Battleship Top Ten

[Karl Heidenreich]

lwd:

By the end of the war the US was finding it useful on almost any engagment over about 20,000 yards and in some cases closer. The automated range input was more accurate for range and avoided errors. It's also almost essential over 30,000 yards unless your target isn't moving and you have an arial spotter.
By the end of the war the US was finding it useful on almost any engagment over about 20,000 yards and in some cases closer. The automated range input was more accurate for range and avoided errors. It's also almost essential over 30,000 yards unless your target isn't moving and you have an arial spotter.

In which combat against enemy capital ships do the USN capital ships engage in such a fashion? Or is just tests or theoretical?

Best regards.

[Bgile]

Karl,

In which combat against capital ships did Yamato ever engage at all?

If you want to shut off all discussion about almost everything that's a good way to do it.

I suppose we could talk about West Virginia vs Bismarck in the dead of night. Bismarck never fought another capital ship at night, so she must be lousy at it. Tirpitz, too.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile;

that´s not the problem. I have never intended that Yamato, or Bismarck for the same effect, did their "theoretical performance" as a MATTER OF FACT. When we are discussing Iowa then, for most of you, things that she may do then you assume that she MUST AND WILL DO. If someone states something different or doubts about it then it´s an heresy. Anyway a lot it´s due to ideological or nationalist feeling: I don´t care if Bismarck or Yamato are Japanese, or German or Spanish or from Jupiter. But in these discussions a lot of nationality affect the "perception" of the posts.

In this same thread, or the Yamato vs. Iowa one, I had bring forth articles, opinions, statistics that tend to demostrate that Yamato COULD win over Iowa in a single handed combat. To be sincere (and it can be tested) I have posted more proofs than many of you that "just" stated AS MATTER OF FACT the same "perceptions" about the RDFC (for instance) or, even when there is plain proof that Iowa had no IZ against Yamato (another example), return to the ancient belief that Iowa could penetrate her foe from distances that are "just" theoretical because no combat could have happened at such ranges. The sole notion of something like that happening stirs a lot of anger and sometime insults from various posters.

Since I became part of this forum I have changed a lot my opinions, in many ocassions thanks to you people from which I have learned a lot. But there are areas where my previous conceptions not only have been unchanged but reinforced. And in many cases, like with Bismarck, I stated that it was more powerful than, let´s say, North Carolina or Iowa, just to learn otherwise. Learned and accepted. Now, under new information and new reading and discovering many false dictates from the common wisdom then I´m not as sure that Bismarck was the "lesser" vessel that it was stated (and I believed). Since no definitive proof has emerged then I have her were I put it. I expect to raise it someday. But will not do it just because I wanted, but because I can.

But I don´t want to stir negative feelings from any of you. And sometimes, Bgile, you react under anger and this is, after all, a lot of fun. At the end, I bet, that if the real designers of the BBs came and read what we post would laugh at us.

Best regards.

[lwd]

... If someone states something different or doubts about it then it´s an heresy...

When has anyone said or even implied this.

Anyway a lot it´s due to ideological or nationalist feeling:.... But in these discussions a lot of nationality affect the "perception" of the posts.

This is a classic case of treating your opinion as fact. At least as far as most recent posts are concerned you appear to be wrong. Certainly there is little evidence of it.

... I had bring forth articles, opinions, statistics that tend to demostrate that Yamato COULD win over Iowa in a single handed combat....

Has anyone ever even contended that Yamato couldn't defeat Iowa? I know I haven't. It's just that in some and I believe most realistic scenarios she wouldn't be likely too.

... even when there is plain proof that Iowa had no IZ against Yamato (another example), return to the ancient belief that Iowa could penetrate her foe from distances that are "just" theoretical because no combat could have happened at such ranges.

Immune zones are just part of the equation. Iowa could clearly penetrate Yamato at ranges over 35,000 yards and under 25,000 yards. So it's not that Yamato is proof against Iowa's guns. And there are parts of her that could be penetrated at any range as well as the fact that non penetrating hits could do considerable damage. Also combat could and did happen at those ranges.

In discussing a battle between 2 BBs of close to the same generation nothing is positive. In all probability neither will sink the other and the strongest one will probably "win" but nothing is certain. For instance if Graf Spee had put one of her shells where Bismark put hers would Hood have survived it? Possibly but possibly not. There is a considerable difference between could win, would win, and might win.

[Karl Heidenreich]

lwd:

This is a classic case of treating your opinion as fact. At least as far as most recent posts are concerned you appear to be wrong. Certainly there is little evidence of it.

Then, lwd, I´m happy to be wrong! This is one issue I don´t wanna win. As a matter of fact WE ALL are part of a really minority group, the BB buffs or whatever you call it. And, being fair, it´s good that you people and myself cannot agree: it demostrates a lot.

Best regards.

[RNfanDan]

If a faster ship opts to flee and the slower ship gives chase then the range is only ever going to open (and continue to do so).

