Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

IIRC Kongo was a British design and built in England, but the other three of that class were built in Japan.  Very good and useful ships in the 1910's and 20's, not good enough for the battleline in the 30's and 40's.  Hiei had her armor penetrated by a heavy cruiser (at point blank range but still), after all, something no capital ship worth its name should have happen.

Had the two British ships met Kongo and Haruna at night, everything would have come down to the accuracy of the Japanese torpedoes.  The Japanese emphasis on night fighting tactics was mostly for their destroyers and cruisers, not the battleships;  the big ships still expected to meet the US in a Jutland-like battle during the daytime where speed and long range gunnery would prevail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

"No, I have to disagree. The British had good radar and knew how to use it. This would totally outclass any Japanese ship of equal stature. "

Well I agree that the RN had radar and were well trained in its use, but at night those Long Lance torpedoes would have been as dangerous to them as they were to the radar-equipped USN ships in 1942 and 1943.  If it were just between the capital ships the RN would have probably defeated the IJN battleships handily, night or day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: engineer

The initial deployments set-up a situation where a night battle between Force Z and a pair of Kongo's is likely. Up at the start of this thread there are three incidents reported where Force Z wins by some margin. Maybe more readers would contribute what their experience has been and we could collect a large enough sample to conclude whether the better fire control and armament on the POW is enough to counter-balance the Japanese night tactics and Long Lance torpedos?

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

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

quote:

Maybe more readers would contribute what their experience has been and we could collect a large enough sample to conclude whether the better fire control and armament on the POW is enough to counter-balance the Japanese night tactics and Long Lance torpedos?

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

quote:

Original Iridium:
It's mainly luck, both forces are equal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: engineer

3)  Long Lance torpedoes are devastating but unreliable in the sense that the tactical opportunities to score a hit are highly uncertain.

I think the first two points would pass muster as conventional wisdom.  I think the last point is counter-intuitive given the success of the IJN in the opening phases of WW2 right up through Savo Island and some of the subsequent actions around Guadalcanal.  If we get reports of Japanese victory that depend on torpedo hits instead of gunfire for the margin of victory that would still agree with the third conclusion given the absence of fatal damage in the four case reported so far. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder
In my less publicized game vs. Bilbow as Japan, I left a fleet with two of the fast BBs and handful of cruisers and DDs to handle Force Z if it intercepted some other landings at Java.  The RN got a night radar detection and surprise and my fleet was summarily executed.  Kongo and Hei went down, 2x CLs and a CA.  And one CA is going to be in the yards for a -very- long time.  I think it actually was a bit of bad luck on my part, as I do believe the fleets were matched "well enough" (as in, well enough to injure PoW and Repulse so Madam Nell could finish them off in the morning).  But I barely dinged the paint on anything.  All torps (when they had few chances to shoot) missed, and i don't think the Kongo and Hei ever got a shot off with their main guns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Did not penetrate.

Here's a link to pics of the battle damage. The 14-incher is hit number 26 IIRC - direct impact on the number 3 barbette armour.

Thud!

quote:

They would have done better to have reduced the range in favor of an even larger warhead; the Long Lance was powerful enough to sink a DD with one hit but tended to only cripple a cruiser unless more than one hit was obtained.

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

"IIRC, (and I may not have RC), the IJN launched a crap-ton of LL's in the Java Sea battles, and didn't score many hits. It seems that the LL may not have been as effective as hoped (or as much as the players here think they should be)."

The Java Sea torpedoes were launched from long range, over 18000 yds IIRC.  Given their success (2 CL's and a DD hit), I'd say they worked well enough.  When Doorman's cruisers began blowing up, he was convinced he had either blundered into a minefield or a sub was firing torpedoes at him.

The Long Lance torpedo was a success because of its huge warhead and oxygen fueled engine, making it wakeless.  The long range was useful but not as decisive as the Japanese had hoped; other than the Java Sea fight, when it was used the ranges were already down to typical distances.  They would have done better to have reduced the range in favor of an even larger warhead; the Long Lance was powerful enough to sink a DD with one hit but tended to only cripple a cruiser unless more than one hit was obtained.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

The Java Sea torpedoes were launched from long range, over 18000 yds IIRC.  Given their success (2 CL's and a DD hit), I'd say they worked well enough.  When Doorman's cruisers began blowing up, he was convinced he had either blundered into a minefield or a sub was firing torpedoes at him.

The Long Lance torpedo was a success because of its huge warhead and oxygen fueled engine, making it wakeless.  The long range was useful but not as decisive as the Japanese had hoped; other than the Java Sea fight, when it was used the ranges were already down to typical distances.  They would have done better to have reduced the range in favor of an even larger warhead; the Long Lance was powerful enough to sink a DD with one hit but tended to only cripple a cruiser unless more than one hit was obtained.

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

No 10,000 ton cruiser was never going to be sunk by a single torpedo hit no matter how large the warhead. This is because a single hit will result in flooding only in two or possibly as many as three major compartments. This will never be enough flooding to sink such a ship. Now, that ship may very well be left dead in the water, almost certainly leading to further damage, but that is another story.

A number of IJ CLs succumbed to a single torpedo hit. This was mainly due to the fact that these ships all had centerline bulkheads, which resulted in asymmetrical flooding and capsizing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

No 10,000 ton cruiser was never going to be sunk by a single torpedo hit no matter how large the warhead. This is because a single hit will result in flooding only in two or possibly as many as three major compartments. This will never be enough flooding to sink such a ship. Now, that ship may very well be left dead in the water, almost certainly leading to further damage, but that is another story.

A number of IJ CLs succumbed to a single torpedo hit. This was mainly due to the fact that these ships all had centerline bulkheads, which resulted in asymmetrical flooding and capsizing.

Actually that isn't quite true, it really depends on what gets hit when the torpedo strikes. Fuel storage, ammo storage or engineering/steering hits are all effective 'kills'. They may not send the ship to the bottom, but those hits will take it out of the fight. A ship that can't manuevre is useless to the battle line.