RE: Witpblazers (Full Version)

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



Message

Dunedain -> RE: Witpblazers (5/14/2004 4:16:20 AM)

Mike Scholl: I think you give WitP too little credit. :) While it is overall a strategic/operational game, it is the
tactical engagements that give us the battle results that make any of the higher level wargame aspects mean
anything in the first place. And WitP is shaping up to do a good job at the resolution of those tactical battles. :)

If it were just "random numbers" thrown around giving some sort of vague sloppy battle result with any resemblance
to reality being just a wild coincidence, then no one would want to play it. :) It's *because* UV, and presumably now
even more so WitP, gives rather detailed and realistic tactical battle results that the game is so enjoyable.
The player can enjoy the tactical exchanges satisfied in the knowledge that under the hood lots of important factors
are being taken into account and each sides' units are being forced to deal with both their strengths and weaknesses.
It's so cool to know there is so much attention to detail and historical and technical accuracy in the naval combat model! :)

Having AP bombs dropped from super low altitudes suffer the penetration penalty they should is just
another important aspect to the many, many naval battles that will routinely take place in WitP (and thus
could have a major impact on the overall war effort). And it also prevents players from exploiting the situation
and flying level bombers on the deck and getting the same penetration on a ship's armor that they would if
they were coming in and dropping their AP bombs from 12,000 feet or some such proper altitude.



Tiornu -> RE: Witpblazers (5/14/2004 8:56:10 AM)

quote:

NEED I SAY MORE?

No, I would not advise that.
I did a quick count and found nine instances in which you complain that I've not cited sources for my claims. Yet anyone who cares to can go back and find the sources I have cited. Warships1 has an entire section of Nathan Okun's work plus other essays of his on its tech page. I've also cited the penetration tables based on Nathan's formulae, though you need not rely on these tables since you can do your own calculations using the downloadable programs, which I also have already mentioned. If you read this information rather than simply denying that I've directed you to it, you may cease repeating the inaccuracies about Iowa's decapping waterline plate, the relative qualities of armor, and the various armor types. One mistake you will find: Nathan incorrectly understood that Yamato's turret roof was homogenous. The use of face-hardened roof armor is so radical that he did not believe me when I told him it was the same VH armor as used in vertical surfaces. You will find verification of this in the appropriate G&D volume, Senkan Musashi Kenzô Kiroku: Yamato Gata Senkan no Zembô, and Senkan Yamato & Musashi Sekkei to Kenzô. Nagato also had face-hardened roof plates, but in her case, VC.
Among Nathan's works, you will find distinctions between face-hardened and homogenous armor, which you have severely confused. You made repeated reference to "STS-face hardened" deck armor. STS is by definition a homogenous armor. In fact, no battleship ever had face-hardened deck armor, with the possible exception of one old Soviet ship that had some leftover belt plates laminated atop a pre-exisitng deck. You can't have a face-hardened deck because it is all but impossible to affix anything to it. The French tried very hard to figure a way to manage it, but could not. The Japanese may have tried as well. It just doesn't work that way. All American battleship armor decks were homogenous.
Among the other Okun writings, you will find the assessment of the Yamato-class faceplate armor. In analyzing the prospects of a 16in/50 hit on the faceplate under conditions optimal to penetration, Nathan wrote, "Thus, no holing or complete penetrations, ever, though possibly some cracking of the plate and possible jamming of the turret if the crack-off plate piece is dislodged badly enough." And this is under the best possible conditions, with new-gun velocity and at a range to give a normal impact.
Now I'll go back through your post and pick out the items that are not already addressed in the penetration tables or at Warships1.
quote:

It was a matter of US practice through the 1930's to design armor to defeat the best-penetrating projectile known to US BuOrd at the time, which was the 16" US AP round.

There is allegedly one Dahlgren drawing which labels the Iowa waterline plate as a decapper, though this drawing has not come to light. If the plating was intended as a decapper, it was ill-designed, incapable of decapping the shells of Yamato or Bismarck, and not covering all trajectories to the belt. The thickened strake was not deep either, covering only about as deep as the bottom of the Class A belt. Friedman relates the plating to anti-splinter specifications, which makes perfect sense. You will see also that the plating above this strake is only 25#, and thus offers no decapping to shells passing through it toward the deck. This is in US Battleships by Friedman.
quote:

"You haven't mentioned that it's almost impossible for Iowa to hit Yamato's deck with a shell that still has its cap."
"I do not need to mention that because it is not, as far as I know, correct. Do you have information that indicates the existence of a face hardened upper deck that might, conceivable, decap the best designe AP projectiles in the world? Reference please."

Please see G&D. I have already addressed your confusion over FH and homogenous armor, so no need to repeat. But you will see that Yamato has thick D steel all up the side of the hull above the armor deck and in the weather deck. The thinnest of this side plating is a 25mm liner above the belt-deck joint, and I don't think you can ge through it to the deck without also hitting the 33mm lamination above it. This 33mm section covers only one deck height; even this slim window will suffice to decap at reasonable obliquities. The entirety of the deck is either 30mm+ or covered with incidental structures, to the best of my knowledge.
quote:

"...while any 18.1in shell passing just above Iowa's belt will probably keep its cap."
"Again, that is an unsubstantiated claim.... But if you have a reference that proves this not to be the case, I'd like to know about it."

See the reference above to the 25# plating.
quote:

You mean, 'other than the "diving projectile" design used by the IJN?'

You asked a couple questions about the diving shells. In G&D, you will find the story of the Tosa firing trials. More details on the diving shell are found in Kaigun by Evans and Peattie. Optimum range for these shells was one with a descent angle of 17deg (about 20,000m for Yamato), but good results were also possible up to 25deg. The depth of the subsequent hit--as far as 80m from the shell splash--would generally be 15ft or more below the surface. This is below the Iowa waterline strake where the only plating is about 25#. Decapping would be irrelevant in any case, as the cap was designed to come off on impact with the water.
quote:

In a subsequent post I pointed out that there were two bomb hits.

