Jump to content


Photo

MidwayŚ77 Years Ago, Today.


  • Please log in to reply
871 replies to this topic

#861 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,045 posts

Posted Yesterday, 08:39 AM

 

 

The largest surface to surface Pacific naval battle prior to Surigao Strait was Java Sea. In a torpedo nutshell, the IJN launched 90+ torpedoes and struck one vessel. 

 

 

 

 

I was curious, so I counted for these battles - 

 

Java Sea - 3 hits on 104 fired.

Java Sea, afterwards - 10 hits on 91 fired

Savo Island - 8-10 hits on not less than about 50 (?) fired.  One dud. Let's call it 75 fired.  (56 torpedoes carried, but the cruisers and reloads.)

Cape Esperance - 0 hits, didn't see the number fired.  Let's say 24.

Battle of Tassafaronga - 6 hits on 44 torpedoes fired.

 

Total of 28 hits (1 dud) on something like 338 fired = 8%

 

I could be wrong because I did it fast.  And I didn't look at other battles. 

 

These numbers are suggesting something around an 8% hit rate, dropping to 1-2% at extreme ranges.   OTOH, the total hull length of the target formation in a major fleet engagement (Jutland Style) would be much larger, leading to more hits, and the speed of the target battleships would be lower, also leading to more hits.  Maybe a 5% hit rate against a large formation at medium ranges, or maybe about 15 hits on 300 fired?


  • 0

#862 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,045 posts

Posted Yesterday, 08:50 AM

Rick, you're confused as usual, and not worthy of discussion.

 

You should learn the difference between potential or intended use and actual historical use. I gather that you think the B-2 could not deliver a nuke to Russia because it was never done, it's at best a "whimsical" idea. That's not the level of intellect I want to discuss with.

 

We both know what would happen if I point out all your failure to think clearly in detail. I would waste time, it would clog the thread, you wouldn't learn anything, and even if I point out 20 mistakes of yours in a row you would declare victory if I had a single real minor inaccuracy. I would treat you as a worthy partner for discussion if you hadn't taught me otherwise.

 

At the 2nd Battle of Guadalcanal the USS South Dakota presented 680' of target to the enemy.  I don't know if Washington was attacked with torpedoes or not, but let's say she was, so that's 1,360 feet of target at about 27kt.  The IJN scored zero hits on what must have been dozens of launches.   I didn't see a handy number of shots, so let's say 0 for 50.  Against a fleet of let's say 12 USN battleships, 10 cruisers and 30 destroyers, that something in the order of maybe 300 IJN torpedo launches (plus maybe 150 more after reloads, so call it 450 fired in total) versus something like 24,500 feet of hull target.  The number of torpedoed fired is roughly 10 times more than against the battleships at 2nd Guadalcanal, the total hull size of the fleet is roughly 18 times longer.  


  • 0

#863 Rich

Rich

    intellectual bully ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,423 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW II, Current Defense Issues, Military History in General

Posted Yesterday, 10:03 AM

American lighter AA was not especially good until they got Bofors and Oerlikons into full production and out to the fleet. 1942 was foght with the abysmal 1.1 inch and the inadequate .50 BMG. The RN was still mostly using the .50 Vickers at the time, but had the director controlled 2 pounder Pom Pom which was not bad at all even if the Bofors was better.

 

To be fair, the 1.1" was not "abysmal", but it was rushed into service without adequate final tweaking of its rather complicated systems. The result was it was unreliable in operation and required extensive maintenance. Conceptually though, it was a near perfect weapon, capable of slewing in train so could target diving aircraft while firing at high gun elevations. Its super-quick fused round would disable any known aircraft too...as designed in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Against sturdier aircraft designed in the late 1930s, flown by determined pilots like the Japanese, it was not as effective, but then that problem became worse for the 20mm guns and was found in the 40mm mounts as well, which is why postwar they were replaced by 3" rapid fire guns capable of one hit, one kill.

 

Meanwhile, the overly complex 2-pounder suffered from the same service problems that were the root reason for the 1.1" replacement...maintenance, serviceability, and reliability were abysmal.

 

Both the 1.1" and Pom-Pom probably could have been perfected, but it was easier and quicker to go with the simpler and more reliable Oerlikon and Bofors designs, especially after American engineers re-designed them for mass production.

 

 

The RN 4 inch and 4.5 inch were good AA guns though the latter wasn't available for destroyers until late in the war. The. 5.25 was good enough. 4.7 did have a limited AA capability. Directors were apparently not as good as the excellent USN one, but RN AA was good enough that ships off Crete drove off repeated attacks until they ran out of ammo.

 

The Admiralty considered the USN Mark 37 FCS to be far superior to their own HACS. The problem with HACS was it was designed to a badly flawed Admiralty analysis in 1931 that concluded destroyers were "not likely to be the object of high level bombing or torpedo attack" and that dive bombing was not a threat to ships. Thus, HACS was specifically designed to be effective only against level bombers...and destroyers were designed with LA guns and only the 26 wartime Battle Class DD were fitted with a single HACS director.