Exactly as I stated. It is not the increase in range, as much as it is the rate of that increase, and the total range required (and therefore, the time it takes) to reach a safe distance. Three or even four knots leaves the faster ship exposed for too long to enemy gunfire, unless the initial range is already great enough to reduce the time of exposure. A pursuing ship with more than about a half hour's chance of scoring a hit, is very likely to do to a fleeing enemy, what Duke did to Scharnhorst.

This maybe isnt quite so much of a hinderance on a calm clear day in the pacific but in the North Atlantic (or better still the waters above North Cape) then visability can be limited and even just 3 or 4 extra knots of speed can be the difference between you fleeing into a fog bank/rain squall etc etc or not escaping at all. Scharnorst would escaped had DOY not struck her boiler hump.

Scharnhorst could have escaped with a greater advantage in speed; the whole reason she was caught by shells from DoY was because she didn't possess enough of an advantage to significantly reduce her exposure time to heavy shellfire. As to any visibility concerns, that was effectively nullified by British radar, and the lack of it when the German ship lost her own.

The KGV class were NOT slow ships, as has been suggested in an earlier post.

[Bgile]

RNfanDan,

S&G's speed advantage of a knot or two enabled them to disengage from Renown.

If visibility is bad and gets worse, the action can pause. If one ship is even one knot faster it can use that temporary reduction in visibility to escape.

Another example: Excellent visibility, but one ship is inferior. The range is too great for effective gunnery. The faster ship can break off the engagement. The slower ship can't. Eventually the faster ship will get in range.

[VeenenbergR]

To RNfanDan.

Still that DoY hit in her boilerroom was VERY lucky since some HOURS of shooting resulted in only a few (<10) hits from DoY on Scharnhorst. DoY hit her on the bow turrets, the hangar and that important boiler room.

When Scharnhorst left the scene she had to enlarge the distance from say 15.000 to 30.000 yards. With a 3 knot advantage over DoY Scharnhorts needed theoretically some hours to be save.....

The critical hit was obtained at about 28.000 yards!!! Scharnhorst would be perfectly save one hour later!!! In that hour on that long distance the probability to hit her was not so great; 1 or 2 hits perhaps.

Scharnhorst took that one hit which dived eaxctly through a weak spot in the vertical and horizontal armour. This was luck on top of luck.... and Scharnhorst was already vulnerable for boiler damage. If anything would have happened there it was enough to slow her.

Bismarck and Scharnhorst met almost similar fates with similar results.

Both received that lucky stopping hit when they were almost save and both received early hits on the front turrets and forward directors (radar).

This striking resemblance ramains most curious!

[Bgile]

Karl,

I wasn't angry. I was just using your own tool on you, where you say sometimes that if something wasn't demonstrated by a particular ship, then we can't argue that that ship COULD do the thing.

If I say something with no evidence of it, I should be challenged, but I try not to do that. I don't consider much of anything to be absolute when it comes to these ships fighting each other. It gets my goat when someones says "will always win".

You keep saying radar was "hypothetical", and we all know there were documented cases when it made a big difference. No Axis ship in 1942 could have shot up another ship like Washington did to Kirishima in 10 minutes in the dark of night. It was radar which made that possible.

There were several ships shooting at Yamashiro on that fateful night later in the war. Some had the most advanced FC radar and some didn't. The ones that didn't, also did not do nearly as well as (for example) West Virginia. Radar made the difference, and in that case, better radar made a greater difference.

Iowa and New Jersey both straddled their target on there very first salvo at a range that I don't thing anyone ever did that. Bismarck took 3 salvoes to straddle Hood at 25,000 yds and closing. Good shooting for an optical system, but would have been better with the radar we had in 1942 and better still later.

There are other examples. Isn't all this proof that radar made a big difference?

[RNfanDan]

Still that DoY hit in her boilerroom was VERY lucky since some HOURS of shooting resulted in only a few (<10) hits from DoY on Scharnhorst.

Please read your statement. What is the key phrase? It's "some HOURS of shooting".

Scharnhorst, I say again, did not have enough advantage in speed over Duke to avoid prolonged exposure to her gunnery. This is simple stuff--regardless of the conditions, time increases the odds for scoring hits. So does radar, although the initial starshell illumination and a visual fix by the British, seems to be the starting point for Scharnhorst's worst troubles.

The critical hit was obtained at about 28.000 yards!!!

This is questionable. If the fatal hit would have been at that range, it would be Duke of York that holds the record for the longest ship-to-ship gunnery hit in history--currently a record co-credited to both HMS Warspite and--oddly enough, Scharnhorst (against HMS Glorious, 1940)! Both ships' record-distance hits were at ranges less than 27,000 yards.

