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

[Diamondback]

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.

[chuckman]

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]

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]

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.

[chuckman]

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]

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]

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....

[mrbieler]

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]

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.

[ABNAK]

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.