|
Xiahou Dun posted:Is that just air attack or all losses of battleships? Also is this just the US or worldwide? There havent been many battleships around in the last few years, though.  And 'the US' and 'worldwide' have been synonymous in their respect since like the 50s. If you're talking warships in general being sunk by air attack there are obviously examples from the Falklands War for eg.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 14:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
Nessus posted:in War War 2 we call it just War 2 here for convenience
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 14:52
|
|
|
rubbadubdub deuce
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 15:00
|
|
|
it would have been absolutely stupendously difficult to sink one of the late war American battleships with an air attack, or even the older battleships after their mid-war refits
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 15:01
|
|
|
bewbies posted:it would have been absolutely stupendously difficult to sink one of the late war American battleships with an air attack, or even the older battleships after their mid-war refits Were Japanese air-dropped torpedoes as deadly as the long lances?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 15:28
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Were Japanese air-dropped torpedoes as deadly as the long lances? No. They worked well from the beginning, which makes them a lot better than US torpedoes, but they didn't have the range or warhead of the Long Lance. More to the point, they required a predictable approach, just like US torpedoes did. After the Guadalcanal campaign, it would have been very difficult for the Japanese to put enough bombers in one raid to threaten a battleship. Maybe if we had been fun enough to sail an old BB unescorted into their range it could have been done, but we knew better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Were Japanese air-dropped torpedoes as deadly as the long lances? "it depends" They were a fraction of the size, were slower, and much shorter legged, but obviously that comes with the territory. The warheads were proportionally much larger than the 93s, but were still smaller in absolute terms. I know there was a "lol big" warhead variant of the 91 that was developed specifically to deal with US battleships that I *think* had more HE than the 93, but I have no idea if they were ever used operationally, let alone successfully.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
I imagine Fly Mojo meant more that even with late-war refits, air attacks were still a threat to battleships. It's not like they made the battleships immune to torpedoes or bombs by slapping more armor on, they just made them far more capable of shooting down planes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
A shield of energetic lead, steel and explosives is very effective armor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 16:31
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:BuOrd did a very good job of it. In BuOrd's design specs torpedo fucks you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 16:43
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Pearl Harbour 1941. Pennsylvania took one air-launched torpedo hit in the stern few days before the end of the war and it came pretty close to sinking. God bless US damage control.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 17:07
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Is that just air attack or all losses of battleships? Also is this just the US or worldwide?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:Just air attack, just US Battleships. After Pearl Harbor you have Prince of Wales and Repulse off Malaya, Roma in the Mediterranean, Tirpitz in her Norwegian fjord-fortress, Yamato off Okinawa, Musashi around the Philippines, Haruna, Ise and Hyuga at port in Japan and Hiei at Guadalcanal. And I think I've missed a couple. Single hellenic tear for their two BB's sunk by the luftwaffe. (Before pearl harbour yes, but i find their history intriguing.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 17:32
|
|
|
I'm not entirely sure whether a US battleship would be safe against air attack, but a US battleship in its position in a US fleet is incredibly safe, not least because it means that a vast majority of the world's carrier aviation is not only not against it but on its side. I should probably go into effort about what exactly the US fleet defense off Okinawa consisted of, because there's a lot of stuff from battleships all the way down to LCI(G) gunboats with two or three 40mm guns just to fill all the jobs that needed AA cover. I'd rather expect that if you put the Iowa, an Atlanta and eight Gearings up against the 180 fighters, 75 bombers and 131 torpedo planes that hit Yamato, that task force is in for a bad day. FrangibleCover posted:Just air attack, just US Battleships. After Pearl Harbor you have Prince of Wales and Repulse off Malaya, Roma in the Mediterranean, Tirpitz in her Norwegian fjord-fortress, Yamato off Okinawa, Musashi around the Philippines, Haruna, Ise and Hyuga at port in Japan and Hiei at Guadalcanal. And I think I've missed a couple. Marat dodged inclusion on this list both by being sunk before Pearl Harbor and by having it not stick but it's still worth a mention of what can happen to ships without good AA. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Feb 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 17:54
