View Full Version : Naval gunfights......"death by a thousand cuts"
http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdf
I have always been fascinated by the naval gunfights that occurred in WWII, specifically in the Solomon Islands area in 1942-43 (and later Taffy 3 in the Philippines). I believe they were all night engagements and brutal as hell. This was a different scenario that long-distance carrier battles. What has struck me is that naval gunfire, while it certainly could be fatal, was a slower death than bombs and torpedoes. In the above-linked PDF you can see how many shell hits the IJN battleship Kirishima took. Half or less that number of bomb and/or torpedo hits would have sunk most capital ships of the WWII era. Yes, Yamato took a shit-ton of bomb and torpedo hits but that behemoth (and her sister ship Musashi) would have absorbed MANY more naval gunfire hits before succumbing.
Maybe some of you naval buffs can opine, but it appears that comparing 16" shell hits to bombs would be akin to getting struck by a .45 vs a 12 gauge slug.
I read the PDF above from start to finish and it was really interesting. Very detailed. Also found it interesting that what was normally counted as a "miss" could actually wreak havoc below the waterline.
Coal Dragger
09-12-20, 21:33
Torpedoes were a bigger problem for battleships than bombs. At least by late war when well armored decks were the norm on large capital ships, particularly those designed with an understanding of effective armor if against bombs or plunging fire from naval rifles.
The Bikini Atoll testing was very demonstrative of just how tough battleships were at shrugging off damage above the waterline.
See also: Battleship Action Nov 14-15 1942 (http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Battleship_Action_Guadalcanal.pdf)
The damage report on the USS South Dakota (http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/South_Dakota_Damage_Analysis.php) may also interest you. She took a beating vs the Kirishima. The content is very detailed and because South Dakota was able to limp back to port for service and refitting, there are often good photos for much of the damage inflicted.
There are also some battleship engagements where the results were more catastrophic; like the Battle of Jutland (WWI).....
In Jutland (1916), it was not really a fight between equal ships. The British tried to use battle cruisers in a broadside exchange against German battleships. The British made it worse for themselves because their emphasis on rapid-fire drill led them to make serious errors in handling the propellant for the main guns within their battle cruisers.
...and the Battle of the Denmark Strait where HMS Hood (1941) simply disappeared after Bismarck hit one of Hood's magazines.
Torpedoes were a bigger problem for battleships than bombs. At least by late war when well armored decks were the norm on large capital ships, particularly those designed with an understanding of effective armor if against bombs or plunging fire from naval rifles.
The Bikini Atoll testing was very demonstrative of just how tough battleships were at shrugging off damage above the waterline.
Well to be fair the Kirishima was a WWI-era battleship (same era as the Arizona, Pennsylvania, etc.), the Washington wasn't.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-12-20, 23:42
What I’ve taken away from what I’ve read and seen, the ‘terminal ballistics’ are on thing, but the role of tactics, and fire control, and luck. Taffy 3’s destroyers were able to hide in squalls and use radar to snipe at the Japanese from long range, while the Japanese had mainly visual targeting - down to different color dye to chart their splash.
Whenever they show the problems with Iranian Fastboats, I’d love to see a late WWII Fletcher with 5 independent radar guided 5 inch guns, and a literal boatload of 40mm Bofors and 20mm Orlikeans go to work...
Really enjoy:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjN1vWQqOXrAhXxdc0KHfr5DXQQFjAAegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fchannel%2FUC4mftUX7apmV1vsVXZh7RTw&usg=AOvVaw0PCgsEd3YXxpJ42hiA7Z0E
Drachinifel’s YouTube channel.
I worked in Truk Lagoon or Chuck as its called
Dove on all the WWII wrecks that we sunk and was pretty wild to see some stuff and some unexplored ordnance still :) bomb hit the deck and went down a few levels and did not explode but you could see the stabilizing fins of the bomb still :) wild stuff
We used to go in this one ship that got hit by a torpedo and a huge hole and the mess inside of the hit was actually shocked when I first got there how big some of the torpedo holes were and how much damage inside they did
So many other ships that were sunk along with Japanese zero planes etc...
wild stuff to see first hand
that little icon photo is of a planes Betty bomber that was trying to land at Eten island
I also had the very rare experience of diving on the USS Arizona Memorial and taking photos on her so have seen a lot what naval battle was like in the aftermath of it
All three British battlecruisers lost at Jutland were lost to fire from German battlecruisers.
Just pointing out the facts of the matter. The British did not mistakenly or intentionally employ their battlecruisers to engage German battleships.
Rather, they used them to engage and pursue the German battlecruisers. They turned and ran when encountering the German battle line.
Reference the “Runs” to the north and south.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-13-20, 01:47
What I find most interesting is that they never got a battleship 'right' - The NJ class and Yamato were close, but even the Montana wasn't whacked out- and by that I mean pushing armor, speed, and firepower at the same time- without worrying about treaties or the panamax.
A fast Montana, or an upgunned Iowa- and uparmoured Iowa, from what I've read, that was their major flaw. I'm talking a 34 knot, 12-16inch/9-18inch, with a huge immunity zone.
Two Iowas bracketed a Japenese destroyer almost 40,000 yards away in the Truk Atoll. That kind of speed advantage and ability to put rounds on target at those distances... damn...
The cruiser USS Salem had the Mk16 autoloading versions of the 8 inch guns. 9 guns 350# shells, 10 rounds per, gun per minutes- versus 4 for a normal inch gun,-- 15 tons of smack down a minute- plus the 5 inch guns...
