Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

[Steve Crandell]

If you get first salvo straddles and continuous straddles after that, why would that be a problem?

They obviously were not consistently getting first salvo straddles and continuous straddles. They only thought they were. This was pointed out by Halsey.

I think Bill Jurens would disagree with you. He points out that West Virginia achieved 7 or 8 (I forget which) consecutive straddles with full broadsides at Surigao strait and opines that it may have been the best battleship performance of the war. If you are looking at a Mark 8 display and you see splashes in front of the target and splashes behind the target and you can see visually that they are in line with the target, how can you be wrong about it being a straddle? What would you do differently? Also, I don't believe she was using rapid continuous fire ... she was firing about one salvo per minute.

edited to correct straddles for salvoes.

[alecsandros]

... I realy don't see where this discussion is going...

Historically, all major WW2 combatants employed cruisers with ridiculously "poor" gunfire results at long range.

Battle of Komandorski Islands (1943) is a fine example of just how poor the shooting was on the Japanese and American side, concerning 8" and 6" gunfire.
offical US report: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/Ale ... ans-9.html
Analysis of hit ratios: http://www.microworks.net/pacific/battl ... slands.htm

British 8" gunnery was no better - and that was observable time and time again throughout the war. Italian 8" gunnery was so bad that several official enquiries were opened to adress de causes, all without results.

A case may be held in favor of German heavy cruiser gunnery, but with ~ 1000 rounds expended against enemy warships in 5 years for the combined heavy cruiser force, this would be hardly statistically signficant.

[aurora]

... I realy don't see where this discussion is going...

Historically, all major WW2 combatants employed cruisers with ridiculously "poor" gunfire results at long range.

Battle of Komandorski Islands (1943) is a fine example of just how poor the shooting was on the Japanese and American side, concerning 8" and 6" gunfire.
offical US report: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/Ale ... ans-9.html
Analysis of hit ratios: http://www.microworks.net/pacific/battl ... slands.htm

British 8" gunnery was no better - and that was observable time and time again throughout the war. Italian 8" gunnery was so bad that several official enquiries were opened to adress de causes, all without results.

A case may be held in favor of German heavy cruiser gunnery, but with ~ 1000 rounds expended against enemy warships in 5 years for the combined heavy cruiser force, this would be hardly statistically signficant.

I have to agree with Alex as to where the discussion is going.IMHO we have thrashed out the original question "Why was US cruiser shooting so poor?" This case has been proven times many over; but the thread has spilled over to every navy's cruiser shooting and this too is looking like coming to the same conclusion-attaining accuracy in long range naval gunnery in WW2- had too many factors governing the outcome and those factors-sea conditions,atmospheric conditions and visibility,equipment and the guns themselves- affected all long range shooting by any warship which had a gun on it.

[alecsandros]

... I realy don't see where this discussion is going...

Historically, all major WW2 combatants employed cruisers with ridiculously "poor" gunfire results at long range.

Battle of Komandorski Islands (1943) is a fine example of just how poor the shooting was on the Japanese and American side, concerning 8" and 6" gunfire.
offical US report: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/Ale ... ans-9.html
Analysis of hit ratios: http://www.microworks.net/pacific/battl ... slands.htm

British 8" gunnery was no better - and that was observable time and time again throughout the war. Italian 8" gunnery was so bad that several official enquiries were opened to adress de causes, all without results.

A case may be held in favor of German heavy cruiser gunnery, but with ~ 1000 rounds expended against enemy warships in 5 years for the combined heavy cruiser force, this would be hardly statistically signficant.

I have to agree with Alex as to where the discussion is going.IMHO we have thrashed out the original question "Why was US cruiser shooting so poor?" This case has been proven times many over; but the thread has spilled over to every navy's cruiser shooting and this too is looking like coming to the same conclusion-attaining accuracy in long range naval gunnery in WW2- had too many factors governing the outcome and those factors-sea conditions,atmospheric conditions and visibility,equipment and the guns themselves- affected all long range shooting by any warship which had a gun on it.

... I do not think US cruiser gunfire was poor. It was adequate and well in line with all other major combatants gunfire. What made the difference was the tactical situation, and not the guns/crews.

[aurora]

Quote Alex (1)
I realy don't see where this discussion is going...

Historically, all major WW2 combatants employed cruisers with ridiculously "poor" gunfire results at long range.

Really Alex-what an about turn-this what you said-I could not believe my own eyes and completely dumbstruck-lost for words!!

Quote Alex (2)
I do not think US cruiser gunfire was poor. It was adequate and well in line with all other major combatants gunfire. What made the difference was the tactical situation, and not the guns/crews.

[alecsandros]

Quote Alex (1)
I realy don't see where this discussion is going...

Historically, all major WW2 combatants employed cruisers with ridiculously "poor" gunfire results at long range.

Really Alex-what an about turn-this what you said-I could not believe my own eyes and completely dumbstruck-lost for words!!