The fire in the aft secondary mount erupted after a pair of bomb hits. S-06-2 states explicitly that these bombs "detonated above the second (armored) deck." If you have any documentation to refute this, go ahead and post it.
quote:

Your alternative explanation is that a trapped crewmember tipped their cigarette into her gas tank?

While you're covering yourself with sarcasm, you might recall that Barham, Scharnhorst, and Musashi all experienced magazine explosions shortly after going under, but none of these events can be linked conclusively to pre-existing fires. Japanese shells with their especially eager explosives could figure in initiating a disaster. Fire is the obvious and most likely culprit.
quote:

Five inch class B with STS-face hardened plate in every bulkhead within the citidel and between the upper magazines and in the spaces between the turret, uh (I don't know the word for this) column and interior spaces below deck.

Class B armor is essentially identical to STS, and both are homogenous. I could be wrong--wouldn't be the first time--but I don't believe there is any 5in armor anywhere on Iowa. There certainly isn't any 5in armor separating the magazines. (What is an "upper magazine"?) The lower barbette was 3in, a good thickness considering it can be hit only after penetration of the main protective armor. There were also turret stools of 1.5in or so. There may have been some 2.5in bulkheads, but that's the best I can find. I'm looking in G&D.
quote:

Why do you imagine that the best face-hardened armor in the world....

You'll have a tough time selling the idea that American face-hardened armor was the best in the world. However, there is an argument for it, at least when it came to defeating cruiser-caliber shells. For defeating battleship-caliber shells, it was pretty darned bad.
quote:

And you call me "haughty."

Sorry, I caught you posting a host of false presumptions despite documentation to the contrary, and I called you on it--and that makes me "haughty"...?
I've cited loads of interesting sources for you to read. I hope you find them educational. It's good stuff.



CynicAl -> RE: Witpblazers (5/14/2004 9:54:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

It would seam reasionable to asume that an object shaped like a Bomb and designed to travel through the air would be able to acheave it's terminial veloicty fairly quickely, thus High Alt is not realy going to nexcessarly improve the penatration effect...

Okay, I think I see the problem now: you're looking at it the wrong way around. A bomb-shaped object doesn't accelerate faster than, say, a skydiver-shaped object. It can't. Acceleration is a constant. What does happen is that the heavy, well-streamlined object will continue to accelerate long after the lighter, draggier body has reached terminal velocity and stopped accelerating. Bombs don't accelerate faster, they accelerate longer. And that's why an object with a high terminal velocity will require a much higher release altitude to achieve that velocity.

quote:

... as long as the height is suficient enough to alow the bomb to acheave terminial velocity, it is High enough.

This is essentially correct. For example, the 800kg weapon employed at Pearl Harbor was rated at just under 10,000 ft. Below that altitude it would not have enough time to work up to terminal velocity.

quote:

Dive Bombing could alow for a lower drop alt since the dive velocity would of course lower the alt nescessary to acheave the terminial effect.

Somewhat, yes, but not nearly as much as you might think. Look back at the figures Dunedain posted: a 300kt, 60-degree dive gives a downward component to velocity of ~260kt. This was considered equivalent to the same bomb free-falling an extra 3,500 feet! But wait, there's more! By 1941, everybody's dive bombers featured dive brakes, which improved accuracy (the reason dive bombing was invented in the first place) by reducing dive speed, which allowed steeper dives and lower release altitudes. Note the double whammy there.

quote:

This begs the question:

How how did you nead to be to get the terminial effct with a 500KG AP Bomb?

It's a sad commentary on the state of modern education that probably at least 80% of the people reading this will think you're using the phrase "beg the question" correctly. What I'm doing here is "begging the question" - i.e., not answering it. What you did was invite the question. We now return to our regularly scheduled program.

Hard to say. Referring back to Svar's post, let's start with a known quantity, the IJN 800kg AP, for comparison. For the sake of convenience, I'm going to assume similar shapes for the 500kg and 800kg bombs; then the coefficients of drag for the two should also be about the same, allowing this term to cancel out of the equation. Air density and projectile velocity will be the same unless and until one reaches terminal velocity and stops accelerating before the other; these terms cancel for the time period we want to examine. The smaller weapon will have a smaller frontal area, which will reduce drag, but by definition it also has a smaller weight, so it doesn't need as much drag to balance it. Maybe we're stuck here - But no! Surface area is a square function, and weight (assuming a given density) is based on volume, which is a cubic function; therefore we should expect terminal velocity to be more sensitive to weight than to surface area. A very rough, back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that a 500kg bomb of similar form to the IJN 800kg AP might reach terminal velocity if dropped from as low as 7,500 ft... but I'm compelled to repeat that this is a very rough figure, at most useful as a starting point for real investigation.



Brady -> RE: Witpblazers (5/14/2004 10:17:57 AM)

Ok I am a bit tierd presently so bear with me hear:

"Okay, I think I see the problem now: you're looking at it the wrong way around. A bomb-shaped object doesn't accelerate faster than, say, a skydiver-shaped object. It can't. Acceleration is a constant. What does happen is that the heavy, well-streamlined object will continue to accelerate long after the lighter, draggier body has reached terminal velocity and stopped accelerating. Bombs don't accelerate faster, they accelerate longer. And that's why an object with a high terminal velocity will require a much higher release altitude to achieve that velocity"

O, I was thinking that the Terminial velocity was a constant, but aparently every object has it's own terminial velocity, and as you say the only constant is the excerlation.

....................................................................................

