Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How necessary were BB's in WWII?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The maximum angle of elevation allowed on most 16" turrets was 42 degrees. Any steeper than that would flatten the bearings on the roller path.

    The 5-inchers on the other hand could elevate up to 85 degrees as they were A-A as well as shore bombardment. But a 5-inch hi-cap really doesn't do too much to volcanic rock which most of the islands are made of. Its porosity dampens shock very well.

    16-inchers coming in at a high angle would have been very impressive. But the mathematics of ballistic trajectories will not allow it. As soon as that "bullet" leaves the muzzle, gravity takes over.

    However, Wisconsin did do a "bang up job" (pun intended) on Japanese bunkers with 16-foot thick walls and a few decades later on Iraqi bunkers with 12-foot thick walls.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by shadow01 View Post
      Greater stand off range.
      No. Doesn't work that way. Greater stand off range on a naval gun gives you more "Skipped rounds".

      For all the hype, the Iowas expended more 5/38 than 16/50 during the few landings that they took part in.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
        No. Doesn't work that way. Greater stand off range on a naval gun gives you more "Skipped rounds".

        For all the hype, the Iowas expended more 5/38 than 16/50 during the few landings that they took part in.
        Being the novice here most of the books and videos that I have seen make the point that "plunging" rather than "direct" fire from BBs were more effective in both shore and ship to ship actions. I am refering to the main guns.

        Again, being the "greenhorn" it makes more sense to me that rounds coming down from overhead have a better chance at penetrating that one that is fired at a shallow or more direct angle. Kinda like skipping a stone across water.

        I am not disputing the folks on this site who have the knowledge, just asking questions for my own curiosity.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by shadow01 View Post
          Being the novice here most of the books and videos that I have seen make the point that "plunging" rather than "direct" fire from BBs were more effective in both shore and ship to ship actions. I am refering to the main guns.
          Technically you are correct. But reread my post above on the maximum allowed elevation of the guns. Hits from a BB's main guns were never "vertical" drops in their last moment of trajectory before impact. Though from a great distance, the curve of the ballistic trajectory will allow them to come in at a steep angle, but still not exactly "plunging" fire.

          In Viet Nam the New Jersey did dig some very deep holes, one so deep the ground spotters thought it was a dud. After several days of digging in the soft dirt of that part of the world, they did find the projectile actually had exploded but was so deep it only made a big cavity several feet below the surface.

          New Jersey hits on such terrain was more dramatic such as taking 20 feet off the top of a VC held mountain and catching a small fault zone on an island causing the end of the island to slip off and "sink". It was also very good at taking out VC tunnel complexes.

          But volcanic rock, such as most of the Pacific Islands in WW II, was better than concrete to absord shock and only high altitude bomb drops would achieve a "plunging" effect. The problem was getting enough heavy bombers over there to drop the bombs.
          Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

          Comment


          • #20
            Thank again Rusty and all the others on this site for sharing with me knowledge that only people like you know.

            Comment


            • #21
              Does anyone know how much the Japanese Commander fretted over the location of our battleships during Leyte. Were any tactics made/changed for the battle due to our Battleships? On the flip side. Would our tactics have been the same if we had our Battleships replaced with carriers. If not what changes would have been made.
              Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                Would the US have been able to achieve the same results without battleships in WWII? Suppose the new WWII battleships weren't built and the old ones weren't refitted or repaired after Pearl Harbor, these resources went to heavy cruisers and carriers instead, with some big British type monitors built to use those older guns for shore bombardment. What effect would this have had on the outcome in the Pacific? What do you think?
                The acquirence for seakeeping in southwest pacific may cost too much for a such a dual purpose ship.
                Last edited by vadupleix; 27 Jul 10,, 14:34.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by vadupleix View Post
                  The acquirence for seakeeping in southwest pacific may cost too much for a such a dual purpose ship.
                  Monitors were used successfully in the much stormier Atlantic, and the old US monitors managed several crossings of the Pacific during their careers. I think monitors would have been useful in the Pacific as shore bombardment platforms, but clearly the battleships had a substantial advantage in seakeeping - since we had enough of them (battleships), the need for monitors never really came up.

                  I would classify the battleship as the dual purpose ship (sea battles/escort and land bombardment) while the monitors had a single purpose.
                  Last edited by USSWisconsin; 27 Jul 10,, 16:11.
                  sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                  If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                    And how many Battleships took part in the Battle of Salvo Island?