Wow, and 8inch autoloading gun, 1945. If only we had a gun like that today, or more exactly, ammo for a gun like that today....
Maybe some of you naval buffs can opine, but it appears that comparing 16" shell hits to bombs would be akin to getting struck by a .45 vs a 12 gauge slug.
I read the PDF above from start to finish and it was really interesting. Very detailed. Also found it interesting that what was normally counted as a "miss" could actually wreak havoc below the waterline.
I'm no expert, just a student of history, but I think the difference is indirect fire vs. direct fire. Naval gun shells land where they land, hopefully scoring some kind of hit which in itself is no easy thing.
Torpedoes and dive bombers aren't trying to go after "just the ship" they know where magazines and ordnance storage areas are. Think about the Arizona at Pearl Harbor, that wasn't an accident, the Japanese knew where they were trying to hit her.
This is how carrier planes made battle ships almost obsolete.
It you are really interested in the Solomon Islands naval battles early in the war then Neptune's Inferno is a must read. The differing naval tactics between the Japanese and American at that point in the war is stark. The Japanese were much more advanced in torpedo and night time warfare, which caused most of the damage on American ships. The book will also give you a new appreciation for the bravery of our sailors during those battles.
I wouldnt say "more advanced" but the Japanese were still training and excelling in the older methods of range finding and gunnery, while we were awkwardly caught in the transition between the old methods and new radar directed. Training in the old methods was given less priority than learning, troubleshooting and perfecting the new radar gunnery. New young officers pushing the training, older veteran seamen a bit distrustful of the new troublesome equipmemt, young new recruits stuck somewhere in the middle.
Its okay, they were hard lessons but while we were learning, less and less japanese sailors were taking lessons home to share.
The James Hornfischer books are excellent, as is Dracinifel channel on youtube
Sent from my SM-A205U using Tapatalk
It you are really interested in the Solomon Islands naval battles early in the war then Neptune's Inferno is a must read. The differing naval tactics between the Japanese and American at that point in the war is stark. The Japanese were much more advanced in torpedo and night time warfare, which caused most of the damage on American ships. The book will also give you a new appreciation for the bravery of our sailors during those battles.
While I haven't read Neptune's Inferno, that was a different Navy, at least action-wise, than we've seen ever since. Those brutal shootouts in the Solomons, Surigao Strait, Taffy 3, and kamikazes later always piques my interest when I see a "WWII Navy Veteran" hat on some old dude. No offense to any modern Navy vets, but THOSE guys were the sea-going equivalent of modern combat Infantrymen.
Was at a D-Day re-enactment at Conneaut Lake (it's an annual one, pretty cool) back in 2016. Saw an old duffer with a USS Tennessee hat on. Now, the Tennessee was at Pearl Harbor and later Surigao Strait. The latter was the last battleship-on-battleship fight in world history. Turns out he was on it at Surigao Strait when Adm. Oldendorf led the "Revenge of Pearl Harbor" and "crossed the T" on the Japanese, a classic naval gunfight maneuver. The old guy was surprised I knew so much about it, I just smiled and told him I've had an interest in military history since I was a kid. Told him it was a privilege to meet him.
Diamondback
09-13-20, 09:03
Also, at that time the Japanese had the best gun-laying optics and torpedoes in the world, and trained obsessively on night tactics. Night optical gunfire is also helped immensely when you have cruisers like Chikuma/Tone carrying small air wings of scout floatplanes to go light targets with flares... but it kinda sucks in bad weather, or when your target has a smokescreen of four burning destroyers to hide behind. (This is why SoDak took the brunt of Kirishima's fire leaving Washington free to potshot with relative impunity.)
It's worth noting that Kirishima and her sisters were built as battlecruisers and up-armored around the 1920's. Better than as-built but not the same as a purpose-built battleship of similar tech and tonnage. Also, Japan wasn't real big on "rotate home to share lessons" anyway, once sent to the war zone it was usually "to victory or death," which played right into our hands in the carrier air-war of attrition.
Also, at that time the Japanese had the best gun-laying optics and torpedoes in the world, and trained obsessively on night tactics. Night optical gunfire is also helped immensely when you have cruisers like Chikuma/Tone carrying small air wings of scout floatplanes to go light targets with flares... but it kinda sucks in bad weather, or when your target has a smokescreen of four burning destroyers to hide behind. (This is why SoDak took the brunt of Kirishima's fire leaving Washington free to potshot with relative impunity.)
It's worth noting that Kirishima and her sisters were built as battlecruisers and up-armored around the 1920's. Better than as-built but not the same as a purpose-built battleship of similar tech and tonnage. Also, Japan wasn't real big on "rotate home to share lessons" anyway, once sent to the war zone it was usually "to victory or death," which played right into our hands in the carrier air-war of attrition.
Yes, the dreaded "Long Lance" torpedo. Probably the best in all of WWII in any naval force at the time.
As far as gun-laying, the U.S. (as someone mentioned earlier) was cutting it's teeth on radar-directed gunnery while the Japanese were old-school. Now in the early days it gave the Japanese the upper hand, but as the war dragged on the U.S. began to perfect it's technological edge and the Japanese took a back seat.
Two interesting side notes:
1) Most of South Dakota's problems during the gunfight with Kirishima and the other Japanese vessels were electrical failures not related to combat. That set her up for the pummeling she received from the Japanese guns.