"Somewhat, yes, but not nearly as much as you might think. Look back at the figures Dunedain posted: a 300kt, 60-degree dive gives a downward component to velocity of ~260kt. This was considered equivalent to the same bomb free-falling an extra 3,500 feet! But wait, there's more! By 1941, everybody's dive bombers featured dive brakes, which improved accuracy (the reason dive bombing was invented in the first place) by reducing dive speed, which allowed steeper dives and lower release altitudes. Note the double whammy there. "

So the dive brakes would alow for a steaper angle of atack, and thus the closer to vertical the impact the better the results for penatration, although the lower release spead could hinder the efect, I suspect the decreased atack angle compansated for this some what.

.............................................................

One thing that always struck me as interesting was observing the shape of Japanese Bombs when compared to US Bombs. The Japanese Bomb tends to be longer and more pointed, while US bombs tend to be fat by comparasion, this may explain the hight diferances neaded for acheaving terminial veloicty mentioned above.



CynicAl -> RE: Witpblazers (5/14/2004 11:08:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

O, I was thinking that the Terminial velocity was a constant, but aparently every object has it's own terminial velocity.

Exactly right. If you're talking about one particular class of object, skydivers for example, which can be assumed to have very similar aerodynamic properties, then for practical purposes terminal velocity will be the same for all of them - or close enough as makes no difference, anyway. When you start talking about radically different shapes and densities, comparing skydivers and bombs for example, then it's no longer safe to assume they'll have the same terminal velocity. But if you're a skydiver you should know this - when you pop the chute your mass doesn't change, but your shape does, resulting in a significant reduction of terminal velocity. Otherwise, what's the chute for?

quote:

So the dive brakes would alow for a steaper angle of atack, and thus the closer to vertical the impact the better the results for penatration, although the lower release spead could hinder the efect, I suspect the decreased atack angle compansated for this some what.

Actually, I suspect that most of the horizontal component of velocity would be scrubbed off by drag during the fall anyway. Without good numbers for drag coefficients, though...

quote:

One thing that always struck me as interesting was observing the shape of Japanese Bombs when compared to US Bombs. The Japanese Bomb tends to be longer and more pointed, while US bombs tend to be fat by comparasion, this may explain the hight diferances neaded for acheaving terminial veloicty mentioned above.

Possibly. Fluidics can be tricky - sometimes shapes can look draggy but actually have pretty good streamlining. In general, though, you are correct that a more streamlined body will have a greater terminal velocity and thus would have to be released from a greater height in order to achieve terminal velocity.



Akos Gergely -> In support of Tiornu (5/14/2004 2:54:52 PM)

Dear mdiehl,

please stop these "looking through a US minded glass" posts. Tiornu is a well known person in the web warship community, on some of the greatest warship forums. Also he is the author of a naval related book. So trust me, it's no use arguing with him because he has globally more research and knowledge in this field than many of us. Also you make up some of your points, which are totally imaginary. For example this 5" bulkhed plating in the Iowas. It's not mentioned by G&D nor by Mr. Friedman, nor does it appear on the FLoating Dry Dock drawings of the Iowa (which is derived from original blueprints if I'm not mistaken!). If none of these 3 references quote such I'm fairly sure there were nothing like that. To go one step further I have the Montana class armour layout drawings from FDD and that class (which is in fact much better suited to deal with Yamato) doesn't have these 5" blkhds. BTW the Montanas, which were armoured against the 2700 pounder, super-heavy 16"-er (the Iowas were designed against the standard, 1ton shell), and surprisingly the Montana's armour layout is much closer to the Yamatos!
Also, please qouto me any sources which indicate that there are any 18.1"/45 Type 94 gun was left after the war in good enough shape to make tests with it. That would be totally new to me!
Oh and BTW there is a good article on the warship1 site by Nathan Okun in which he desribes the firing test against a 25.6" face plate (intended for the 3rd Yamato class ship, the Shinano). The conclusion is the following:

" Therefore, these plates are the only warship armor plates that could not be completely penetrated by ANY gun ever put on a warship when installed leaning back at 45°, as they were in the actual turrets!!! Even to completely hole the plate all the way through at that inclination requires a brand new 16"/50 Mark 7 or German 38cm SK C/34 gun at point-blank range firing the latest versions of their respective AP projectiles; it might be cracked at a lower striking velocity, but no hole put entirely through it! AND THEY SAID GUNS HAD COMPLETELY OVERMATCHED ALL ARMOR--*NOT SO*!!! "

The complete article: http://www.warships1.com/index_tech/tech-040.htm

So please don't say completely imaginary things.



barbarrossa -> RE: Witpblazers (5/14/2004 2:56:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

It's correct that Yamato in her first (and only) surface engagement managed no main-battery hits. Hornblower, where did you find the figure of 108 salvoes fired? Do you have a figure for the number of shells?
In her first surface engagement, Iowa scored no main-battery hits. She fired a total of 13 salvoes, 86 shells. Her initial target was a cruiser lying dead in the water at a range of 14,250 yards.


So perhaps the whole question is moot when neither at the time could hit the broadside of an escort carrier or cruiser[:D]

Mdiehl:

I think the word you were searching for in an earlier post was "barbette". The projectiles were stored within the barbette and the powder mags outside of the barbette on the 6th deck.

"Citadel" was the term used as a nickname for the "conning tower" or Spot 3 (as we called it) another main battery director that was a redundancy should Spot 1 or 2 be incapacitated. Spot 3 is the one in the picures you see of the huge thick door and is located on the O-5 level. It was closed with a crank that would wear you out when you wanted to close it fast.

I could detail the FC sys redundancies in the event of casualties for BB-61 class ad nauseum (an amazing number of ways to fire those guns), are there any references on Yamato's FC redundancies? I'd be curious.

Oh yeah, it's the MK 13 radar on the Mk38 GFCS, duhhhhhhh, but keep in mind I'm relying on 15 year old memories and not looking much stuff up[:)]

As a side: my parents recently developed some old unknown rolls of film and lo and behold there are some pictures of our recomissioning ceremony!