                    Both the Battle of Salvo Island (9 Aug 42) and Cape Esperance (11- 12 Oct 42) were Cruiser and Destroyer battles. Didn't have or need BBs for them.

                    Surigao Straits saw the DD force inflict the most damage, Not the BB line.

                    And the Guadalcanal battle on 14-15 Oct Hiei was damaged by CA/DD then destroyed by aircraft.

                    Kirishima is the only ship that was hurt bad by BB fire. Causing her skipper the scuttle her. But not before she hurt the SD.

                    The proof that they were not needed, or more precisely that no more were needed was the US canceling the Montana class and the last 2 Iowas. Along with delaying the building of the Mo and Whisky for more important priorities. Essex Carriers

                    *Greetings GG,
                    As you can see I havent been on in some time due to things being rather busy. I would ask that you allow me to reply to your above questions in full before we move on or debate. I will take these one at a time since I wont have time to full post in response.:)
                    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      And how many Battleships took part in the Battle of Salvo Island?

                      *You had three in theater during the battle of Savo Island.

                      1) BB55 North Carolinia arrived in the Pacific theatre in June 10, 1942. She was immediately dispatched to the Carrier Enterprise CV6 battle group Task Force 61.1 under Kinkaid. She helped stop the air attacks on Enterprise by downing between 7-14 Japanese planes and being able to put about approx 4x the amount of AA that any one DD could in the group.

                      It would be these planes from Enterprises group that BB55 North Carolinia helped protect that would deliver the blows to Hiei's steering gear and amidships. In actuality Hiei scuttled according to her records, not sunk by aircraft as her record follows below:

                      1435: HIEI is attacked by four TBFs from ENTERPRISE. One torpedo hits HIEI amidships on the starboard side. Another hits her stern and floods her steering gear.

                      1530: During the day, HIEI suffers 70 American sorties. Vice Admiral Abe orders Captain Nishida to Abandon Ship.

                      1745: HIEI is attacked by six "Dauntlesses" from Henderson Field, after some of her sailors were transferred. YUKIKAZE (identified as a light cruiser) receives a near miss.

                      Captain Nishida reluctantly orders HIEI scuttled. The Emperor's portrait is removed. Nishida and other survivors are rescued by DesDiv 27's SHIGURE, SHIRATSUYU, YUGURE and DesDiv 61's TERUZUKI. 188 crewmen are lost and 151 wounded.

                      1838: Admiral Yamamoto orders Abe not to scuttle HIEI, but the message is received too late.

                      1900-0100: HIEI sinks by the stern at 09-00S, 159-00E. 188 crewmen are lost.

                      14 November 1942:
                      Vice Admiral Abe is relieved of command. On their return to Japan, both he and Captain Nishida face a Board of Inquiry into the loss of HIEI.

                      20 December 1942:
                      Abe is reassigned to the Naval General Staff. Nishida is placed on the Reserve List. BatDiv 11 is deactivated and HIEI is removed from the Navy List.[5]


                      2) BB56 Washington arrived in theater on transfer from the Atlantic in August 1942 just after stopping at Brooklyns Navy Yard for minor updating.

                      3) BB57 South Dakota arrived after the Battle of Santa Cruz Islands in which she also protected CV6 the Enterprise.

                      IMO, That pretty much answers how many BB's were involved in the Solomons campaign. Two of these three BB's protected the carriers that supplied the airpower to the Solomons campaign outside of other limited land based airstrips early on.
                      Last edited by Dreadnought; 30 Jul 10,, 18:54.
                      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Both the Battle of Salvo Island (9 Aug 42) and Cape Esperance (11- 12 Oct 42) were Cruiser and Destroyer battles. Didn't have or need BBs for them.

                        *A lengthy question indeed. The first part I dont have time to answer right now (I will reply to this first thing on my next visit).

                        The second statement "Didint have them or need them" IMO, disagreed, as heres why:

                        Nimitz completely rejected the idea of redeploying the old battleships of Pacific Fleet to the South Pacific for lack of logistical support, but he sent Hornet on 17 August 1942 to replace Wasp and ordered Wasp to leave part of its air group as replacements for the other carriers. He also made plans for South Dakota and Washington to arrive in the South Pacific by mid-September.

