list of BBs sunk by gunfire. It was a CB with that class' known deck armor weaknesses. Any of the larger bombs in the USN and IJNs arsenals could have penetrated Hood's deck armor....
And yeah, the last of those end-war Japanese BBs were not at sea. But as this thread was about whether or not a few bomb hits could do sufficient damage to a BB to sink one, I'm not sure the objection is germane. Those ships did have crews and were at action stations (and presumedly with watertight integrity and damage control teams on board) when they were sunk.

It's certainly true that Hood was a battlecruiser, but it's easy to misunderstand what that means. It does not imply a lack of protection, believe it or not. Really all it means, in Hood's case, is that she had cruiser-like speed. The battlecruiser term went through a spectrum of meanings; Hood herself was the ship that prompted the RN to use the term to indicate any fast capital ship. That's why you will find official RN documents referring to the early drafts of the modern KGV class battleships as battlecruisers. Terminology shifted again in the midst of the KGV design process, so she began construction as a battleship instead. Hood was arguably the best-protected ship in the RN at the time she entered service.
The two Fusos both sank in Surigao Strait, or Sergio Strait as Nik likes to call it. The similar Ise and Hyuga, though, were both victims at Kure. The bombs that sank them came not from B-29's but from carrier planes (Avengers?). This certainly proves that bombs could sink battleships, but I personally don't find it any more compelling than the Mitchell tests. The state of shipboard readiness was as good as possible under the circumstances, but the ships were completely swarmed, targeted by multiple dozens of bombs.



Terminus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/6/2008 2:02:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

I think you should consider battleships taken out of action for extended periods. That's a rather long list. Sure, battleships were survivable, but all you usually wanted was a mission kill. Anchoring a heavy ship within air attack range just so the ship would be available when needed--read what I wrote--was simply asking for a load of hurt.



Then why wasn't the Home Fleet destroyed at Scapa Flow?


Been there. (They remember my family, but not with love.) It was garrisoned by a large number of troops and fighter squadrons.


So was Pearl Harbor, Taranto and Kure.



witpqs -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/6/2008 2:11:57 AM)

I think for the question all bombs count. The basic question was about bombs versus torpedoes.



Nikademus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/6/2008 2:35:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

It's certainly true that Hood was a battlecruiser, but it's easy to misunderstand what that means. It does not imply a lack of protection, believe it or not. Really all it means, in Hood's case, is that she had cruiser-like speed. The battlecruiser term went through a spectrum of meanings; Hood herself was the ship that prompted the RN to use the term to indicate any fast capital ship. That's why you will find official RN documents referring to the early drafts of the modern KGV class battleships as battlecruisers. Terminology shifted again in the midst of the KGV design process, so she began construction as a battleship instead. Hood was arguably the best-protected ship in the RN at the time she entered service.
The two Fusos both sank in Surigao Strait, or Sergio Strait as Nik likes to call it. The similar Ise and Hyuga, though, were both victims at Kure. The bombs that sank them came not from B-29's but from carrier planes (Avengers?). This certainly proves that bombs could sink battleships, but I personally don't find it any more compelling than the Mitchell tests. The state of shipboard readiness was as good as possible under the circumstances, but the ships were completely swarmed, targeted by multiple dozens of bombs.


aw.......Show-off [:'(]

All perfectly true, hence I stand by my wittle list. And btw it *IS* spelled Sergio Strait so there

I'll only add that in addition to being swarmed, the surviving Japanese BB's hiding in port were also not in the best condition, with prior battle damages mostly unrepaired or benefiting only from temporary jury rig repairs and were not fully manned because they were in essence deactivated at that point. Attempts to camaflauge them proved unhelpful. Swarmed and battered by repeated hits and punishing near misses in shallow water, 3 of 4 slowly settled onto the harbor bed....future targets of the scrappers. The fourth....Nagato survived in a quite run down and battered state.



Shark7 -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/6/2008 3:00:20 AM)

Unfortunately in Hood's case it did mean weaker armor protection. Compared to the PoW that was travelling with it, the deck armor of the Hood was 3" thick at its thickest, versus 6" of armor for the deck of PoW. Even its belt armor was weaker than most BBs in service, only 12" at its thickest (Iowa and South Dakota classes were also limited to 12" of belt armor, but it was of a higher quality steel affording more protection).

Hoods Barbettes were protected by 12" of armor, some 7" less than PoW. However, it did have up to 11" of tower armor, which is 7" more than found in PoW.

Overall, it seems that Hood was more suited to a short range fight with low trajectories, while PoW would have been better at a long range fight. Ironically, the Hood was a good match armor protection wise to the Bismarck, the only thing that mattered was who got the first fatal hit.

Sources:

http://www.hmshood.com/ship/hoodspecs2.htm

http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_armor.htm



pasternakski -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/6/2008 4:07:22 AM)

What's wrong with you people? Bismarck was scuttled, not sunk.

