Before this degenerates to a "Yamato the super ship" discussion, let me clarify my previous reference.
I meant that the Yamato would have a hard time against one of the "Standards" in a fleet action at the entrance to Leyte Gulf.
That action would have the Yamato under air attack and dodging swarms of US DD torpedo attacks, while trying to take on one of the rebuilt US "Standards" in limited visability, smoke screens, etc. It does not mean a stand-up fight on a perfectly clear day, calm seas, one-on-one, though even in that case, the superiority of the US fire control system would give the "Standard" a fighing chance. Regards.
Last edited by Jacknola; 05-01-2012 at 02:07 PM.
To me that's a design flaw, excused by doctrinal application. The RN did go back to correct that, but compared to their German and American classes, British ships had terrible watertight integrity and inferior electrical infrastructure. Lucky shot or not, Hood had no business serving in WWII (except may in shore bombardment,) much less going after Bismarck.
Originally Posted by Violet Fashion by Mindy
This is all patently wrong. The IJN battle crusiers went down like the light-weights they were precisely because of the defective nature of their design. Same with the Hood and the other British battle cruisers. All the luck, skill, crew training, etc., wouldn't have saved them when they faced true battleships. And no, the HMS Dreadnaught could not "just as easily sink the Yamato."
If we accept your statement, then there was no need to ever upgrade the battleship past the Dreadnaught class, because such quallities as better armor, bettor guns, better watertight compartments, better fire control have very little to do with the outcome of an engagement. Dont you think this is a rather peculiar position to adopt?
Not true... especially in a line pointing out how the WWI era ships performed in WW II, and how the upgraded US "Standards" could hold their own.Whilst WW1 ships were outdated by WW2...
I think maybe your hyperbole got a little ahead of the facts.
Last edited by Jacknola; 05-01-2012 at 03:36 PM.
You missed the point of what I was saying.
Naval combat has been throughout history all about luck. Yes ship the technology improvements are important. But if you look at the major naval battles throughout history, the deciding factor in a lot of battles has been you guessed it luck. Not ship design.
During WW1 for example at the Battle of Jutland. The Battlecruisers were not sunk due to technological weakness. Rather due to crew training standards and doctrine. Leaving doors open to the magazines so they can achieve a greater rate of fire is a major doctrine flaw.
The Raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby prior to Jutland the Germans had the chance to wipe out a significant number of battleships of the Grand Fleet.......Faulty intelligence prevented it.
I mentioned Lutjens not refueling in Norway. What about the lucky shot that destroyed Hood due to the same problem the British experienced at Jutland, or Lutjens deciding not to finish of the Prince of Wales, The Catalinia flying boat finding the Bismark though a break in the clouds, A single torpedo hitting hitting the Bismarks rudder?
Operation Cerberus, two German battleships and a heavy cruiser managing to evade not only the Royal Navy but the Royal Airforce!
I'm also highly sckepitcal that a bunch of WW1 US Battleships which are given a new superstructure to make them look modern were better then any other WW1 battleship that served in WW2. And when they did see front line service the situation in the Pacific had changed so dramatically that anything other then a US victory was impossible. The Japanese sent carriers into battle without any planes man.
If you really want to study battleships, look at Jutland, and the Mediterranean Campaign of WW2. the latter especially is filled with ship vs ship battles with no side really gaining the upper hand and again in one battle the Italians had the chance to destroy a British fleet at the Battle of Calabria but for whatever reason they never sent additional battleships to the battle despite only being a few hours sail away. Again LUCK!
Now I understand …you are just opinionated. If what you say had any validity, no navy would have spent money to develop new and better platforms … yet that was what the naval arms race was all about wasn’t it?
And that offhand comment about “old battleships with cosmetic new superstructures” puts the exclamation point on your rather cavalier posts doesn’t it? Thing is, these days it takes about five minutes to find the facts, which means someone who posts nonsense is not just ill informed, he is ... careless.
Example of US "old" battleship rebuild – Taken directly from wikipedia
“On 25 March 1942, California was refloated and dry-docked at PearlHarbor for repairs. On 7 June, she departed under her own power for Puget Sound NavyYard where a major reconstruction job was accomplished, including[note: I’ll bullet these points for ease of reading]:
· improved protection,
· watertight compartmenting,
· stability,
· antiaircraft battery, and
· fire control system.