 

See the various weapons data tables at NavWeaps and Tony DiGiulian's article on HACS there. http://www.navweaps....ch/tech-066.php


  • 0

#864 Brian Kennedy

Brian Kennedy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,233 posts

Posted Yesterday, 06:27 PM

 

 

 

The largest surface to surface Pacific naval battle prior to Surigao Strait was Java Sea. In a torpedo nutshell, the IJN launched 90+ torpedoes and struck one vessel. 

 

 

 

 

I was curious, so I counted for these battles - 

 

Java Sea - 3 hits on 104 fired.

Java Sea, afterwards - 10 hits on 91 fired

Savo Island - 8-10 hits on not less than about 50 (?) fired.  One dud. Let's call it 75 fired.  (56 torpedoes carried, but the cruisers and reloads.)

Cape Esperance - 0 hits, didn't see the number fired.  Let's say 24.

Battle of Tassafaronga - 6 hits on 44 torpedoes fired.

 

Total of 28 hits (1 dud) on something like 338 fired = 8%

 

I could be wrong because I did it fast.  And I didn't look at other battles. 

 

These numbers are suggesting something around an 8% hit rate, dropping to 1-2% at extreme ranges.   OTOH, the total hull length of the target formation in a major fleet engagement (Jutland Style) would be much larger, leading to more hits, and the speed of the target battleships would be lower, also leading to more hits.  Maybe a 5% hit rate against a large formation at medium ranges, or maybe about 15 hits on 300 fired?

 

 

I guess the takeaway is that most torpedos miss? If you compare it to any kind of other ammunition expenditure that's actually a pretty great success record. 

 

Especially Tassafaronga -- 8 IJN destroyers running transport duty beat the sh*t out of 5 US cruisers and 4 destroyers. A more impressive victory than Savo IMHO.


Edited by Brian Kennedy, Yesterday, 06:35 PM.

  • 0

#865 Brian Kennedy

Brian Kennedy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,233 posts

Posted Yesterday, 06:30 PM

 

The Japanese were about to gain a technological advantage with their SSKs (Sen-Taka and Sen-Taka-Sho), though.

There's also a good case for B7A2 being better than TBF and SB2C (save for lacking radar in any version).

C6N was an unbelievable (literally) naval recce plane, B7A was a potential daytime bomber butcher, and they built a jet fighter.

 

Late war IJN aviation was as high quality as it was low quantity....

 

 

Japan had some pretty good designs toward the end (that were vaguely comparable to US aircraft in '45) and didn't have the skilled pilots, oil or spare parts to do much of anything with them. 

 

Edit to add: Or carriers to fly them from!


Edited by Brian Kennedy, Yesterday, 06:46 PM.

  • 0

#866 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,722 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted Yesterday, 09:25 PM

The much maligned 1.1 inch AA gun remained in service until post-WWII.   For warships, it was handicapped by a lack of manual operation, so when power was lost, on USS Hornet, for instance, the lack of training and water cooling systems left the gun inoperable. Since they were fitted with only four quads at that point in the BBs and CVs, that left them with 5" and .50 alone, though the 20mm were entering the fleet in 1942 with low numbers of 40mm.  The latter two weapons helped BB South Dakota qualify for likely over-counted AA kills at Santa Cruz.

 

Hornet's skipper rated his 1.1" highly, but blamed being out of power for too long for his ship taking its hits.


  • 0

#867 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,722 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted Yesterday, 09:27 PM

 

 

 

 

The largest surface to surface Pacific naval battle prior to Surigao Strait was Java Sea. In a torpedo nutshell, the IJN launched 90+ torpedoes and struck one vessel. 

 

 

 

 

I was curious, so I counted for these battles - 

 

Java Sea - 3 hits on 104 fired.

Java Sea, afterwards - 10 hits on 91 fired

Savo Island - 8-10 hits on not less than about 50 (?) fired.  One dud. Let's call it 75 fired.  (56 torpedoes carried, but the cruisers and reloads.)

Cape Esperance - 0 hits, didn't see the number fired.  Let's say 24.

Battle of Tassafaronga - 6 hits on 44 torpedoes fired.

 

Total of 28 hits (1 dud) on something like 338 fired = 8%

 

I could be wrong because I did it fast.  And I didn't look at other battles. 

 

These numbers are suggesting something around an 8% hit rate, dropping to 1-2% at extreme ranges.   OTOH, the total hull length of the target formation in a major fleet engagement (Jutland Style) would be much larger, leading to more hits, and the speed of the target battleships would be lower, also leading to more hits.  Maybe a 5% hit rate against a large formation at medium ranges, or maybe about 15 hits on 300 fired?

 

 

I guess the takeaway is that most torpedos miss? If you compare it to any kind of other ammunition expenditure that's actually a pretty great success record. 

 

Especially Tassafaronga -- 8 IJN destroyers running transport duty beat the sh*t out of 5 US cruisers and 4 destroyers. A more impressive victory than Savo IMHO.