Sheesh. Everybody knows that...



witpqs -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/6/2008 4:12:59 AM)

Let's just call it scunkled and be done with it.



Tiornu -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/6/2008 4:15:41 AM)

The "3-inch" armor deck aboard Hood needs some qualification. It consisted of three layers of HT steel. Obviously a lamination of three plates is not as effective as a single 3-inch plate, and HT steel is far inferior to NC armor. And the 3-inch thickness covered only a limited area.



BrucePowers -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/6/2008 4:22:22 AM)

Hi Pasternakski! Long time no see. How are you?



Shark7 -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/6/2008 6:44:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

The "3-inch" armor deck aboard Hood needs some qualification. It consisted of three layers of HT steel. Obviously a lamination of three plates is not as effective as a single 3-inch plate, and HT steel is far inferior to NC armor. And the 3-inch thickness covered only a limited area.


Which proves the point that Hood was in fact far more weakly armored than the Battleships it would be fighting against. Also, you do note that I said 3 inches at the thickest point. Overall it ranged from 1.75"-3".

It seems that Hood would also have been very vulnerable to air attack, unlike the newer, more heavily armored battleships.

But we are comparing a WWI BC to WWII BBs. Hood's modifications had actually left her overloaded, and IIRC she was due for another refit but never made it into the yards before WWII started. She had been built for a different war.



pasternakski -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/6/2008 6:53:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

Hi Pasternakski! Long time no see. How are you?

I'm better than a sharp stick in the eyeball, Bruce. Howz yer own nasty self?

Oh. The thread topic. What's the point here, fellas? GP bombs didn't do much against BBs. Later in the war, when there wasn't much left to sink by way of armored ships, SBDs and SB2Cs got big, bad AP bombs.

Time marches on. Rust never sleeps.

Now, let's move on to the greatest failing of WitP (and one that doesn't promise to be fixed by AE), that lame-o attempt at modeling the Japanese war industry.

I mean, deciding which and how many aircraft engines to produce? Come on.

Of course, we are, apparently, going to get Brady's wet dream in midget subs, that vitally important element without which no Pacific war simulation could ever be successful, so I suppose I shouldn't seppuku just yet...

Should I militate for Japanese jet fighters, do ya think?



witpqs -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/6/2008 7:23:58 AM)

I say scramjets. Why go halfway?



herwin -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/6/2008 9:23:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

I think you should consider battleships taken out of action for extended periods. That's a rather long list. Sure, battleships were survivable, but all you usually wanted was a mission kill. Anchoring a heavy ship within air attack range just so the ship would be available when needed--read what I wrote--was simply asking for a load of hurt.



Then why wasn't the Home Fleet destroyed at Scapa Flow?


Been there. (They remember my family, but not with love.) It was garrisoned by a large number of troops and fighter squadrons.


So was Pearl Harbor, Taranto and Kure.


The Pearl Harbor and Taranto attacks were not symptomatic of a longer-term loss of air superiority (although the Italian Navy did withdraw its heavy forces from Taranto).



Terminus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/6/2008 9:24:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

Hi Pasternakski! Long time no see. How are you?

I'm better than a sharp stick in the eyeball, Bruce. Howz yer own nasty self?

Oh. The thread topic. What's the point here, fellas? GP bombs didn't do much against BBs. Later in the war, when there wasn't much left to sink by way of armored ships, SBDs and SB2Cs got big, bad AP bombs.

Time marches on. Rust never sleeps.

Now, let's move on to the greatest failing of WitP (and one that doesn't promise to be fixed by AE), that lame-o attempt at modeling the Japanese war industry.

I mean, deciding which and how many aircraft engines to produce? Come on.

Of course, we are, apparently, going to get Brady's wet dream in midget subs, that vitally important element without which no Pacific war simulation could ever be successful, so I suppose I shouldn't seppuku just yet...

Should I militate for Japanese jet fighters, do ya think?


Didn't ya hear? We're getting those too![:D]



panda124c -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/6/2008 7:42:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

I think you should consider battleships taken out of action for extended periods. That's a rather long list. Sure, battleships were survivable, but all you usually wanted was a mission kill. Anchoring a heavy ship within air attack range just so the ship would be available when needed--read what I wrote--was simply asking for a load of hurt. It couldn't stay ready, and it would get hit if it remained static for long enough.



I agree, so has anyone managed to win WITP without sinking a BB. A BB that does not sortie is as good as sunk. [:D]
In this content the US divebombers trump the Japaness torpedo bombers.



mdiehl -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/6/2008 9:34:15 PM)

Hood had nothing like a BBs overall deck armor protection and therefore was not remotely construable as a BB. Therefore her sinking by a shell does not constitute an instance of a BB being sunk by another BB.

Here's trivia. How many BBs in WW2 were sunk by a torpedo fired by a CA or DD? What are they and which ship fired the torp?



Tiornu -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (3/6/2008 10:00:13 PM)

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...."



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.828125