Mike: Lighten up[:D]



mdiehl -> RE: Witpblazers (5/14/2004 7:15:55 PM)

In re bulkheads:

quote:

(The U.S. Navy made considerable use of homogeneous armor grade STS in its WWII battleships for the upper hull, major bulkheads and major decks -- a rather lavish design detail due to the higher cost of this metal.)


From Nathan Okun's Bismarck analysis. I had recalled the bulkhead being 5" thick from another source. But I agree that "major bulkheads" <> "all bulkheads" as I had recalled. "Major" bulkheads means the 11" ones. My error does not change the fact that the major interior difference was better blast and splinter protection within the protected region in the Iowa than in any other ship. Admittedly, the Yamato throws the biggest bursting charge of any, but of any ship the Iowas and SoDaks are the ones with the best designs to survive a penetrating hit. The same analysis shows that the Iowa/SoDak's addition 1.5" bulkhead additional armor plate between magazines, topping splinters from penetrating a magazine in a hit on an adjacent compartment.

SoDak'a and Iowas also had the additional 1.5" antisplinter plate around the barbette (thank you for the proper word) base, and an additional 1.5" (a third armored deck) above the magazines, making complete decap of any shell other than a US 16"L50 almost a certainty at all but close ranges. No other vessel had these features.

In re Yamato's armor belt:

quote:

The waterline belt of the YAMATO was 16.1" (410 mm) VH at a 20o outboard inclination to increase the minimum impact obliquity (the greatest inclination of any belt armor in a WWII battleship) laminated to a 1" (25.4 mm) cement layer (assuming British practice was followed) and a 0.63" (16 mm) D-steel bulkhead. The portion below the waterline was covered by a spaced curved outer hull plate of 0.55" (14 mm) D-steel, but the upper portion of the belt was exposed - this thin hull plate would not appreciably slow down or decap any large impacting projectile, in any event.
(italics added)

and SoDak/Iowa's belt:

quote:

Note that the decapping plate effect of the SOUTH DAKOTA's belt is about the same as having an additional 3.9" (99 mm) of armor


In re protection against diving shells:

quote:

Only the U.S. and Japanese gave adequate weight to the danger of diving shells and introduced into their last battleships slowly tapering homogeneous armor lower belts that turned into heavy internal torpedo bulkheads at their lower ends, but which were quite thick at the top where they merged with the bottom of the face-hardened main belt armor. The U.S. design of this anti-diving-shell lower belt was 11.3" (287 mm) STS at the top, smoothly dropping to 1.625" (41 mm) STS at 2.5' (0.76 m) above the triple-layered bottom, of which it formed the outer boundary; below this it became 0.75" (19 mm) HTS to the bottom hull (it was the third of four spaced internal bulkheads, the other three 0.75" HTS below the waterline). The Japanese design in the IJN YAMATO had 7.87" (200 mm) thick homogeneous New Vickers Non-Cemented (NVNC) armor at the top where it joined the bottom edge of the inclined 16.1" (410 mm) Vickers Hardened (VH) face-hardened belt, tapering smoothly to 3" NVNC at the bottom hull. Both systems used inclined bulkheads, including the main and lower belt, so that the bottom of the torpedo system was much deeper than the top, a quite logical design feature.

The Japanese and American tapering lower belts were rigid in the thickened regions and, as such, they compromised the anti-torpedo system somewhat, especially in the Japanese design, where the plating remained very thick (3" (76.2 mm) minimum) even at the ship's bottom and where its top connection to the main armor belt was grossly inadequate and tore free too easily, as actual torpedo hits showed. In the U.S. lower belt, the upper and lower belt plates were "keyed" using a strong slot-and-tongue design.


The gist of which suggestes to me that the Iowa/SoDaks were better protected against diving shells and torpedoes than Yamato. Again it's a case of Yamato's forte - -- very long delay fuses for "diving hits" stacked up against the ships that had the best protection against diving hits of any BB afloat.

quote:

In analyzing the prospects of a 16in/50 hit on the faceplate under conditions optimal to penetration, Nathan wrote, "Thus, no holing or complete penetrations, ever, though possibly some cracking of the plate and possible jamming of the turret if the crack-off plate piece is dislodged badly enough." And this is under the best possible conditions, with new-gun velocity and at a range to give a normal impact.


That directly contradicts:

quote:

NOTE: The 26" (66cm) VH turret face plates on the YAMATO Class were inclined back 45o and were the only plates that could not be completely penetrated by any gun ever put on a warship--these plates could be holed at point blank range by a newly-lined World War II U.S. Navy 16"/50 gun with late-World War II hard-capped AP projectiles, but even these projectiles would always ricochet; the YAMATO's own 18.1" (46cm) hard-capped AP projectiles, which were designed to an only slightly-improved British circa-1921 armor penetration specification, could not even make a hole in these plates at any range, though the impacts might crack them


The reason why I brought this up, however, was not to suggest that the Yamato's turrets were likelt to be holed (this would require ranges more typical of the American Civil War) but to show that (1) the 16"L50 had better general penetration characteristics than the 18.1", and (2) Yamato's vertical armor was prone to cracking (US vertical armor was not). So even a non-penetrating hit on Yamato's face plate has a very good chance of disabling one or more barrels or of jamming the turret.

quote:

please stop these "looking through a US minded glass" posts.


I've made no such posts. I have consistently relied on 3rd party information that is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate. I understand that my point of view, that Yamato was flawed in a number of ways that lend the advantage to Iowa or even a SoDak is inconvenient for people who wish to maintain that something about Axis warship design was sacred. We have had similar discussions about Bismarck. There are, well, devotees of that vessel that still presume her to be impenetrable to all but nuclear underwater bursts.

quote:

The fire in the aft secondary mount erupted after a pair of bomb hits. S-06-2 states explicitly that these bombs "detonated above the second (armored) deck." If you have any documentation to refute this, go ahead and post it.