2) The youngest American to fight in WWII, Calvin Graham, was 12 years old and wounded onboard the South Dakota during that battle. Can you imagine, 12 freaking years old!?!?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Graham
While I haven't read Neptune's Inferno, that was a different Navy, at least action-wise, than we've seen ever since. Those brutal shootouts in the Solomons, Surigao Strait, Taffy 3, and kamikazes later always piques my interest when I see a "WWII Navy Veteran" hat on some old dude. No offense to any modern Navy vets, but THOSE guys were the sea-going equivalent of modern combat Infantrymen. .
You're absolutely right. Most people think I'm kidding when I tell them that there were many more deaths and more total casualties in the Navy the USMC during WWII.
As far as the bomb vs. torpedoes vs. naval rifles the torps were the killers because they always hit at or below the waterline. A single 16" shell was an area fire weapon but was over 2,000 pounds vs 250, 500, and occasionally a 1000 pounds for bombs.
You're absolutely right. Most people think I'm kidding when I tell them that there were many more deaths and more total casualties in the Navy the USMC during WWII.
As far as the bomb vs. torpedoes vs. naval rifles the torps were the killers because they always hit at or below the waterline. A single 16" shell was an area fire weapon but was over 2,000 pounds vs 250, 500, and occasionally a 1000 pounds for bombs.
Yeah but for some reason 10 bomb hits seems like it would be more fatal to a ship than 10 shell hits from a 16" gun. Maybe because the actual explosive component on a 16" shell wasn't as large as a bomb's? i.e. in a 2000lb shell I'd wager the bulk of the weight was solid steel for penetration and that the explosive part was a distinct minority of the weight? (just spit-balling here though)
Diamondback
09-13-20, 14:52
Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors shoulda been made a movie, or Spielberg-Hanks miniseries, *long* ago. It's another one that I've used as a "playbook" for miniatures reenactments at conventions.
hotrodder636
09-13-20, 15:29
I would really like to see a similar report on the Bismarck.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdf
I have always been fascinated by the naval gunfights that occurred in WWII, specifically in the Solomon Islands area in 1942-43 (and later Taffy 3 in the Philippines). I believe they were all night engagements and brutal as hell. This was a different scenario that long-distance carrier battles. What has struck me is that naval gunfire, while it certainly could be fatal, was a slower death than bombs and torpedoes. In the above-linked PDF you can see how many shell hits the IJN battleship Kirishima took. Half or less that number of bomb and/or torpedo hits would have sunk most capital ships of the WWII era. Yes, Yamato took a shit-ton of bomb and torpedo hits but that behemoth (and her sister ship Musashi) would have absorbed MANY more naval gunfire hits before succumbing.
Maybe some of you naval buffs can opine, but it appears that comparing 16" shell hits to bombs would be akin to getting struck by a .45 vs a 12 gauge slug.
I read the PDF above from start to finish and it was really interesting. Very detailed. Also found it interesting that what was normally counted as a "miss" could actually wreak havoc below the waterline.
hotrodder636
09-13-20, 15:33
The old WWII Naval gun battles were brutal. Like said before these were hardass sailors.
Coal Dragger
09-13-20, 16:14
Yeah but for some reason 10 bomb hits seems like it would be more fatal to a ship than 10 shell hits from a 16" gun. Maybe because the actual explosive component on a 16" shell wasn't as large as a bomb's? i.e. in a 2000lb shell I'd wager the bulk of the weight was solid steel for penetration and that the explosive part was a distinct minority of the weight? (just spit-balling here though)
10 bomb hits to most battleships designed after WWI were not going to do much. A lot less energy and penetration power compared to a 15”-16” shell.
Again hits below the waterline are what killed most BB’s, and an a bomb dropped by an aircraft at the time was not nearly as effective as a 15”-16” armor piercing shell, which were not nearly as effective as torpedoes.
Diamondback
09-13-20, 16:21
10 bomb hits to most battleships designed after WWI were not going to do much. A lot less energy and penetration power compared to a 15”-16” shell.
Again hits below the waterline are what killed most BB’s, and an a bomb dropped by an aircraft at the time was not nearly as effective as a 15”-16” armor piercing shell, which were not nearly as effective as torpedoes.
Trivial note, the 1760# Special Purpose bombs dropped at Pearl Harbor (like what killed Arizona) were battleship shells adapted with fins and shackles to hang off aircraft racks. Basically you had a "plunging fire" battleship shot Terminal Ballistics combined with the more precise delivery of an aircraft drop--most post-1880s naval gunfire is not "direct" horizontal, but more lobbed high like a howitzer trying to dodge the thick side belt-armor by penetrating the weaker deck.
A lot of the capital ships survived torpedo attacks because of armor, largely by the way the ship was built. In most of those ships all the vital components including the magazines were in up-armored areas and were more susceptible to more damage from the top down than from under the water.
Have a great book about the North Carolina and it goes into great detail about the architecture and design.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-13-20, 16:46
10 bomb hits to most battleships designed after WWI were not going to do much. A lot less energy and penetration power compared to a 15”-16” shell.
Again hits below the waterline are what killed most BB’s, and an a bomb dropped by an aircraft at the time was not nearly as effective as a 15”-16” armor piercing shell, which were not nearly as effective as torpedoes.
I read or heard somewhere that ALL WWII carrier losses were due to torpedoes- air, sub ( surface I doubt). USS Gambier Bay I guess proves that wrong, but it was the only one to naval gunfire.
Diamondback
09-13-20, 16:51
Standard practice was what's called "all or nothing" protection--all of the critical spaces and equipment are packed into a central heavily-armored "citadel" with crew berthing and other things not directly related to keeping the ship either floating or fighting at the "expendable" extremities.
I read or heard somewhere that ALL WWII carrier losses were due to torpedoes- air, sub ( surface I doubt). USS Gambier Bay I guess proves that wrong, but it was the only one to naval gunfire.
