Thread: Battle Damage!

Iowa (BB61) Turrent two explosion during gunnery practice April 19, 1989. A very sad day in her history.

A close up of Yamato taking heavy fire from US planes during her final sortie.

Deserved better.

Originally Posted by sparten

Deserved better.

The IJS Yamato got exactly what she deserved.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The IJS Yamato got exactly what she deserved.

Yeah
A white elephant conceived and built during the coming of gnats, then held back until the gnats were ascendent. She could have seriously complicated the Guadalcanal naval battles. Just had to wait for the "Decisive Battle" though.

Sure would've liked to have seen her though. But since we can't...

You know what would be neat? A silhouette/profile of an Iowa-class superimposed over that of a Yamato-class.

At Guadacnal, well South Dakota would have been doomed, but since historically Washington was at point blank range, I think she would have been damamged beyond repair.

What I meant was that she deserved a better ending than the one she got, on a one way suicide trip, to be sent to the bottom on route. A much more fitting ending (for the Naval purist), would have been her going down main guns blazing against the US Battle fleet.

Originally Posted by sparten

At Guadacnal, well South Dakota would have been doomed, but since historically Washington was at point blank range, I think she would have been damamged beyond repair.

Washington would have been seriously FUBAR'ed
Actually, that's wishful thinking. Washington would have been sunk.
South Dakota stood a better chance of surviving (from a protection POV), assuming she was able to slip away into the night.

Originally Posted by sparten

What I meant was that she deserved a better ending than the one she got, on a one way suicide trip, to be sent to the bottom on route. A much more fitting ending (for the Naval purist), would have been her going down main guns blazing against the US Battle fleet.

Can't argue with that. Especially against Deyo's old battlewagons, it would have been a great fight. Although I wouldn't be placing any money on Yamato's main battery ROF.

Well the Americans had (if memory serves) 10 modern BB's ready at the time. Even leaving out the pre-North Carolina designs which were no pushovers. The Brits had serveral capital ships as well, including King George V and Duke of York (Scharnhorst's conquerer). So yeah, Yamato was doomed. The US BB's would have loved to get revenge for Pearl Harbor, the Brits for Prince of Wales and Repulse.

Originally Posted by sparten

Well the Americans had (if memory serves) 10 modern BB's ready at the time. Even leaving out the pre-North Carolina designs which were no pushovers.

True enough, but those fast battleships were tied to the carriers with a leash.
I think particularly after the Battle of Samar, the USN wasn't letting them go anywhere.
If for no other reason than they carried the most powerful and effective AA battery of any ship in the world and the kamikaze were especially heavy during the Okinawa campaign.

In addition, the fast battleships were - at that point - almost useless as battleships operating in a line of battle. Their big-gun and appropriate tactical ship-handling skills were - to be blunt - subpar. Small wonder when you consider what they'd been doing for the past 2-3 years.
If you wanted battleships that were skilled in carrier formation AA protection, then there was none better in the world though.

Even Deyo's Task Force 54 would have to have been a bit cautious taking on that monster. Certainly no other battleships in the world had their big-gun experience. But their protection, speed and gunpower all suffered in a head-to-head comparison of Yamato's. In gunpower alone, she outranged Deyo's biggest guns by 3000 yards and most of Deyo's battleships by 8000 yards.
In addition, Deyo's battleships suffered from the same atrophied line of battle skills that the fast battleships did. They spent almost the entire war - with the exception of Surigao Strait, a vastly different tactical situation - plodding back and forth blasting huge chunks of island into the air.

"So what?" we say. "Deyo had EIGHT battleships against Yamato." True enough, but it would have been incredibly tragic if one of more the American battleships - Pearl Harbor survivors most of them - was heavily damaged or sunk when you consider the total cost of Mitcher's raid was 10 aircraft and 12 air crew.

Well the Deyo's force were a holdover from the old standard ship design. And you are right, in Naval Warfare the bigger gun always dominates, see the Renown's battle with the Scharnhost and Genisenau in 39. And yes the way Yamato was sunk was proper.

However, if it did come to a surface action, well I do believe that even the fast BB's would have been eqaul to it, no matter what. Both Washington and South Dakota had battle line experience. The Brits had KGV (Bismarck veteren) and of course the Duke of York. I also believe HMS Rodney was there (though she may have been with the Eastern fleet off Burma). The British battlewagons had recent exprience with the Italians in the Med (though I don't remember if HMS Warspite was in the Pacific in 45). And pre-war plans , both British and American were to fight a series of Jutlands against the Japanese. You will be familiar with the USN plans, the RN had the battle fleet trasporting to Singapore and engaing the Japanese off the Malacca Starits.

Originally Posted by sparten

However, if it did come to a surface action, well I do believe that even the fast BB's would have been eqaul to it, no matter what.

I don't mean to give the impression that either Deyo's TF 54 or the fast battleships would have been unable to do the job. Far from it.
I'm just leery of the "Well of course they would have done the and sailed away into the sunset with maybe a few bruises but overall, peice of cake".

Originally Posted by sparten

Both Washington and South Dakota had battle line experience

I think it would be appropriate to say that only Washington had battle line experience. However, it was also a few years in the past. Skills atrophy if not practiced enough and at least one carrier admiral (Frederick Sherman IIRC) bluntly told his fast battleship skippers that he didn't care if they could shoot their 16-inch guns or not. His prime overriding concern was their AA proficiency.

Originally Posted by sparten

The Brits had KGV (Bismarck veteren) and of course the Duke of York. I also believe HMS Rodney was there (though she may have been with the Eastern fleet off Burma).

I agree, I think the British were more ably prepared to fight a surface action with their experience in the Atlantic.
The problem is, the British Pacific Fleet would have gone within 500 miles of Yamato only over the dead bodies of the anglophobe USN admirals.

"anglophobe USN admirals."

Thats an old wifes tale that has no basis in fact.

If anything the British constanly denigrated the US forces while overlooking their own faults and they had many. Including an inability to keep forces at sea for more than a coupla weeks at a time. Read somewhere recently that 28 consecututive days at sea was virtually unheard of in the RN. During a period when USN units could not only stay at sea but in combat for months at a time.

Ranks right up there with the German contention that US soldiers were not good fighters.

Just more nonsensical bashing of the US .

Note: That this is not something new.

Its been going on for over two-hundred years.

Personally Ive had enough of it.

Especially when ill-informed US citizens repeat such fallacies.

And no Im not an "anglophobe" in fact Ive written essays on the Royal Navy that have been well received in the UK.

But no matter.

On all discussion boards its bash the US in general and the USN in particular.

Just business as usual.

If you believe all the crap being written today you would think that Russia had won the Cold War. And if it had been a Hot war tehy would have crushed the US.

Revisionist history at its worst.

And for the present that China or India could kick our ass at any time. LOL

Alot of talk with nobody willing to put their life where there big fat mouths are.


KMA

Originally Posted by rickusn

"anglophobe USN admirals."

Thats an old wifes tale that has no basis in fact.

COMINCH Earnest King was not an anglophobe?

Originally Posted by rickusn

Read somewhere recently that 28 consecututive days at sea was virtually unheard of in the RN. During a period when USN units could not only stay at sea but in combat for months at a time.

All due respect sir, but the RN was made for the ETO, a completely different area from the Pacific. And unlike the USN the RN had (at the start of the war at least) bases all over which could house their fleet. Why spend so many days at sea when you can make life easier for yourself and have forward basing? 28 days fighting, I was under the impression that after a couple of weeks the US forces would withraw to a rear area to replenish. The RN had bases where it could do that.

Not intended to "bash" the US at all sir.