I was referring specifically to these two hits:

quote:

1240: The YAMATO is hit by two AP bombs. Smoke rises from the vicinity of the mainmast and a bomb explodes in the same area. The aft secondary battery fire control, secondary gun turret and the air search radar are knocked out.


The "vicinity of the mainmast" strike is going to be forward, somewhere in the vicinity of the vulnerable (equivalent 6" deck armor) boiler grates, right?

The other two (that caused the aft fire) followed immediately:

quote:

The Attack Force changes course to 100 degrees. "Helldivers" from the BENNINGTON and the HORNET attack from port. At flank speed, the YAMATO commences a right turn but two 1000-lb AP bombs hit her. The first explodes in the crew's quarters abaft the Type 13 radar shack. The second penetrates the port side of the aft Command station and explodes between the 155-mm gun magazine and main gun turret No. 3's upper powder magazine. It starts a fire that cannot be extinguished and rips a 60-foot hole in the weather deck. One "Helldiver" is shot down, another is damaged badly.


The narrative of Yamato's demise concludes:

quote:

1423: Sunk: The YAMATO's No. 1 magazine explodes and sends up a cloud of smoke seen 100 miles away. She slips under followed by an underwater explosion. The YAMATO sinks at 30-22 N, 128-04 E.


and:

quote:

1 August 1985: A Japanese team in the deep research submersible PISCES II locates the YAMATO 1,410 feet deep in the East China Sea. The wreck is in two pieces. Its forward section is on its starboard side, while the aft section is bottom up. Researcher Anthony Tully notes that until the wreck was found, it was assumed that the explosion that came as she capsized was No. 3 turret magazine being touched off by the severe fire. However, he points out that the condition of the wreck makes clear that it was No. 2 turret magazine that exploded, shattering the fore-section. No. 3 may also have exploded, but the magazine of No. 1 appears intact.


The underwater photos seem to suggest that the forward No.2. turret magazine detonated first rather than the aft ones. I totally admit that the reason why I brought up the bomb hit forward was it makes sense given the detonation of No.2. turret magazine. Three bomb hits of potential importance -- one forward and two aft. At least one and maybe two uncontrollable fires. Two pending explosions either of which would have sunk her (or at least rendered her out of the fight) had she not capsized first from torpedo hits.

quote:

Sorry, I caught you posting a host of false presumptions despite documentation to the contrary, and I called you on it--and that makes me "haughty"...?


The difference is that you have claimed the presumptions to be false without documenting them (you keep telling me to run the facehard routine myself, why should I it's already been run and I've quoted at length the conclusions, the burden is on you to substantiate your rebuttal by running the darned things yourself or citing a widely available table that posts the results of such a run). Yeah, THAT makes you "haughty" given that you have accused me of the same when all I've done is quote text.

I can choose between your opinion or the only detailed point-by-point comparison of the designs that is presently available. At least with the latter the sources are referenced, and the assumptions are spelled out in detail. Until you refute that comparison with one of equal effort of your own, your effort to trivialize it and therefore dismiss it without even addressing in any credible way the points raised in it strikes me as a particularly useless form of rebuttal.

quote:

No, I would not advise that.


There are words for people like you, most of which imply that, upon your demise, all knowledge and memory of your existence, even among those most closely related to you, would vanish.

quote:

Also he is the author of a naval related book.


Which one?



Brady -> RE: Witpblazers (5/14/2004 7:28:25 PM)

barbarrossa, prety cool that you were able to serve on her, they are amsing ships to be shure. When I was a kid my folks took me to Bremerton and we were able to stand on the Missoury over the plack in the deck whear the Surender cermony took place, then years later the New Jersy came to Portland and I waited 2 hours in the rain to get on her, both very cool days to be that close to history was prety heady stuff, I cant imagine what serving on her would of been like.



Akos Gergely -> for mdiehl (5/14/2004 7:58:31 PM)

quote:

I've made no such posts. I have consistently relied on 3rd party information that is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate. I understand that my point of view, that Yamato was flawed in a number of ways that lend the advantage to Iowa or even a SoDak is inconvenient for people who wish to maintain that something about Axis warship design was sacred. We have had similar discussions about Bismarck. There are, well, devotees of that vessel that still presume her to be impenetrable to all but nuclear underwater bursts.


Sorry, but if we ask the people here I think they agree with me that your opinion is US biased at best, which is not the problem. Saying that Yamato has no chance at all (starting with 99% system damage before registering a hit or something like this) is far from reality, even if you have right in all the technical advantage respects of the US battleships - which is IMHO not the case. I totally agree that the USN ship were superior but not by that far. All ships had it's flaws, even the Iowas. Yamatos biggest flaws were the faulty TDS joints and the underarmoured secondaries. But this isn't encourage one to say that Yamato has no chance at all against Iowa. Also if we look at the designs themselves (minus radar and super-heavy shells - which simply weren't available for the japanese and they couldn't develope them later) you can see that the things go much more in favor of Yamato.
Also I would gladly accept that Iowa can defeat Yamato 5, maybe 6 times out of 10, but not 10 or even 9 out of 10!
Also you didn't answer my question regarding the left over or found 18.1" guns used in tests (please see my previous posts).

As for Tiornu's book, I don't wan to make ad for him, but I can send it in a PM if You're interested.