· Her original twin funnels were combined into a single funnel faired intothe superstructure tower as with the newer South Dakota class.
· The original 5 in (130 mm)/51cal guns of the secondary battery and the 5 in (130 mm)/25 cal gunsof the anti-aircraft battery were replaced by 16 5 in (130 mm)/38cal guns in new twin mountings.[5]
· Her appearance was nearly identical to that of Tennesseeand West Virginia, which were rebuilt after the Pearl HarborAttack to resemble South Dakota-class battleships.
Like hersisters, she was a virtually new ship built on the bones of the old.[11]”
I could go through an amazingly detailed description of the rebuilds of the Pearl Harbor battleships, complete with blue prints and full technical details of every upgrade from water-tight compartmenting, armor additions,fire control systems, new armament, etc. But it is all on the net and it would be good for you to learn to look for that type information.
In the meantime … have a good day.
I'm also highly sckepitcal that a bunch of WW1 US Battleships which are given a new superstructure to make them look modern were better then any other WW1 battleship that served in WW2.
Have you even bothered to read the facts I've posted?
Last edited by Jacknola; 05-02-2012 at 12:08 PM.
Below: California and Tennessee as rebuilt – these ships with their twelve, 14”-gun main battery could take any IJN battleship in the fleet with the possible exception of Yamato, and maybe the Nagato- that would be a closer match. They were vastly superior to the 14" armed Kongo class IJN battle cruisers and Fuso class BBs.
Below: West Virginia with its main battery of 8 16”guns was superior to all the IJN BBs, even the Nagato, and would have an even chance against the Yamato.
Here are some details of the rebuild of the West Virginia
http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10471
“…West Virginia's reconstruction followed the same pattern as that for the Tennessee and California. The ship wascompletely stripped of superstructure down to the second deck, leaving only the four turrets and their barbettes in place. Her side armor was repaired and huge two-section bulges were added to the hull, increasing her beam from 97 feet to 114 feet and providing not only increased stability and torpedo protection but also a solid under structure for mounting eight twin 5” dual purpose mountswell-spaced for good anti-aircraft coverage. The armor around the original uptakes was removed and the second deck armor was increased to 7” and 5” over the magazine and engine room spaces. The turret tops received new 7.5” armored plates originally built for the USS Iowa class ships which brought the turretweight up to 958 tons. New longitudinal and transverse watertight bulkheads were added to both the main and second decks.
The superstructure of the ship was completely rebuilt into an all-welded compact and narrow structure resembling that built into the South Dakota classbattleships with close attention paid to ensuring the best possible arcs offire for the 5” and other anti-aircraft weapons. The main difference from the South Dakota's superstructure was the inclusion of the primary control bridge within the forward fire control tower just below the forward fire controldirector for the 16” guns rather than as a separate bridge forward of thetower. This provided excellent all-around aerial visibility and also solved some wave-guide problems with the new SG surface search radar sets. The flag bridge and forward lookout stations were mounted just below the primary con.The original armored conning tower was removed and replaced with a smaller 9 foot diameter structure removed from Brooklyn class cruisers that had been refitted. This conning tower only had 5” armor and was located just behindturret 2, and beneath the forward center line quad 40 mm mount. As with the South Dakota's, the funnels were faired into a single structure on the aft sideof the forward fire control tower and the mainmast was rebuilt as a second smaller fire control tower aft of the stack.
West Virginia's old main battery fire control directors were removed and replaced with Mark 34 units revamped for 16” guns that had been made available by the conversion of Cleveland class cruisers into light aircraft carriers.These directors were coupled with the standard Mark 8 radar and associated equipment including remote power controls for the main battery turrets.
For the secondary battery, four Mark 37 fire control towers were fitted with their associated Mark 12/22 fire control radars. (These radars were excellent,and could actually be used as fire controls for the main battery in an emergency.) Air search capability was provided by the SK-2 system. The 10 new quad 40 mm batteries were served by the Mark 57 gun fire control system. West Virginia also carried some 58 20 mm singles and one twin 20 mm, even being equipped witha navalized version of the Army's “Thunderbolt” quad .50 cal. mount, which was apparently being evaluated at the time.
