Jump to content


Photo

Impressive Pic Of Ijn Musashi


  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#121 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,440 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 18 December 2018 - 0216 AM

Most of the Sea battles at Guadalcanal were at night. Battleships were an important part of the battles and the bombardment of Henderson field. At night, the carriers were useless and were withdrawn from the area.

Over the horizon gunnery probably wasnt practical, spotters or not, because the accuracy probably wasnt very good at this range. At the much shorter ranges of the night battles the Yamato and Musashi guns would have been deadly.

 

There is a bit written about the fuzes on AP shells used by the IJN - delays too long, optimized for subaquatic hits, that saved some CVEs from sinking off Samar, for instance.


Edited by sunday, 18 December 2018 - 0217 AM.

  • 0

#122 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,917 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 18 December 2018 - 0458 AM

 

Most of the Sea battles at Guadalcanal were at night. Battleships were an important part of the battles and the bombardment of Henderson field. At night, the carriers were useless and were withdrawn from the area.

Over the horizon gunnery probably wasnt practical, spotters or not, because the accuracy probably wasnt very good at this range. At the much shorter ranges of the night battles the Yamato and Musashi guns would have been deadly.

 

There is a bit written about the fuzes on AP shells used by the IJN - delays too long, optimized for subaquatic hits, that saved some CVEs from sinking off Samar, for instance.

 

 

CVEs did not in general have very much armour, if any.

 

If the concept of all or nothing armour in ships is to be accepted: that is where a ship has enough armour for protection in the vital areas, and no actual armour elsewhere, the idea that armour would stop incoming projectiles, whilst everywhere else was too thin to trigger a fuze, and the projectile would go through without denotation. 


Edited by DougRichards, 18 December 2018 - 0459 AM.

  • 0

#123 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,840 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 18 December 2018 - 0947 AM

I think at a certain level ships simply weren't armored for cost reasons. No one didn't armor a CVE because they thought they would engage battleship calibre rounds and they'd just pass through: they didn't armor them because they were massed produced ships not designed with direct engagement in mind. Ditto most DEs. Even Fletcher class ships designed with direct engagement in mind were expected to use torpedoes against surface ships and not get into slug outs, though in practice around the canal, they did go toe to toe and generally acquitted themselves well given the circumstances (being routinely massively outgunned).
  • 0

#124 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,440 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 18 December 2018 - 1031 AM

On a related note, the encounter off Samar provided the first conclusive proof of Yamato guns being 18-inchers. Shells made quite round holes in the CVE hulls.


Edited by sunday, 18 December 2018 - 1031 AM.

  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users