Thanks



Brady -> RE: for mdiehl (5/14/2004 8:09:12 PM)

"As for Tiornu's book, I don't wan to make ad for him, but I can send it in a PM if You're interested"

Could you if it's not to much to ask E mail the name to me:

bradys5@hotmail.com



mdiehl -> RE: for mdiehl (5/14/2004 9:33:17 PM)

quote:

Sorry, but if we ask the people here I think they agree with me that your opinion is


There is no question that some hold that opinion about me. I honestly don't give a rip. They're wrong. I did not set out long ago on some fishing expedition to find ways to prove the Iowa would win against the Yamato. My opinion is based (heavily) on the only point by point comparison of which I am aware that carries any sort of authority at all. Twenty years ago I'd have let the various "Yamato would win" comments pass without question.

quote:

Yamatos biggest flaws were the faulty TDS joints and the underarmoured secondaries.


And, apparently, vertical armor prone to cracking clear through the structure. A pretty problem indeed. That, and the assessment that Iowa was far more likely to be accurate in the early going is why I offered the "99%" sys damage claim. OK, it was an exaggeration. But there's no disputing that BBs are vulnerable to non-penetrating hits, that Yamato's turret faces were quite vulnerable to such, and that Iowa's likely to get more hits first and faster. That's why I emphasized "sys" damage rather than "flot" damage or "critical hits."

quote:

Also if we look at the designs themselves (minus radar and super-heavy shells - which simply weren't available for the japanese and they couldn't develope them later) you can see that the things go much more in favor of Yamato.


Yeah, but you can't look at the designs themselves minus, in effect, 'the weapons systems and the means of their targeting.' Well, YOU can look at that case, but it strikes me as having nothing to do with the most likely circumstances of an egagement between the two ships. And as I said before, if you want to assume some handicap, anything can happen to any BB.

quote:

Also you didn't answer my question regarding the left over or found 18.1" guns used in tests (please see my previous posts).


See: http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.htm

The critical text is:

quote:

A total of 27 guns were produced. Two of these were captured intact by the US occupation force and taken to Dahlgren Proving Grounds in Virginia, USA, for testing.


The offer --
quote:

As for Tiornu's book, I don't wan to make ad for him, but I can send it in a PM if You're interested.


is accepted. Please do. If "Tiornu" is someone whom I should respect as an authority on this matter it'd be nice to know. I might give more weight to his opinion when he casually dismisses other discussions that I have read concerning the subject.



Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: Witpblazers (5/14/2004 9:44:54 PM)

Thank you for everything [&o][&o]

I thought i knew a little about ww2... you destroyed my opinion... but more important, you showed Mr. Allied fanboy his limits.... thank you very much.... [:)]



Tiornu -> RE: Witpblazers (5/15/2004 1:14:06 AM)

quote:

SoDak'a and Iowas also had the additional 1.5" antisplinter plate around the barbette (thank you for the proper word) base, and an additional 1.5" (a third armored deck) above the magazines, making complete decap of any shell other than a US 16"L50 almost a certainty at all but close ranges.

I seriously doubt these surfaces would decap anything. Any shell that can keep its cap after penetrating the 12in belt or the 6in deck will not be impressed by splinter plating. And we can also note that it wouldn't make any difference; after you get through the citadel armor, you generally don't need a cap. (Oh, barbarrossa, you might find this interesting--or not. In the days of the pre-dreadnoughts, the word "citadel" was used to refer to the central portion of the ship's length where the armor was most concentrated. It came to refer to the "All" portion of the All-or-Nothing armor scheme as pioneered by the Nevada class. All modern battleships, except those of the Germans, were All-or-Nothing designs. So the word has made its rounds over the years.)
And the continued claim of 1.5in plates decapping large shells indicates you have yet to read the documentation I have referred you to. I'd suggest you stop making this mistaken posts. I mean, why repeat your mistake over and over? Which brings us to...
quote:

There are words for people like you, most of which imply that, upon your demise, all knowledge and memory of your existence, even among those most closely related to you, would vanish.

I have to assume that you thought I was being sarcastic rather than literal, and this was your best effort at a comeback. In fact, you'd do well to take my advice and stop trying to justify statements that have been conclusively refuted by the sources I've provided and you've refused to acknowledge. Everyone else has had the opportunity to read "De-Capping Revisited" and see that your decapping comments are false; you've had the opportunity as well, but you've declined. Why not go to the Warships1 tech page and read it now?
quote:

The gist of which suggestes to me that the Iowa/SoDaks were better protected against diving shells and torpedoes than Yamato.

I endorse your switch, using the term "better protected" in place of "proof." Is Iowa indeed better protected? I suppose it's a matter of taste. The Americans fixed their belt to the top of the double bottom, which means it'll be tough to get under, but if a shell managed to get into the double bottom, it was home free. Yamato's armor continued all the way under the magazines. I don't think it's an important issue as Yamato would not be confronting dedicated diving shells.
quote:

"Major" bulkheads means the 11" ones.

This was one of the weaker areas of the Iowa scheme, which is why Missouri and Wisconsin had more than 3in added to this thickness. I don't consider it a big issue, as I don't recall too many battleships suffering heavily from an armored bulkhead penetration. Yamato's forward bulkhead was 300mm thick and inclined at 20deg. This is the only battleship I know of with an inclined bulkhead.
quote:

That directly contradicts...

You'll find a couple contradictions in Nathan's work. That's because he assiduously continues and updates his research.
quote:

The "vicinity of the mainmast" strike is going to be forward, somewhere in the vicinity of the vulnerable (equivalent 6" deck armor) boiler grates, right?

Mm, no, not really. The closest hit at this time was near frame 157, while the grating ends of frame 136. However, there's no doubt that bombs later caused damage in a boiler room.
quote:

The difference is that you have claimed the presumptions to be false without documenting them (you keep telling me to run the facehard routine myself, why should I it's already been run and I've quoted at length the conclusions, the burden is on you to substantiate your rebuttal by running the darned things yourself or citing a widely available table that posts the results of such a run).