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I'm not entirely sure whether a US battleship would be safe against air attack, but a US battleship in its position in a US fleet is incredibly safe, not least because it means that a vast majority of the world's carrier aviation is not only not against it but on its side. I should probably go into effort about what exactly the US fleet defense off Okinawa consisted of, because there's a lot of stuff from battleships all the way down to LCI(G) gunboats with two or three 40mm guns just to fill all the jobs that needed AA cover. Late war, USN battleships were explicitly counted on in USN planning as a major part of a task force's air defense. The big gun battleship thing had largely gone out of style except for shore bombardment, but battleships are huge platforms for mounting an absolute shitload of AA guns on, and that's exactly what the USN did. Also add to it USN doctrine, which was to stay in formation and not maneuver wildly when under air attack (doing so was the IJN's doctrine). The USN's approach was to maximize the AA power of the task force and count on it to shoot down air attacks, rather than maneuvering to avoid air attack, which was coupled with the USN's vastly superior fire control to the IJN, and later proximity fuses and radar direction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
It cannot be overstated how good USN fire-control was during WWII and how many ships their crews saved. Many Japanese war ships would have still been floating (well, for a little while anyways) if their fire-control organization was on the same level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:Just air attack, just US Battleships. After Pearl Harbor you have Prince of Wales and Repulse off Malaya, Roma in the Mediterranean, Tirpitz in her Norwegian fjord-fortress, Yamato off Okinawa, Musashi around the Philippines, Haruna, Ise and Hyuga at port in Japan and Hiei at Guadalcanal. And I think I've missed a couple. Scharnhorst at North Cape. RIP those poor bastards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Scharnhorst at North Cape. RIP those poor bastards. Scharnhorst was sunk by naval gunfire, not aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Scharnhorst was sunk by naval gunfire, not aircraft. Whoopsiedoopsie, misunderstood the question, my bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:It cannot be overstated how good USN fire-control was during WWII and how many ships their crews saved. On the one hand, you're perfectly factually accurate, on the other, it sounds like you've confused fire-control (aims the guns) with damage control (puts out the fires). Could just be me misreading, of course.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:Just air attack, just US Battleships. After Pearl Harbor you have Prince of Wales and Repulse off Malaya, Roma in the Mediterranean, Tirpitz in her Norwegian fjord-fortress, Yamato off Okinawa, Musashi around the Philippines, Haruna, Ise and Hyuga at port in Japan and Hiei at Guadalcanal. And I think I've missed a couple. You've also got Cavour, which was sunk by aircraft twice. First time at Taranto, by a single British torpedo. She was then salvaged, and towed to Trieste to be reconstructed. Italy surrendered before she was fully repaired, so the Italian navy scuttled her to prevent the Germans capturing her. The Germans refloated her, only for her hulk to be sunk again by a USAAF raid in 1945. Littorio and Caio Dulio would also be sunk at Taranto, but would be refloated and returned to service.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
Unreal_One posted:On the one hand, you're perfectly factually accurate, on the other, it sounds like you've confused fire-control (aims the guns) with damage control (puts out the fires). Could just be me misreading, of course. I’m referring to the putting out fires bit but I don’t think it’s controversial to say the USN was also superior at the aiming guns bit too, especially late war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 19:54
|
|
|
Does anyone have figures on the accuracy of WW2 battleship guns? If you assume you have perfect knowledge of the enemy's range, course, and speed, what sort of CEP do those big guns have when you're firing at an enemy ship say 20 km away?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 20:05
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