The Japanese carriers at Midway were all sunk from dive bombers, not torpedoes. Our torpedo bombers actually were horrible in that battle and I don't know that they were effectively used again. They were so slow, they were easy pickings for the Japanese. The torpedo bombers did keep the Japanese off balance and force them to use their CAP, allowing the dive bombers to come in relatively unscathed.
Diamondback
09-13-20, 17:02
I read or heard somewhere that ALL WWII carrier losses were due to torpedoes- air, sub ( surface I doubt). USS Gambier Bay I guess proves that wrong, but it was the only one to naval gunfire.
Torp or bomb, mostly bomb for US planes sinking Japanese CV's since they only fixed our criminally deficient torps in late '44. Carriers are a different beast than battleships structurally, in WWII ours carried the main armor deck at hangar level which lowered topweight and allowed more tonnage as airwing while the Brits armored the flight deck to protect the whole ship at the cost of reduced stability and reduced "punch." Also, our wooden flight decks were quickly and easily patched while their armored ones once holed meant having to go back to port for repairs.
The modern supercarrier is rooted in an arrogant, though not totally unjustified so far, presumption that we can set up battlegroups to create an impenetrable screen which nothing can penetrate to get to the carrier in the middle--the Forrestal and Oriskany fires well illustrate what can happen if something DOES get through.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-13-20, 17:33
Sorry, US carriers.
When it comes time to scuttle a ship, they didn't shoot them, they'd torpedeo them- I guess that says something....
I read or heard somewhere that ALL WWII carrier losses were due to torpedoes- air, sub ( surface I doubt). USS Gambier Bay I guess proves that wrong, but it was the only one to naval gunfire.
To be fair the Gambier Bay and other ships of her class were escort carriers. Quick to build and not nearly as robust as primary carriers or other capital ships. They laid down about 50 of them during the war and all that survived the war were scrapped.
Diamondback
09-13-20, 18:00
To be fair the Gambier Bay and other ships of her class were escort carriers. Quick to build and not nearly as robust as primary carriers or other capital ships. They laid down about 50 of them during the war and all that survived the war were scrapped.
Not all, they were designed as a conversion from merchant ship hulls and a few were converted back into merchies. 50 Casablancas, the Bogues that were built from requisitioned existing C2 merchant ships and the Sangamons and Commencement Bays that were converted T2 tankers/fleet oilers.
The Japanese carriers at Midway were all sunk from dive bombers, not torpedoes. Our torpedo bombers actually were horrible in that battle and I don't know that they were effectively used again. They were so slow, they were easy pickings for the Japanese. The torpedo bombers did keep the Japanese off balance and force them to use their CAP, allowing the dive bombers to come in relatively unscathed.
Yep, the torpedo planes from our side, the Douglas TBD Devastators, were slaughtered. And yes, the unintended result was that the CAP was drawn away from the Dauntless dive bombers. But the Japanese had decks laden with bombs/torpedoes from indecision and changing their minds at the last minute as well as fuel lines running to those aircraft. The result, although we didn't know it at the time, was predictable. They were fvcked.
Diamondback
09-13-20, 19:42
Yep, the torpedo planes from our side, the Douglas TBD Devastators, were slaughtered. And yes, the unintended result was that the CAP was drawn away from the Dauntless dive bombers. But the Japanese had decks laden with bombs/torpedoes from indecision and changing their minds at the last minute as well as fuel lines running to those aircraft. The result, although we didn't know it at the time, was predictable. They were fvcked.
If you haven't read Tully & Parshall's Shattered Sword, you really need to. I'll go so far as to say anyone who calls himself into WW2 PTO naval history and doesn't have that and Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors on the bookshelf is just a poser.
Funny thing, as I type this I'm doing research to develop a miniatures release based on the Cactus Air Force and their Japanese opponents... anybody have any suggested reads on that, particularly who all came down to play from Rabaul? We didn't play with this one much when I was working with Wizards of the Coast on Axis & Allies Miniatures and my nominal focus is more split between the Carrier War and the Southwest Pacific skies, so I'm less confident than I'd like to be even though Ares prefers that I come at things with fresh eyes.
Diamondback
09-13-20, 20:07
Yep, the torpedo planes from our side, the Douglas TBD Devastators, were slaughtered. And yes, the unintended result was that the CAP was drawn away from the Dauntless dive bombers. But the Japanese had decks laden with bombs/torpedoes from indecision and changing their minds at the last minute as well as fuel lines running to those aircraft. The result, although we didn't know it at the time, was predictable. They were fvcked.
In all fairness, even if everybody'd been equipped with fresh-from-the-future 1945 Avengers and NON-defective torps, the outcome wouldn't have changed much. Still a torp bloodbath and the dive bombers carry the day.
If you haven't read Tully & Parshall's Shattered Sword, you really need to. I'll go so far as to say anyone who calls himself into WW2 PTO naval history and doesn't have that and Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors on the bookshelf is just a poser.
Funny thing, as I type this I'm doing research to develop a miniatures release based on the Cactus Air Force and their Japanese opponents... anybody have any suggested reads on that, particularly who all came down to play from Rabaul? We didn't play with this one much when I was working with Wizards of the Coast on Axis & Allies Miniatures and my nominal focus is more split between the Carrier War and the Southwest Pacific skies, so I'm less confident than I'd like to be even though Ares prefers that I come at things with fresh eyes.
Recall reading a book in middle school called "The Cactus Air Force". This would've been the late 70's.
https://www.amazon.com/Cactus-Air-Force-Thomas-Miller/dp/0934841179
I think that's it.