                        Nimitz realized early on that the logistics it takes to keep those ships in theatre, had he sent them, was not there. No place to repair battle damage, maintain them or anything else except sending them back to the US Yards.

                        That means there was no way of supporting the older battleships needs for forward deployment until about 1943-1944 with AFDB's (or the “floating drydocks”). Once they were launched and transfered, now you could support the older battleships in the pacific theatre which is exactly what they did for several of the Island campaigns. And all of them did return once this was in place.

                        *Not having them is not to say they didnt physically have the ships, what they didnt have was the logisitcs in place to keep them in theater yet. As far as needing them, there is no doubt Nimitz was urged to deploy them until he outright refused to do so until the logistics were in place to maintain them.

                        See you soon.:)
                        Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          well, I'm sure that Admiral Sprague and Taffy III wish they had some battleships during their action during the Battle off Samar.. Japanese battleships Yamato, Nagato, Kongō, and Haruna; heavy cruisers Chōkai, Haguro, Kumano, Suzuya, Chikuma, Tone; light cruisers Yahagi, and Noshiro; and 11 Kagerō- and Asashio- class destroyers went up against Rear Admiral Clifton Sprague's Task Unit 77.4.3 ("Taffy 3") consisted of the Light carriers/escort carriers: Fanshaw Bay, St. Lo, White Plains, Kalinin Bay, Kitkun Bay, and Gambier Bay. Screening for Taffy 3 were the destroyers Hoel, Heermann and Johnston, and destroyer escorts Dennis, John C. Butler, Raymond, and Samuel B. Roberts.

                          only through the lack of situational awareness how valiantly the American's fought did they drive the Japanese off. If we would have had some BB's there, the situation would/could have been completely different..

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Taffy 3 is an example that BBs were not needed. Would have been great to have them but through the valiant efforts of some DD/DEs the battle was turned.

                            If we had BBs there, the battle could have turned out differently. But not necessarily better.

                            There will always be examples of "we could have used X."

                            But the original question was "How necessary were the BBs?"
                            Last edited by Gun Grape; 31 Jul 10,, 19:28.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                              And how many Battleships took part in the Battle of Salvo Island?

                              *You had three in theater during the battle of Savo Island.

                              1) BB55 North Carolinia arrived in the Pacific theatre in June 10, 1942. She was immediately dispatched to the Carrier Enterprise CV6 battle group Task Force 61.1 under Kinkaid. She helped stop the air attacks on Enterprise by downing between 7-14 Japanese planes and being able to put about approx 4x the amount of AA that any one DD could in the group.
                              I know you are not comparing an BB with a DD?

                              But lets look at what a waste of men and material that is.

                              Fast BB of the SD/NC and Iowa class all had 20 5/38 DP Guns. 10 per side

                              The NC weighed 42,400 tons and had a crew of 18-23 hundred men.


                              A Fletcher had 5 5/38s weighed 2,500 tons with a crew of 329.


                              So a NC class had the equivalent of 4 Fletchers in 5/38 firepower.

                              4 Fletchers use 10 thousand tons of steel. 1/4th of what the NC had.

                              4 Fletchers need 1,316 crew members. Which is 500 to 1000 less than less than what the NC had.

                              And you can build Fletchers a lot faster than a BB.

                              One of the reasons that we stopped BBs building and concentrated on Essex and DD building.

                              Or you could have compared her to the USS Atlanta, what was also part of the task force.

                              A Class that had 16 5/38s in dual mounts that, except for 2, were mounted center line. 14 guns could bear on a target regardless of which side it was on.

                              8 thousand tons with a crew of 670. For the AA screening job, a better choice than any BB.
                              Last edited by Gun Grape; 31 Jul 10,, 19:32. Reason: fixed Atlanta data.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Yes, 4 Fletchers roughly equal AA as a BB, in 5"....but I don't think 4 Fletchers equal 1 BB in 40mm, though.

                                But 1 NC can take more punishment than any 4 Fletchers ever thought about and still be fighting.

                                Same thing with the Atlanta class. Can't take a hit. I've read the Atlanta's crew never felt the ship was all that safe. So it's great, as long as it doesn't get hit.

                                And I doubt you'll find anyone from Taffy 3 that wouldn't have LOVED to have a couple of BB's, even the old ones, on station with them.

                                Your theory works great if you simply regard the ships and men as disposable.....if so, just spam DD's all war at the enemy, and sure, you'll end up winning.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X