I "keep telling" you to run FACEHARD so you can check the results for yourself rather than relying on data from an old version of the program. I've already directed you to the newest calculations, which you have chosen to ignore while claiming I haven't directed you to them. Hey, it's a free country; you can stick your head in the sand if you want. Bottom line is I'm offering you better information than the stuff you're relying on, but you refuse to acknowledge that I've even made the offer. If you want to pretend it's not better, then tell Nathan that he's been wasting his time making improvements in his work.



Brady -> RE: Witpblazers (5/15/2004 1:32:57 AM)

I am going to order your book from Powels:

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-0306811162-0



mdiehl -> RE: Witpblazers (5/15/2004 1:38:49 AM)

quote:

I seriously doubt these surfaces would decap anything.


I did not say that they would. I said they'd offer better protection from the blast and splinters of a penetrating hit that detonated near but not in a magazine than the absence of same protection. That and nothing more.

quote:

I have to assume that you thought I was being sarcastic rather than literal, and this was your best effort at a comeback.


No, it was the best effort I could muster at a polite comeback directed at you, given your previous remarks.

quote:

The Americans fixed their belt to the top of the double bottom, which means it'll be tough to get under, but if a shell managed to get into the double bottom, it was home free. Yamato's armor continued all the way under the magazines. I don't think it's an important issue as Yamato would not be confronting dedicated diving shells.


I can't find anything to disagree with there.

quote:

Mm, no, not really. The closest hit at this time was near frame 157, while the grating ends of frame 136. However, there's no doubt that bombs later caused damage in a boiler room.


OK. I was just striving to find an explanation for the purported explosion of Turret 2's magazine that is suggested by the underwater photos. That is why I kept raising the early bomb hits other than the ones that started the fire between #3 main and the aft secondary magazines. Hope that clears up why I was interested in those.



Tiornu -> RE: Witpblazers (5/15/2004 2:28:53 AM)

quote:

No, it was the best effort I could muster at a polite comeback directed at you, given your previous remarks.

A valiant attempt.
In post 611488 you said, "SoDak'a and Iowas also had the additional 1.5" antisplinter plate around the barbette (thank you for the proper word) base, and an additional 1.5" (a third armored deck) above the magazines, making complete decap of any shell other than a US 16"L50 almost a certainty at all but close ranges. No other vessel had these features."
I responded, "I seriously doubt these surfaces would decap anything."
In post 611733, you answered, "I did not say that they would. I said they'd offer better protection from the blast and splinters of a penetrating hit that detonated near but not in a magazine than the absence of same protection. That and nothing more." Nothing about decapping? Okay....
The plating within Yamato's barbettes was 50mm, but there was little beyond this. DoY had 1.5in plating all around her barbettes and magazines--sides, crowns and bulkheads, but probably not underneath.



barbarrossa -> RE: Witpblazers (5/15/2004 5:20:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

barbarrossa, prety cool that you were able to serve on her, they are amsing ships to be shure. When I was a kid my folks took me to Bremerton and we were able to stand on the Missoury over the plack in the deck whear the Surender cermony took place, then years later the New Jersy came to Portland and I waited 2 hours in the rain to get on her, both very cool days to be that close to history was prety heady stuff, I cant imagine what serving on her would of been like.


Man.............underway.....full speed run and hard left and right rudders...........standing on the fantail and staring into the maw of turret3..........nautical Talledega[:D]



Tiornu -> RE: Witpblazers (5/15/2004 10:11:21 AM)

I've been told that the 5in guns were harder on the ears than the 16-inchers. Can you say if that's true?



barbarrossa -> RE: Witpblazers (5/15/2004 5:15:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

I've been told that the 5in guns were harder on the ears than the 16-inchers. Can you say if that's true?


Yes, as far as a pure impact on the ears they were. And when we fired them at night they would produce a momentary fire ring which looked pretty cool.

But they were indeed louder. Fun to track air targets in the directors too because the radar would actually lock onto the target whereas we had to maintain the track manually.



brisd -> RE: Witpblazers (5/15/2004 6:15:20 PM)

Brady - thanks for the info on that book, looks great. I ordered a copy last night [8D].



jnier -> RE: Witpblazers (5/16/2004 7:53:33 PM)

I have an unrelated Iowa question. I have heard it said the Soviets feared the modernized Iowas because they would be nearly impossible to sink with anti-ships missles. Is this a myth?

If it's not a myth, how could an Iowa be sunk? Are modern torpedo's able to penetrate the armor of an Iowa class? Would the best an opponent could hope for would be to disable an Iowa rather than sink it?



Mr.Frag -> RE: Witpblazers (5/16/2004 8:04:52 PM)

Not really a myth but not really a fact either.

In the modern navy with extended over the horizon weapons, having a lumbering monster like the Iowa on hand to absorb missile hits means a lot of other ships will remain floating and firing. How many it can absorb becomes a matter of luck, not statistics.

As missiles the size and speed of what Russia planned as their decapitation first strike really have never been fired in anger we'll never really know, but if you have ever played Harpoon II/3, you certainly learned to fear those damn shipwrecks when they came in. Russia went for a cheaper larger super fast missile system vs the USA's stealthy manueverable subsonic smart weapons. We will likely never know which was the better way to go.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Witpblazers (5/16/2004 8:14:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Not really a myth but not really a fact either.

In the modern navy with extended over the horizon weapons, having a lumbering monster like the Iowa on hand to absorb missile hits means a lot of other ships will remain floating and firing. How many it can absorb becomes a matter of luck, not statistics.

As missiles the size and speed of what Russia planned as their decapitation first strike really have never been fired in anger we'll never really know, but if you have ever played Harpoon II/3, you certainly learned to fear those damn shipwrecks when they came in. Russia went for a cheaper larger super fast missile system vs the USA's stealthy manueverable subsonic smart weapons. We will likely never know which was the better way to go.