If you haven't read Tully & Parshall's Shattered Sword, you really need to. I'll go so far as to say anyone who calls himself into WW2 PTO naval history and doesn't have that and Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors on the bookshelf is just a poser.
Funny thing, as I type this I'm doing research to develop a miniatures release based on the Cactus Air Force and their Japanese opponents... anybody have any suggested reads on that, particularly who all came down to play from Rabaul? We didn't play with this one much when I was working with Wizards of the Coast on Axis & Allies Miniatures and my nominal focus is more split between the Carrier War and the Southwest Pacific skies, so I'm less confident than I'd like to be even though Ares prefers that I come at things with fresh eyes.
Damn, that's harsh!
I read Samuel Morison's book back during that same middle school period I mentioned above. Pretty detailed as I recall about the Pacific naval campaign. Also read "Savo" in paperback.
Diamondback
09-13-20, 20:49
Damn, that's harsh!
I read Samuel Morison's book back during that same middle school period I mentioned above. Pretty detailed as I recall about the Pacific naval campaign. Also read "Savo" in paperback.
Okay, it's excusable if you're a rookie, but a Serious Pacific War Student has to have those on the shelf. Better? :)
Pacific5th
09-14-20, 00:46
If you haven't read Tully & Parshall's Shattered Sword, you really need to. I'll go so far as to say anyone who calls himself into WW2 PTO naval history and doesn't have that and Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors on the bookshelf is just a poser.
Funny thing, as I type this I'm doing research to develop a miniatures release based on the Cactus Air Force and their Japanese opponents... anybody have any suggested reads on that, particularly who all came down to play from Rabaul? We didn't play with this one much when I was working with Wizards of the Coast on Axis & Allies Miniatures and my nominal focus is more split between the Carrier War and the Southwest Pacific skies, so I'm less confident than I'd like to be even though Ares prefers that I come at things with fresh eyes.
If you ever read Robert Lekies Strong Men Armed about the US Marines in WWII there is a great little story about a PBY pilot who loaded up some torpedos, got instruction from another Marine who’s brother was a torpedo bomber pilot and took off in daylight in a raid on some Japanese shipping. The PBY was so full of holes and had a zero chasing it that he had to belly land it at Henderson Field. The shit those Marines and Flyers did to take that island is amazing.
Diamondback
09-14-20, 01:08
If you ever read Robert Lekies Strong Men Armed about the US Marines in WWII there is a great little story about a PBY pilot who loaded up some torpedos, got instruction from another Marine who’s brother was a torpedo bomber pilot and took off in daylight in a raid on some Japanese shipping. The PBY was so full of holes and had a zero chasing it that he had to belly land it at Henderson Field. The shit those Marines and Flyers did to take that island is amazing.
Jack Cram, and the PBY was General Geiger's personal utility hack. If I could get Ares to tool a PBY miniature, Cram's story is a game scenario I'd love to write.
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/cactus/jackcram.htm
2) The youngest American to fight in WWII, Calvin Graham, was 12 years old and wounded onboard the South Dakota during that battle. Can you imagine, 12 freaking years old!?!?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Graham
Geeze, the Navy really kind of F'd that kid over.
Graham's mother revealed his age after he traveled to his grandmother's funeral in Texas (he arrived a day late) without permission from the Navy, for which afterwards he spent three months in a Texas brig. He was released after his sister threatened to contact the newspapers. Although he had tried to return to his ship, he was discharged from the Navy on April 1, 1943, and his awards were subsequently revoked.[3][5][7] The South Dakota's gunnery officer, who was involved in handling his case, was Sargent Shriver.
Should have had the decency to say "Job well done but we'll see you later when you're 18" and then find something suitable stateside during the interim. I know AWOL is a big deal sometimes, but he was a kid and looks like he mostly did pretty good.
Coal Dragger
09-14-20, 02:02
A lot of the capital ships survived torpedo attacks because of armor, largely by the way the ship was built. In most of those ships all the vital components including the magazines were in up-armored areas and were more susceptible to more damage from the top down than from under the water.
Have a great book about the North Carolina and it goes into great detail about the architecture and design.
Aside from plunging fire penetrating a turret, deck, or barbette and getting to a magazine most WWII era BB’s were pretty well armored against stuff as puny as aircraft dropped bombs. We really only have one notable instance of a modern at the time major capital ship succumbing to high angle indirect fire and that was HMS Hood. The Hood wasn’t a true BB though, and had weak deck armoring, turret roof armor, and turret barbettes compared to an true BB.
The armor layout as you point out had a big influence, and the US Navy strategy of “all or nothing” armor, along with rigorous damage control training made later post WWI US BB’s very very survivable. Notably the pounding USS South Dakota took, and survived.
Japanese approaches armor layouts differently but still produced very survivable BB’s capable of shrugging off absurd amounts of abuse topside. We bombed the hell out of Yamato and Musashi, to little effect aside from wrecking AA batteries. Both ships were ultimately done in by multiple torpedo hits from torpedo bombers causing flooding.
KMS Bismarck took a pounding topside and while combat ineffective was still floating until the crew scuttled her.
The Bikini Atoll tests are also interesting. The atomic blast above the surface was shrugged off by the old US BB’s and the Japanese BB’s. USS Nevada survived both tests, was towed back to Pearl Harbor, then used as a target ship for USS Iowa, and still didn’t freaking sink... until torpedoed.