All this merely distracts from my contention however, which links back to an earlier post in this thread. In that post, the author opined that a 27-knot battleship was "slow", but did not use that term in connection with any 30-knot battleships mentioned in his post. My entire point is that the actual speed of a battleship is less important in a gunnery duel against another battleship, than the differential in speed. It is very clear not only from the sinking of Scharnhorst at North Cape, but of virtually any gunnery engagement wherein such speed differential was not sufficient to provide the fleeing vessel with a safe reduction in time exposed to enemy gunnery. How can I make this clearer?

Three knots is not a great enough disparity in speed to do the job, except when the range is so great initially that it allows that 3-knot advantage to affect matters. I agree completely, that any ship with guns and ordnance exceeding the range and power of those of its opponent, can use a speed advantage of even 1 knot to maintain those advantages. In fact, a slight disadvantage in speed is more than compensated by weapons of superior range and/or fire control than a marginally faster opponent. Duke of York vs. Scharnhorst is a perfect example--Duke could not be out-run soon enough to save the German battleship, even with a nearly five-knot speed advantage.

[VeenenbergR]

RNfanDan.

I only meant that DoY had about 2 hours time to hit Scharnhorst before she could have escaped. In this timespan only a few hits were obtained but one proved to be fatal. This I call very bad luck.
Initially Scharnhorst was ambushed at 12.000 yards with guns ppointing forward. This because her forward radar (with 360 degree rotation) was earlier hit by Norfolk. She could not see in the dark in the forward sector.
It is surprising though how bad the shooting of all ships was in the following 120 minutes of exchanging fire. Scharnhorst was kept in a orange light, while she herself could not afford to shoot starshells while every gun was needed in defense. The situation quickly turned in an even more unbalanced battle when DoY hit the forward turret(s). This was almost also the case in the last duel of the Bismarck.
Like the Bismarck the 6 inch guns of S where silenced one by one and eventually only turret Ceasar fired back at the many enemy ships. Alsmost to the last shell!!! Even shells from the silenced forward turrets were transported through the ship to Ceasar. That is why eventually the British destroyers could obtain the decisive (11) torpedo hits. Gunfire from DoY and the 3 cruisers alone could not sink Scharnhorst (like Bismarck).
In this respect Scharnhorst could answer the attackers with her own torpedo's but did not score any hits.
Find the duel at North Cape one of the most tragical duels in history.

Ok agree with this "marginal speed difference" which must be > 5 knots to give pursue or withdrawl chances in sea battles.

Also with Bgile's argumentation of the importance of radar technology on shooting.

[lwd]

Was Scharhorst able to make full speed in the sea conditions at the time she was sunk?

Now a bit of a quibble.

...

The critical hit was obtained at about 28.000 yards!!!

This is questionable. If the fatal hit would have been at that range, it would be Duke of York that holds the record for the longest ship-to-ship gunnery hit in history--currently a record co-credited to both HMS Warspite and--oddly enough, Scharnhorst (against HMS Glorious, 1940)! Both ships' record-distance hits were at ranges less than 27,000 yards.
...

As stated the record probably belongs to Massachusetts unless you count splinter damage then it may be Iowa.

[Dave Saxton]

.......You keep saying radar was "hypothetical", and we all know there were documented cases when it made a big difference. No Axis ship in 1942 could have shot up another ship like Washington did to Kirishima in 10 minutes in the dark of night. It was radar which made that possible........

Yes, radar could have made a big difference, but I must disagree with some of these presumptions. Some capabilities were not exclusive Allied capabilities.

[RNfanDan]

Was Scharhorst able to make full speed in the sea conditions at the time she was sunk?

I hate answering questions with questions, but in this case I will reply by asking: Was Duke of York able to make full speed in those same conditions? Once again, we fall back to the same old ground--it's not the actual speed, it's the differential in speed between the two opponents, that matters. And in the case of three to five knots, it doesn't matter.

Now a bit of a quibble.

As stated the record probably belongs to Massachusetts unless you count splinter damage then it may be Iowa.

As stated where and by whom? If you refer to Casablanca and Massachusetts' bombardment of Jean Bart, the first hit was about 25,000 yards---commendable, but short of both Warspite and Scharnhorst records.

Assuming I am wrong and new information has since come to light, proving Massachusetts was successful in landing her hit at 28,000 yards, keep in mind that this was not a duel between two ships at sea--they were both floating in seawater but Jean Bart was stationary at a quayside, incomplete, and incapable of steaming. She was akin to a shore installation, for all intents and purposes.

Finally, a splinter from the US battleships in that spectacular all-radar controlled gunnery against an over-the-horizon Japanese destroyer, even that does not qualify as a hit, because the shell struck the sea, not the target. That means it missed. Again, not applicable.

Regards,

Dan

[Tiornu]

Massachusetts hit Jean Bart from ranges that may have exceeded 30,000 yards, but as you say, so what? She also hit a destroyer at long range during the sea battle. It's not clear exactly what the range was, unfortunately, though it was likely in the neighborhood of the Warspite/Scharnhorst record, give or take.