I don't know...which is better, the specially NASA engineered astronaut pen which can write in zero gravity or the standard lead pencil, which the Soviets used?[;)]



Mr.Frag -> RE: Witpblazers (5/16/2004 8:40:34 PM)

quote:

I don't know...which is better, the specially NASA engineered astronaut pen which can write in zero gravity or the standard lead pencil, which the Soviets used?


Ain't that the truth?

I know I can build this one that costs 0.0002 cents but come on, we have to keep 20,000,000 people employed so lets go with the fancy one that costs a million dollars [:D]



Brady -> RE: Witpblazers (5/16/2004 8:55:27 PM)

I used to debate the likelyhood of surviving a saturation atack launched by an Oscar using SS-N-19 Cruse Missels with the various crews of the Navy ships that came to Portland when I was in the Navy leauge and non of them seamed to impresed with their chances (of surviving).



CynicAl -> RE: Modern Weapons (5/17/2004 3:42:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

I used to debate the likelyhood of surviving a saturation atack launched by an Oscar using SS-N-19 Cruse Missels with the various crews of the Navy ships that came to Portland when I was in the Navy leauge and non of them seamed to impresed with their chances (of surviving).


It really depends on the composition and alertness of the force under attack. 24 missiles really isn't that many if you're trying to saturate the defenses of a CVBG with 2 or 3 AEGIS escorts, but it could very well be enough to overwhelm the escorts of a merchant convoy, or even an amphibious group.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jnier

I have an unrelated Iowa question. I have heard it said the Soviets feared the modernized Iowas because they would be nearly impossible to sink with anti-ships missles. Is this a myth?

If it's not a myth, how could an Iowa be sunk? Are modern torpedo's able to penetrate the armor of an Iowa class? Would the best an opponent could hope for would be to disable an Iowa rather than sink it?


Modern torpedos certainly should be up to the job. The standard 21" HWTs of both the US and Soviet Navies carried warheads at least as powerful as the air-launched torpedos that did for Yamato and Musashi; the Soviets also deployed 25" "Carrier Killer" torpedos with even more powerful warheads. Anti-ship missiles could also pose a serious threat. Some, like the "SS-19" or "AS-4," could be expected to do significant damage even without warheads, solely because of their great weight and high speeds. They also carried warheads of up to one ton. In addition to that, shots made from inside extreme range would have a very good chance of spraying unused fuel all over the target ship, causing serious (and difficult to extinguish) fires. Missiles could certainly mission-kill an Iowa, and could very well sink her - even without resorting to nuclear weapons, which would have been a significant possibility in any scenario which had the Soviets seriously trying to sink a capital warship of the US Navy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Russia went for a cheaper larger super fast missile system vs the USA's stealthy manueverable subsonic smart weapons. We will likely never know which was the better way to go.


Soviet and Western anti-ship missile designs were driven by the nature of threats and targets. The Soviets built big, fast missiles (not all that cheaply, BTW) which could sink CVs and BBs because the US and NATO had CVs and BBs. But for a long time, the Soviet surface navy didn't have anything comparable in size or power; even in the 1980s, the great bulk of the Soviet surface navy - and the entirety of every other "threat" navy, including the PLAN - were smaller ships, DD-sized and down. Until the late 1970s, the Western navies simply had no need for a missile like the Soviet Granat; even into the early 1990s there were only about half a dozen ships in the Soviet Navy which wouldn't have been mission-killed (at least) by a Harpoon or Exocet hit.



herbieh -> RE: Witpblazers (5/17/2004 6:52:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jnier

I have an unrelated Iowa question. I have heard it said the Soviets feared the modernized Iowas because they would be nearly impossible to sink with anti-ships missles. Is this a myth?

If it's not a myth, how could an Iowa be sunk? Are modern torpedo's able to penetrate the armor of an Iowa class? Would the best an opponent could hope for would be to disable an Iowa rather than sink it?



My current boss used to be an old aussie Oberon skipper, and I have a few mates from the silent service, and over a few beers it quite interesting relating a few waries
(Scary how many times I got "sunk " by my boss and I wasnt even aware I was dead)
Iowas were sitting ducks for our subs in every exercise we had against them ( as are yank carriers today against our collins class -we have not had an exercise in the last 3 years where a collins class has not failed to penetrate the screen undetected, and "sink" the carrier.) cant imagine any ship surving a brace of mk 48s in any circumstance.
Sorry to upset guys, but when it comes to naval warfare today, there truly are only 2 types of ships, submarines and targets[:D]
Anyone game to guess how big a hole a single Mk 48 would make in Iowa?



Raverdave -> RE: Witpblazers (5/17/2004 7:32:55 AM)

Yup, I have a mate who is serving on one of the Collins Class subs, and now that they have all been fixed there are deadly.



Brady -> RE: Witpblazers (5/17/2004 11:12:01 AM)

"It really depends on the composition and alertness of the force under attack. 24 missiles really isn't that many if you're trying to saturate the defenses of a CVBG with 2 or 3 AEGIS escorts, but it could very well be enough to overwhelm the escorts of a merchant convoy, or even an amphibious group. "

Part of the problem that existed when I was doing this debating (late 80/early 90's) was that the ships did not have the abality to cordinate their efforts, so they would likely face the mass alone given their posation withen a TF and the atack vector, even if more than one ship could see the threat it would likely be that they would be assigning missels to the same targets. Another problem is that while an Agies class Cruzer had 4 fire controle radars only three would ever be able to be used at any one time do to the ships shadow. and this only under ideal circumstances. The wave top aporach of the missels was a big problem it severly limited the reaction time and the limiting factor then was the fire controle radar/ or rather the illumanators. No mater how you sliced it some misels would get past the Standard missels(actualy most would) then of course you have either Chaff or Phalanx to get some more, but at the time Chaff would bugger Phalanx so the two could not be used at the same time, and phalanx would never get all that leaked through the Standard screan, their just was not enough time, a couple would get through, prety much no mater what.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.609375