My only contribution is my FIL was a retired US Navy Tin Can Sailor and WWII Kamikaze survivor, USS Halsey Powell. He had a binder with the AAR on the battle involving his boat. One thing I found very interesting but not shocking was the "undetermined" hits from 20 and 40mm guns on the boat. You guy can only guess what happens when the AA guns are firing on the planes and you see them continue as the planes continue in. He was 96 when he passed a little over 2 years ago. Vernon was in the engine room and if you read the link, was part of the collision avoidance. We attended a few of the reunions and the Captain was one of the attendees through those times, amazing group of men, great men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Halsey_Powell
Aside from plunging fire penetrating a turret, deck, or barbette and getting to a magazine most WWII era BB’s were pretty well armored against stuff as puny as aircraft dropped bombs. We really only have one notable instance of a modern at the time major capital ship succumbing to high angle indirect fire and that was HMS Hood. The Hood wasn’t a true BB though, and had weak deck armoring, turret roof armor, and turret barbettes compared to an true BB.
The armor layout as you point out had a big influence, and the US Navy strategy of “all or nothing” armor, along with rigorous damage control training made later post WWI US BB’s very very survivable. Notably the pounding USS South Dakota took, and survived.
Japanese approaches armor layouts differently but still produced very survivable BB’s capable of shrugging off absurd amounts of abuse topside. We bombed the hell out of Yamato and Musashi, to little effect aside from wrecking AA batteries. Both ships were ultimately done in by multiple torpedo hits from torpedo bombers causing flooding.
Practically, as absurd as a supersonic one-ton bomb used (Tallboy) by the Brits to try and subdue the various force on being locations in Norway, it requires something that crazy because the entirety of battleship design is predicated around taking big hits and being able to remain combat effective for some time after - the below water mines ultimately did more damage, but that's because of how impressive a mechanism hydrodynamic shock is in these cases.
Torpedoes are drastically more effective at sinking ships, but practically rendering them combat ineffective can be done with bombs. Realistically the armor schemes that did a great job of coping with incoming shell fire didn't include the superstructure, and most major combat (Guadalcanal slot brings this to mind) the big ships were just as hampered by smaller shell fire and aircraft delivered ordinance wrecking superstructures, setting off torpedo gas stores, AVGas for scouting planes, and the like during the battle as anything else. Realistically just preventing their firing control from being able to produce useful answers for counterbattery fire for minutes do a tremendous job (similar to the SouthDakota knocking itself out the first time in Guadalcanal - just wrecking the electrical system was enough to render it, in the words of Adm. Lee: "Deaf, dumb, blind, and impotent". In a night battle, particularly one involving having to actively dodge salvos of Long Lance torpedoes, that's crazy.
Proximal misses doing big damage were serious - practically the near miss contribution to damaging the Bismark's rudder system ultimately were the lead cause of where and when that ship went down (long term, that was a real inevitability, but those hits forced it to fight when and where they did, ultimately starting the clock between efforts to scuttle the ship and the comical amounts of incoming fire to bring it down). On the carrier side, quite often those hits would do plenty of meaningful damage too, especially for CVE's and escort carriers.
Still, nothing puts a ship under the water as efficiently as making a large hole below the waterline, and the torpedo bulges becoming mandatory equipment on ships during the interwar period was a massive acknowledgement of just that - the fact that it was the preferred method for scuttling ships that were unable to be towed also remained quite a relevant thing to note. Airborne torpedo bombing was probably mostly effective because it was virtually always layered on top of other incoming battle damage, isolated smaller torpedo hits seldom put ships on the bottom, but as a combined effort where other shipboard systems sustained huge damage, those were sufficient to bring them down.
https://www.youtube.com/user/Drachinifel
Also, for those of of you who haven't discovered the Drachinifel YouTube Channel - it's absolutely brilliant, and you all would enjoy it.
The entire story of Taffy3 has been amazing to me, and as much as many naval historians opine the loss of learning what would really happen with an Iowa class against the Yamato, in reality it wouldn't have been about the ships or the armament, it would have been a long range gunnery duel dictated by radar (in which the US had superior options), followed by combined arms to bring down the rest of the central force in drastically more substantial power.
To me the scary version of the whole campaign would be if the IJN leadership realized sooner that every ship they owned was destined to be relegated to 'special squadron' (read suicide mission) usage if it wasn't already at the bottom, stranded in Singapore without ability to repair, or stranded in Japan without fuel - if they had really committed to taking any advantageous battle or holding the battlespace taken during the earlier campaigns, the total costs would have been absolutely absurd on the US... and I fear the level of fissile retribution applied through early 1946 in that alternative version of history ultimately denying the early reintegration of Japan into functioning world society because of how much fire bombing and nuclear fallout that would have been required to subdue an enemy which hadn't lost its navy with such futility.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-14-20, 15:23
And near misses that deflected shots into ships below the water line.
On thing that I think most people don't realize is that the Iowa's had so little real action in WWII compared to the South Dakota and North Carolina classes. While the Iowas were undoubtably BAMFs, the main difference was speed. Guns were pretty similar, armor on the SoDaks similar. And the fact that they were actually there to fight for most of the war. The US had 10, fast, 16 inch armed batttleships in WWII that were built post 1939. That's probably about the same as the rest of the world combined? Not to mention the real effort was in Essex Carriers and Fletchers.
Really enjoy:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjN1vWQqOXrAhXxdc0KHfr5DXQQFjAAegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fchannel%2FUC4mftUX7apmV1vsVXZh7RTw&usg=AOvVaw0PCgsEd3YXxpJ42hiA7Z0E
Drachinifel’s YouTube channel.