Quote Alex (2)
I do not think US cruiser gunfire was poor. It was adequate and well in line with all other major combatants gunfire. What made the difference was the tactical situation, and not the guns/crews.

... The " " are important.

[aurora]

I was going to say-on reflection-that tactics are pertinent;but what is-the " " are important-all about????

[alecsandros]

I was going to say-on reflection-that tactics are pertinent;but what is-the " " are important-all about????

... I do not think it was poor, but it was said to be. " " are usualy quotation marks.

[aurora]

Alex I am aware that quotation can mean just that; but as you did not indicate the source of the quote-I took as being a demonstrative-something you wished to bring to attention of the reader- as being moot possibly.

OED defines Question Marks as follows-punctuation marks-single or double-1) used at either end of a quotation,or2) that a word or phrase is regarded as slang or jargon-3) or is being discussed rather than used within the sentence

I apologise for being pedantic; but I thought it best to explain myself

[alecsandros]

Sorry for the misunderstanding,
other contributors above have mentioned usn cruiser fire as "poor", hence the quotation.
if usn cruiser shootinggs are to be labeled as "poor", then so do all other major navy's cruisers.

(wwith the possible exception of german cruisers, which expended a to small amount of ammo to be statistically comparable to their contemporaries)

[aurora]

Quote Alex
A case may be held in favor of German heavy cruiser gunnery, but with ~ 1000 rounds expended against enemy warships in 5 years for the combined heavy cruiser force, this would be hardly statistically signficant.

Is or Is Not?????

It has been agreed that all navies cruiser shooting in WW2- was not up to scratch generally

[Dave Saxton]

We can't just throw out the German cruiser shooting because they expended less ammunition to hit their targets.

How can everybody's cruiser gunnery be the same or equally poor? There was a wide variance in gunnery ballistics, danger space, dispersion, and firecontrol equipment and procedures. I disagree that it was all equally poor. In 1943 Japanese cruisers shot significantly better than American cruisers in the same battles.

The MK8 radar did not improve USN cruiser shooting, as demonstrated by Cape Engano. However, the late war British cruiser shooting with radar was significantly improved as demonstrated by Norfolk and Kent, and 6" cruisers, off Egersund in 1945.

[alecsandros]

We can't just throw out the German cruiser shooting because they expended less ammunition to hit their targets.

We don't throw them out,
we observe that they had only brief engagements, and those were very rare compared to the Allied cruiser battlelines.
1000 shots vs maybe 20-30.000 is not a fair comparison.

In 1943 Japanese cruisers shot significantly better than American cruisers in the same battles.

... It doesn't get much cleaner than Komandorski islands - were neither aircraft, nor submarines or tactical factors (surprise, crossing the T, etc), did not play any role. Pure and simple, 2 battle lines going on parallel courses and blasting their guns at the enemy.

The 2 Japanes heavy cruisers obtained 6 hits (4 on Salt Lake City and 2 on DD Bailey) from 1611 shots fired, and Salt Lake City obtained 4 hits (all on Nachi) from 806 shots fired. Thus the hit rate for IJN 8" guns was 0,37%, and for the USN guns 0,49%

[aurora]

Quote Alex

It doesn't get much cleaner than Komandorski islands - were neither aircraft, nor submarines or tactical factors (surprise, crossing the T, etc), did not play any role. Pure and simple, 2 battle lines going on parallel courses and blasting their guns at the enemy.
The 2 Japanese heavy cruisers obtained 6 hits (4 on Salt Lake City and 2 on DD Bailey) from 1611 shots fired, and Salt Lake City obtained 4 hits (all on Nachi) from 806 shots fired. Thus the hit rate for IJN 8" guns was 0,37%, and for the USN guns 0,49%

Although this example is just one engagement-the proof is in the number of hits IMO

[Thorsten Wahl]

I think Bill Jurens would disagree with you. He points out that West Virginia achieved 7 or 8 (I forget which) consecutive straddles with full broadsides at Surigao strait and opines that it may have been the best battleship performance of the war. If you are looking at a Mark 8 display and you see splashes in front of the target and splashes behind the target and you can see visually that they are in line with the target, how can you be wrong about it being a straddle? What would you do differently? Also, I don't believe she was using rapid continuous fire ... she was firing about one salvo per minute

Yamashiro presented a relatively easy target -low rate changes and moderate speed heading on West Virgina(and the other american BBs) and was tracked by radar since about 35000 yards

"rapid fire was ordered from salvo two average salvo interval for the first 13 salvos was 41 seconds" these thirteen salvos were all straddles
"range pattern was 300 yards average"
"all spotting was made by radar"
"there were possible and probable hits in all salvos"
"three pronounced flareups were observed at the target at the splash time of our 1st 2nd and 6th salvos"
"because of the known possible error in bearing of the Mark 8 mod 2 radar the 7th, 9th, 11th and 13 th salvos were rocked in deflection"