Naval gunfights......"death by a thousand cuts"

[sgtrock82]

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

[ABNAK]

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]

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.

[ABNAK]

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

[seb5]

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.

[ABNAK]

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]

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]

I would really like to see a similar report on the Bismarck.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgr...e_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]

The old WWII Naval gun battles were brutal. Like said before these were hardass sailors.

[Coal Dragger]

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.