In retrospect, Roma being sunk is in a whole different ballpark. Nobody designing battleships in the 30's would have anticipated the need to account for fuckin' guided missiles. Also Warspite was a great war vintage design, and took a Fritz as well. Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Feb 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Late war, USN battleships were explicitly counted on in USN planning as a major part of a task force's air defense. The big gun battleship thing had largely gone out of style except for shore bombardment, but battleships are huge platforms for mounting an absolute shitload of AA guns on, and that's exactly what the USN did. It's interesting to look at the response to the kamikaze threat and the later transition to worrying about cruise missiles. By 1945, US integrated air defenses could basically knock down inbound aircraft as quickly as their positions could be plotted and communicated. Even suicide attacks could only work by spreading the thread out so widely that they overwhelmed the controllers, or by infiltration of small groups of aircraft at wavetop height. There were even better weapons on the drawing board, like the 3"/50 mount and, IIRC, efforts to integrate the radar and director into the 5" mount so that every 5" turret could engage threats independently. The Japanese would have countered with an even more intense tempo of kamikaze attacks. It would have been insane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
Surely at some point you start considering trying something other than Kamikaze attacks
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Surely at some point you start considering trying something other than Kamikaze attacks 1945 Japan didn't exactly have the time or resources or capability to consider anything else. Kamikazes were their most potent weapon at the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 21:50
|
|
|
Argas posted:I imagine Fly Mojo meant more that even with late-war refits, air attacks were still a threat to battleships. It's not like they made the battleships immune to torpedoes or bombs by slapping more armor on, they just made them far more capable of shooting down planes. Yeah I meant more that you can’t 100% prevent air attack, even with a fuckload of AA, and with less, you’re going to struggle to fend off a fraction of them. The US not losing more ships to planes/kamikazes is more due to the Japanese airforce being decimated by that point in the war, not because good AA or tons of escorts makes you invulnerable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 21:55
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:1945 Japan didn't exactly have the time or resources or capability to consider anything else. Kamikazes were their most potent weapon at the time. The Japanese didn't stop all conventional attacks either, it's just that they weren't very effective- conventional attacks continued through the last year of the war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
Keep in mind that conventional attacks were also made in order to divert air support so that your kamikaze planes can attack
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:1945 Japan didn't exactly have the time or resources or capability to consider anything else. Kamikazes were their most potent weapon at the time. RIP everybody in Japan that can be strapped into a plane
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:1945 Japan didn't exactly have the time or resources or capability to consider anything else. Kamikazes were their most potent weapon at the time. What about surrendering
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
Fangz posted:What about surrendering 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 22:17
|
|
|
Fangz posted:What about surrendering Counter-proposal: what about more people killing themselves in order to demonstrate their commitment to the national essence?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 22:42
|
|
|
Fangz posted:What about surrendering What if we just keep shoveling starving conscripts into the guns of the americans? Once they hit their pre-set kill limits they’ll shut down. (just don’t tell the IJN, those fuckers are the true enemy)
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2020 22:44
|
|
|
Does anyone know more about the 'Klingon promotion' problem in the IJN? Drachinifel mentioned that the IJN had a lot of officers dueling and assassinating each other, even in the runup to ww2, and he compared it to the Klingons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 00:10
|
|
|
Fangz posted:What about surrendering Coincidentally, the Japanese government has announced the use of a new strategy they're calling the 一億玉砕 strategy, 100 million shattered jade. You'll find your weapons at your local army garrison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 00:23
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:Does anyone know more about the 'Klingon promotion' problem in the IJN? It was more due to political divisions than trying to steal anyone's job themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 00:32
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:we call it just War 2 here for convenience War-squared.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Surely at some point you start considering trying something other than Kamikaze attacks If you can't survive to get to the target, you probably can't survive to lob a weapon at it, and then turn around. Panzeh posted:The Japanese didn't stop all conventional attacks either, it's just that they weren't very effective- conventional attacks continued through the last year of the war. They pulled off one hell of a conventional attack when an experienced pilot managed to slide into returning planes from an air strike and hit the Franklin right when it was most vulnerable, it's just experienced pilots were an incredibly scarce resource and even then they died most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 02:35
|
|