I have to second this recommendation. His channel deserves a lot larger of a following than it has. And his two videos about the Battle of Tsushima are at the top of my "pick me up" playlist.
Coal Dragger
09-14-20, 19:08
A favorite channel of mine as well. Poor Admiral Rozhestvensky.... LOL.
Grand58742
09-14-20, 22:15
I read or heard somewhere that ALL WWII carrier losses were due to torpedoes- air, sub ( surface I doubt). USS Gambier Bay I guess proves that wrong, but it was the only one to naval gunfire.
The HMS Glorious was sunk by gunfire from two German battleships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glorious
But not all carriers (escort or fleet) were sunk by torpedoes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_aircraft_carriers
However, the majority of those lost in combat appear to be from torp hits.
Coal Dragger
09-14-20, 22:22
Also worth noting that the Japanese carriers had basically nothing for armored flight decks or armored hanger decks. So quite vulnerable to bombs.
eightmillimeter
09-14-20, 23:03
I’ll add another plug for drachinifel YouTube channel. While he is absolutely an expert in all things naval pre-1960 he can be tough to listen to at times when he keeps repeatedly saying the word “however” with a slow thick accent LOL. Watch his video “Voyage of the Damned” on the Russian .2nd Pacific Squadron in the Sino-Japanese War. I was literally laughing so hard I was pissing myself.
I could go on and on forever on this topic so I’ll just leave it with that. They sure don’t build em like they used to.
Diamondback
09-14-20, 23:13
It's interesting to note that in mid 1944 we throttled BACK on shipbuilding because of lower than expected attrition losses.
You guys might appreciate this: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-15-20, 00:51
It's interesting to note that in mid 1944 we throttled BACK on shipbuilding because of lower than expected attrition losses.
You guys might appreciate this: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
Interesting read on building ships and the effect of Midway battle. While that looks at the forces, what Midway also did was allow the US to concentrate more on the European theater without having to worry about an existential threat from Japan. I also think that the impact of the Pearl Harbor bombing is over stated historically. While the carrier survival was key, the battleships damaged or sunk were older anyways snd three were brought back into service. Even more so, the repair facilities and fuel dump wasn't put out of commission. I've never heard of what kind of damage the sub service took in the attack, but I don't think it was much and the decimated Japanese shipping in the war.
It's interesting to note that in mid 1944 we throttled BACK on shipbuilding because of lower than expected attrition losses.
You guys might appreciate this: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
We did cut back, and we still had over 6,700 ships. I cannot even fathom those numbers. Even at the beginning we had almost 700 ships. I have some pride that I have a relative who was a Rear Admiral (Ivan Bass), but we had well over 200 admirals during WW2, and he was a very small fish in a HUGE sea of admirals...
Interesting read on building ships and the effect of Midway battle. While that looks at the forces, what Midway also did was allow the US to concentrate more on the European theater without having to worry about an existential threat from Japan. I also think that the impact of the Pearl Harbor bombing is over stated historically. While the carrier survival was key, the battleships damaged or sunk were older anyways snd three were brought back into service. Even more so, the repair facilities and fuel dump wasn't put out of commission. I've never heard of what kind of damage the sub service took in the attack, but I don't think it was much and the decimated Japanese shipping in the war.
20/20 hindsight understates the impact of Pear Harbor, just as it understates 9/11 (well, it was only 4 planes, and one didn't even hit a building....). If the Japanese hit what they intended to hit, it would have delayed the US offensive in the pacific so much as to allow the Japanese to fully entrench in a larger sphere of influence. At worst, it knocked out almost-outdated battleships; at best, a delaying tactic. ADM. Yamamoto was infuriated that the attack did not include the repair facilities, ammo dumps, and fuel depots.
Also, King was caught in a pickle because he wanted a full-scale, full-ally partnership in the Pacific but Churchill talked Roosevelt into the Europe First strategy. If not for Leahy having Roosevelt's ear, we would not have done anything in the Pacific until after Germany was defeated.
Geeze, the Navy really kind of F'd that kid over.
Should have had the decency to say "Job well done but we'll see you later when you're 18" and then find something suitable stateside during the interim. I know AWOL is a big deal sometimes, but he was a kid and looks like he mostly did pretty good.
Yes they did. I watched a movie about that kid a few months ago, with my old grand dad. I think the movie was from the 70s. It was a decent watch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_Young_the_Hero
It's interesting to note that in mid 1944 we throttled BACK on shipbuilding because of lower than expected attrition losses.
Not actually unreasonable from the initial planning stages, because what person in the right mind would take a look at the strategic and tactical situation that led towards Coral Sea, and conclude that US Naval Intelligence would achieve a SIGINT coup of basically implausible proportions, lead to fully understanding the Operation MI plans, then in the battle lose entire torpedo bomber squadrons to CAP/AA, yet somehow manage to annihilate the entire Kidō Butai for the cost of the Yorktown that absorbed practically the entirety of both waves of IJN air strikes.
Similar situation regarding the tenuous hold around Guadalcanal, without the Cactus Air Force providing operational air control during the day, Ironbottom sound would be a truly preposterous place to dive... ultimately the economic and manpower weight we would have thrown at the Japanese empire would have been enormous, but after Midway, somebody quickly figured out that any additional hulls laid down would be sold for scrap (or be surplus hulls to make Operation Crossroads even more of a decontamination nightmare after the Baker shot).
For all of the armor BB's and cruisers had, the close-in 5" shootouts ate up the superstructures.....bridges, AA mounts, etc. Obviously started fires too. Like getting shot from the neck up with .22LR while your body armor stops the 5.56 or 9mm center-mass hits.
