Jump to content


Photo

Repulse/prince Of Wales Sinking


  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

#21 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,561 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 26 December 2018 - 1400 PM

I think that has been corrected to a much lower number, but I'm away from the references I'd need.


  • 0

#22 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,296 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 26 December 2018 - 1409 PM

Let's not forget the training level of the Japanese pilots at the start of the war, they were arguably the best in the world. How many other air forces could hit maneuvering warships from level bombers? Also, the state of damage control (the ships and the men) early in the war was pretty bad.


They did hit Repulse(?) with a bomb or two but the hit ratecwas lousy, the bombs did little more than scratch the paint and for the RN the third year of the war had begun. They much improved their AA during that time and certainly their DC too.
  • 0

#23 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,592 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 26 December 2018 - 1721 PM

The 3/50 continued in Service with the RCN till the late 80's 


  • 0

#24 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,658 posts
  • Interests:Design,Strategy,3D &Gfx

Posted 26 December 2018 - 1806 PM

Let's not forget the training level of the Japanese pilots at the start of the war, they were arguably the best in the world. How many other air forces could hit maneuvering warships from level bombers? Also, the state of damage control (the ships and the men) early in the war was pretty bad.

All air forces.

 

The issue is investment return, how many hits vs flights mode+bombs dropped.


  • 0

#25 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,963 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 December 2018 - 2229 PM

26 claimed AA kills of IJN aircraft for USS South Dakota

 

Considered together with the number of total USN AA kills available online of:

 

127 versus actual kills of approximately 25

 

Extrapolates mathematically to about 5 actual AA kills relative to USN overclaims


  • 0

#26 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,413 posts

Posted 26 December 2018 - 2328 PM

So there's probably no way to ascertain (with any accuracy) the true number of South Dakota's kills?


  • 0

#27 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,876 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 27 December 2018 - 0026 AM

 

Let's not forget the training level of the Japanese pilots at the start of the war, they were arguably the best in the world. How many other air forces could hit maneuvering warships from level bombers? Also, the state of damage control (the ships and the men) early in the war was pretty bad.

All air forces.

 

The issue is investment return, how many hits vs flights mode+bombs dropped.

 

 

Well B-17s could only hit ships if they were careless enough to leave pickle barrels on their decks


  • 0

#28 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,561 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 27 December 2018 - 0439 AM

IJN Mutsuki's skipper was a noteworthy victim of overconfidence vs USAAF B-17s, taking no evasive action:

 

 Mutsuki was sunk in an attack by USAAF B-17 Flying Fortress bombers while assisting the damaged transport Kinryu Maru, 40 miles (64 km) northeast of Santa Isabel island7°47′S 160°13′ECoordinates17px-WMA_button2b.png7°47′S 160°13′E. Mutsuki took a direct bomb hit in her engineering section, killing 41 crewmen and injuring 11 more. Yayoi took on the survivors, which included her captain, Lt. Cdr. Kenji Hatano

 

 

HMS Repulse was very maneuverable compared to HMS PoW, as well as to IJN Settsu, the former BB converted to a target ship for the Nell and Betty bombers to practice against prior to WWII. In the attack on Force Z, Repulse was well handled, receiving only on bomb hit [detonated on her deck armor, setting fire to the seaplane, later jettisoned], but PoW took an unfortunate torpedo hit on a propeller shaft, which was distorted and literally beat the hull up, alone sufficient to knock her out of action. Left alone and still maneuvering, Repulse fell victim to no fewer than 17 Betties in a scissors attack, and five torpedos hit, dooming the ship.

 

PoW was designed to resist torpedos of approx 450 lb, as I recall from the relevant David Brown volume,but the IJN aerial torpedos had larger warheads. 


  • 0

#29 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,561 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 27 December 2018 - 0447 AM

 

 

 

The 3/50 continued in Service with the RCN till the late 80's 

 

...and the 3"/70 continued in RCN through 1992:  see HMCS Mackenzie at SanDiego after RIMPAC 92. [ETA] Oops, she also retains her 3"/50 aft.

 

HMCS_Mackenzie_%28DDE_261%29_at_San_Dieg

 

 

USS Norfolk was last in the USN, decomm'd 1970.


Edited by Ken Estes, 27 December 2018 - 0522 AM.

  • 0

#30 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,876 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 27 December 2018 - 0531 AM

It makes me wonder about cooperation between various service, whether that be USN and Army or RN and the British army.  I understand that some interwar French cruisers were armed with 155mm guns, basically of the same type used by the French Army.

 

The US 155mm guns used a semi armour piecing shell for coastal defence purposes.  The same shell was used by the GMC M12 and the M1 155mm gun, and therefore the later M40 GMC.   In the land role it was to deal with concrete and other bunkers, which it did very well.  It also available to shoot at ships.

 

I can see no good reason why the USN and the Army would not use the same shells, except for the usual inter service rivalry.  I would be pleased to hear that the Army 155guns and the USN 6" guns (well, they were basically the same bore and purpose) but I fear that this was not the case.