While the reconstruction had taken advantage of every opportunity to reduce weight, it was felt necessary to reduce the main battery rounds for the 16” MkII Mod 5 guns to 90 rounds per gun in order to ensure a reserve of stability.
This refit cost around $20 million and produced an excellent almost new ship, ideally suited for the role she would fulfill in the Pacific. West Virginia emerged from her refit weighing in at 40,950 tons full load, some 7000 tons heavier than she had been at Pearl Harbor. West Virginia returned to combat in October of 1944, providing shore bombardment for the invasion of Leyte, flying the same flag she had flown on December 7, 1941. She was flagship of Battleship Division 4 under Rear Admiral Theodore Ruddock and captained by Captain Herbert V. Wiley and joined the ships of Battleship Divisions 2 and 3 for the night action at Surigao Strait.”
Last edited by Jacknola; 05-02-2012 at 10:58 AM.
Very interesting
Kirishima nearly destroyed the USS South Dakota at Gaudancanal in a 2v1 fight and the USS South Dakota was a modern ship with all the bells and whistles.
Just saying.
Kirishima didn't even come close to destroying South Dakota.
Baloney,com’on people, do just a little research before posting such things – SD main armor was not penetrated despite being hit by at least 2 14”, and lots of smaller shells… even then the damage to the SD superstructure was mostly superficial. The SD was disabled by an electrical failure caused by a faulty safety breaker that shorted the entire system, BEFORE the action began.
TheSouth Dakota was not hulled, took on no water, did not list, and was never in danger. Indeed sitting there virtually defenseless, being shelled by two heavy heavy 8” cruisers and the Kurishima, she was basically invulnerable.
The Kurishima on the other hand quickly succumbed to the fire of the Washington.
Last edited by Jacknola; 05-02-2012 at 12:12 PM.
I never said it did come close. I simply stated it "nearly came close" to highlight how luck has played a huge role in naval warfare which Jacknola proved with his "facts" about the battle.
Look at the end of the daty I'm of the view that no single battleship class was so vastly superior over any other battleship class that was launched in the same era that you can in an authorative way say one class is better then the other and when these monstors did duke it out in the ring, there was generally factors other then ship desiegn that dictated the outcome of battle.
Each navy had different requirenments, different doctrines, the ships served in different oceans and faced different enemies.
My friend, you and your “arguments” are taking a pounding, listing 18 degrees to port, down by the bows, fire control gone, on fire and speed reduced to bare steerage way. Your rudder is jammed and only one boiler is still puffing. Men are abandoning your ship. Yet you sail on trying to reinforce a feeble argument based on a wild opinion, not backed by fact.
I suggest you just scuttle your ship and save your assets for another day. You are reaching the point of trolling, and I am getting weary of lecturing about things that are instantly available on many of the links I’ve provided.
You might want to read the line about Leyte Gulf (now second page) where it is avowed that Kurita’s center force had zero chance of getting at the transports in Leyte… his entire force, including the Yamato, would have been quickly sunk by the 7th fleet had he continued on to the entrance to the Gulf... And the heart of the 7th fleet was … six “Standard” US BBs, the West Virginia, Tennessee, California, Mississippi, Maryland and Pennsylvania…
As Jacknola said, no penetration of the belt armour, so no possibility of setting off magazines, or damaging/destroying engines/boilers/steering. "Nearly" is the saying the same thing and you know it.
Luck is largely just another word for skill. The more skillfull I get, the luckier I seem to be. Most of the Japanese successes early in their war were done by the pre-war Navy which was superbly trained. When those crews were lost, the replacements were rubbish and it showed.
Yep and no matter how good a ship is. If the crew doesn't have the training, experience, discipline and leadership it will be easier to sink.
I do agree a bit with you on that. Look at the Admiral Graf Spee (not a battelship). It was was quite damaged by 3 cruisers. Had Langtsdorf not been agressive and kept his ship at range the outcome of the battle might have been different.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