Diamondback
09-15-20, 18:33
Not actually unreasonable from the initial planning stages, because what person in the right mind would take a look at the strategic and tactical situation that led towards Coral Sea, and conclude that US Naval Intelligence would achieve a SIGINT coup of basically implausible proportions, lead to fully understanding the Operation MI plans, then in the battle lose entire torpedo bomber squadrons to CAP/AA, yet somehow manage to annihilate the entire Kidō Butai for the cost of the Yorktown that absorbed practically the entirety of both waves of IJN air strikes.
Similar situation regarding the tenuous hold around Guadalcanal, without the Cactus Air Force providing operational air control during the day, Ironbottom sound would be a truly preposterous place to dive... ultimately the economic and manpower weight we would have thrown at the Japanese empire would have been enormous, but after Midway, somebody quickly figured out that any additional hulls laid down would be sold for scrap (or be surplus hulls to make Operation Crossroads even more of a decontamination nightmare after the Baker shot).
A similar deal combined with expediency led to FDR realizing "we're building more cruisers than we need, we need more decks for fighter cover to protect the fleet, why don't we convert nine barely-started CL's to light carriers?" Net result, nine less Cleveland light cruisers that mostly served as floating flak batteries in return for nine workhorse Independence CVL's.
I’ll add another plug for drachinifel YouTube channel. While he is absolutely an expert in all things naval pre-1960 he can be tough to listen to at times when he keeps repeatedly saying the word “however” with a slow thick accent LOL. Watch his video “Voyage of the Damned” on the Russian .2nd Pacific Squadron in the Sino-Japanese War. I was literally laughing so hard I was pissing myself.
I could go on and on forever on this topic so I’ll just leave it with that. They sure don’t build em like they used to.
Do you see Torpedo Boats?
A similar deal combined with expediency led to FDR realizing "we're building more cruisers than we need, we need more decks for fighter cover to protect the fleet, why don't we convert nine barely-started CL's to light carriers?" Net result, nine less Cleveland light cruisers that mostly served as floating flak batteries in return for nine workhorse Independence CVL's.
Ah yes, the "anti-aircraft" cruisers, purpose-made for one thing. No 8" or 6" guns, but a shit-ton of 5" dual turrets. IIRC weren't a few of those involved in surface shootouts, like the USS Atlanta ("friendly fire" didn't help)?
Diamondback
09-15-20, 19:08
Ah yes, the "anti-aircraft" cruisers, purpose-made for one thing. No 8" or 6" guns, but a shit-ton of 5" dual turrets. IIRC weren't a few of those involved in surface shootouts, like the USS Atlanta ("friendly fire" didn't help)?
You're thinking of the Atlantas, originally designed as destroyer squadron flagships to replace the old Omahas and then refined into dedicated AA platforms. Clevelands were 6" cruisers, but rarely got the chance to fire their main bores so most of their service was contributing to the wall of flak screening the carriers.
Atlanta herself and one of her sisters, IIRC Juneau, were lost in the Solomons, one IIRC taking the five Sullivan brothers down with her.
Off-topic ... sort of, but if you think these battles were slugfests, or like what you’ve read here, you’d likely enjoy the gun battles from the days of wooden sailing ships, the pre-explosive cannonball days. Now those were BRUTAL, splintered, smash ‘em up slugfests in the truest sense of the word. The Dutch movie ‘The Admiral’, about Michiel de Ruyter, is fantastic to watch!
Diamondback
09-15-20, 19:16
Off-topic ... sort of, but if you think these battles were slugfests, or like what you’ve read here, you’d likely enjoy the gun battles from the days of wooden sailing ships, the pre-explosive cannonball days. Now those were BRUTAL, splintered, smash ‘em up slugfests in the truest sense of the word. The Dutch movie ‘The Admiral’, about Michiel de Ruyter, is fantastic to watch!
Funny thing... guess what just happens to be the subject of a miniatures line I do historical research for? :D (Granted, we're a bit later; our oldest ships covered so far are around the Seven Years War and most cluster in the Napoleonic Era.) A lot of what you see above from me is from ten years ago working on a WWII naval miniatures line.
eightmillimeter
09-15-20, 21:27
Do you see Torpedo Boats?
FK yes I even got the shirt.
DOGGER... BANK... INCIDENT...
History is better than fiction
Diamondback
09-15-20, 21:37
FK yes I even got the shirt.
DOGGER... BANK... INCIDENT...
History is better than fiction
Fiction has to be "believable," reality doesn't--like Nelson capturing one three-decker ship of the line then immediately using it as a platform to board and take a second, you'd swear the guy thought his life was meant for an Errol Flynn movie.
Coal Dragger
09-15-20, 22:38
Do you see Torpedo Boats?
..... and another set of binoculars hurled into the sea!
You're thinking of the Atlantas, originally designed as destroyer squadron flagships to replace the old Omahas and then refined into dedicated AA platforms. Clevelands were 6" cruisers, but rarely got the chance to fire their main bores so most of their service was contributing to the wall of flak screening the carriers.
Atlanta herself and one of her sisters, IIRC Juneau, were lost in the Solomons, one IIRC taking the five Sullivan brothers down with her.
It was the Juneau that had the Sullivans. That was a cluster of epic proportions too, a la USS Indianapolis. The Juneau, after being damaged in a surface action, was limping away with two other U.S. cruisers when she was sunk by a submarine. The other two cruisers left, thinking there were no survivors (but there were in fact around 100, including a couple Sullivans). It was EIGHT days before they were discovered. Only about 10 guys survived, and none of them were a Sullivan.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.