 

Having said that, the same was probably the case in Britain, with the army's 4.5in gun (firing the same shell as the US 4.5 in) being completely overlooked by the RN for its guns, except for the mid war adoption of the RN 4.5in and 5.25in guns for coastal defence and AA purposes.

 

Didn't anyone talk to each other?


  • 0

#31 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,296 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 27 December 2018 - 0630 AM

The US Army got their 155s from the French. 6" is 152mm and it was the maximum the naval treaties allowed for light cruisers afaik.
  • 0

#32 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,561 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 27 December 2018 - 0632 AM

The use of army 155mm guns in the 1930s French light cruisers of the La Galissonnière class was dictated by parliament as an economy measure, however what was actually fitted were the naval 152mm/55 caliber Model 1930, same in the later Richelieu class BBs as secondary armament. I don't know the details of how the wrangling ensued.

 

Naval guns can be much heavier in design than land arty pieces and one advantage would be to mate with semi-automatic loading equipment. For instance, the USN 6"/47 light cruiser guns of the modern light cruisers from Brooklyn onwards used brass casings for the propellant charges, enabling them to use continuous belt hoists and ram projo and propellant case in a single stroke. Thus, the rate of fire was a very respectable 9-10 rpm, or 150 rpm from a single Brooklyn class cruiser. The 6"/47 also could use a superheavy AP projo having twice the penetration of the 6"/53 of the earlier Omaha class. These capabilities would hardly be supportable in an army weapon where larger numbers at reasonable cost are basic requirements. The use of brass propellant canisters alone would be nightmarish. 


Edited by Ken Estes, 27 December 2018 - 0637 AM.

  • 0

#33 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,561 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 27 December 2018 - 0656 AM

The IJN introduced their 155mm 6.1"/60 with the Mogami class CLs, later distributed to the CL Oyodo and the Yamato class BB when replaced by 8" in the Mogami class. They were unrelated to army weapons of 155mm caliber.

 

Curiously, the later Agano class CLs reverted to the 1912 vintage naval 152/50 guns as they were available from the reconstructed Kongo and Fuso class BBs and reserve guns. Talk about  world class navy run as a rummage sale!


  • 0

#34 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nemui

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,708 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko da?!
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 27 December 2018 - 0713 AM

IJA caliber of that class were actually not 155mm. While they were named as Type so-and-so 15cm cannon, they were 149.1mm.
  • 0

#35 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,876 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 27 December 2018 - 0724 AM

The IJN introduced their 155mm 6.1"/60 with the Mogami class CLs, later distributed to the CL Oyodo and the Yamato class BB when replaced by 8" in the Mogami class. They were unrelated to army weapons of 155mm caliber.

 

Curiously, the later Agano class CLs reverted to the 1912 vintage naval 152/50 guns as they were available from the reconstructed Kongo and Fuso class BBs and reserve guns. Talk about  world class navy run as a rummage sale!

 

Well the HMS Vanguard did get its main guns from what was available from 40 years before


  • 0

#36 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,561 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 27 December 2018 - 0742 AM

IJA caliber of that class were actually not 155mm. While they were named as Type so-and-so 15cm cannon, they were 149.1mm.

 

So no mixing with IJN weapons was possible. That matches their usual relationship!


Edited by Ken Estes, 27 December 2018 - 0744 AM.

  • 0

#37 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,296 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 27 December 2018 - 0801 AM

 
Curiously, the later Agano class CLs reverted to the 1912 vintage naval 152/50 guns as they were available from the reconstructed Kongo and Fuso class BBs and reserve guns. Talk about  world class navy run as a rummage sale!


I see your Anago class and raise you HMS Vanguard. :)

The first French post war CL had army guns because nothing else was available at the time but the guns weren't all that good. I can get detail when I'm home in a few hours.
  • 0

#38 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nemui

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,708 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko da?!
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 27 December 2018 - 0812 AM

IJA caliber of that class were actually not 155mm. While they were named as Type so-and-so 15cm cannon, they were 149.1mm.

 
So no mixing with IJN weapons was possible. That matches their usual relationship!

It matches but in this case, maybe not one of the symptoms. IJA used 149.1mm since before WW1 while the cruiser 155mm gun looks like a new gun. A difference of 5.9mm might not be worthwhile but with all navy parties being under same treaty terms, maybe there was a desire to use absolute maximum allowed caliber and go 155mm. Don't know that much though、 just wonder.
  • 0

#39 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,729 posts

Posted 27 December 2018 - 0823 AM

So there's probably no way to ascertain (with any accuracy) the true number of South Dakota's kills?

 

There was a marked lethality spike in USN defenses at Santa Cruz in comparison to the previous carrier battles.  SoDak and 40mm. 


  • 0

#40 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,296 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 27 December 2018 - 0832 AM

Lundstrom mentiones the reports and notes that the "26 kills" claim for SoDak wasn't made by SoDak but ascribed to her. And that she had six 40mm quad mounts plus the smaller stuff.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users