 

+1


  • 0

#868 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,827 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted Today, 09:57 AM

Navweaps has an analysis of the IJN torps in surface action. On average they manged a hot rate of a bit less than half what they intended.

http://www.navweaps....ch/tech-067.php

And one problem of the 1.1" was that is was cramped. All four barrels were next to each other, so the crew was standing shoulder to shoulder. The 40mm quad had two pairs of barrels widely separated.

http://www.navweaps....1_train_pic.jpg

PS: Tassafaronga was the perfect example of a night battle gone right for the IJN but it wasn't the rule. Far from it.

Edited by Markus Becker, Today, 09:59 AM.

  • 0

#869 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,722 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted Today, 12:46 PM

Savo Island and a couple of instances in 1943 also were well executed by the IJN. After Java Sea, DeRuyter and Java were sunk without loss, ditto Perth and Houston. So they were a bit closer to the rule. By 1944 they were hopelessly outnumbered, so game off.


  • 0

#870 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,361 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted Today, 01:35 PM

Interesting article on The Drive, suggesting the USN may be looking at WW2 era beanbags in the event of heavy jamming knocking out communications.

https://www.thedrive...-without-radios


  • 0

#871 Yama

Yama

    The only honest Scorpion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,940 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yogo Shiro

Posted 54 minutes ago

Doug, cut the Murricans some slack. :)

That said, KM AA was a joke. The same country that came up with 20mm quads was using hand loaded 37mm semi auto guns. *facepalm*
 

 

I have to say I too am puzzled that somebody thought that semiautomatic 37mm gun was a great idea. Especially as Heer had perfectly good 37mm Flak. Was the idea behind 3.7 SK C/30 that it would work like a 'sniper rifle' of sorts?

105mm was pretty good gun, though.

 

Whereas DP destroyer guns seem like a no-brainer in hindsight, we should not judge pre-war destroyer designs too harshly. Mounting an effective high-angle mount on destroyer was challenging especially when facing with size constraints of the pre-war designs.


  • 0

#872 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,882 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muncie, Indiana

Posted 45 minutes ago

Navweaps has an analysis of the IJN torps in surface action. On average they manged a hot rate of a bit less than half what they intended.

http://www.navweaps....ch/tech-067.php

And one problem of the 1.1" was that is was cramped. All four barrels were next to each other, so the crew was standing shoulder to shoulder. The 40mm quad had two pairs of barrels widely separated.

http://www.navweaps....1_train_pic.jpg

PS: Tassafaronga was the perfect example of a night battle gone right for the IJN but it wasn't the rule. Far from it.

 

 

Rick, you're confused as usual, and not worthy of discussion.

 

You should learn the difference between potential or intended use and actual historical use. I gather that you think the B-2 could not deliver a nuke to Russia because it was never done, it's at best a "whimsical" idea. That's not the level of intellect I want to discuss with.

 

We both know what would happen if I point out all your failure to think clearly in detail. I would waste time, it would clog the thread, you wouldn't learn anything, and even if I point out 20 mistakes of yours in a row you would declare victory if I had a single real minor inaccuracy. I would treat you as a worthy partner for discussion if you hadn't taught me otherwise.

 

At the 2nd Battle of Guadalcanal the USS South Dakota presented 680' of target to the enemy.  I don't know if Washington was attacked with torpedoes or not, but let's say she was, so that's 1,360 feet of target at about 27kt.  The IJN scored zero hits on what must have been dozens of launches.   I didn't see a handy number of shots, so let's say 0 for 50.  Against a fleet of let's say 12 USN battleships, 10 cruisers and 30 destroyers, that something in the order of maybe 300 IJN torpedo launches (plus maybe 150 more after reloads, so call it 450 fired in total) versus something like 24,500 feet of hull target.  The number of torpedoed fired is roughly 10 times more than against the battleships at 2nd Guadalcanal, the total hull size of the fleet is roughly 18 times longer.  

 

Glenn, some supplementary information at: 

 
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.php IJN torp results. I see Makus beat me too it on this one.
 
 
 
From WoWs -- I don't know where they got their information from.
NEW MEXICO turning circle radius 640 m. Rudder shift Time 17.4 sec. Pretty much the "Standard Type" pre-WW2 US BB.
               IOWA turning circle radius 920 m. Rudder shift Time 22.5 sec. Just for fun
 
       FUSO  turning circle radius 740 m. Rudder shift time 17.1 sec.
     MUTSU turning circle Radius 750 m. Rudder shift time 13.7 sec.
     KONGO turning circle Radius 770 m. Rudder shift time 17.2 sec.
   
       FUBUKI Turning circle radius 640 m. Rudder shift time  3.8 sec. Just to compare a DD with a BB.
So it appears the US BB have a little tighter turn and about to almost the same rudder shift time as the IJN BB. Both would be important in turning toward or away from a torpedo attack. Also, the US BB secondary guns have a range of about 18K yds, which is the range the IJN spotted US CA's at Savo and within the 48-50kn speed range of the Type 93 at that distance. 
 
From what I could find, two US CA's were sunk by surface and SS torpedoes only; the Northampton and Indianapolis, the former by three and the later by two(in a non-battle setting). It could be anybodies guess on how many Type 93's a US Standard Type BB could take before sinking or forced to retire. At least four? AFAIK, the IJN sunk the damaged and abandon, derelict USS Hornet with four Type 93, a ship about 10K less in weight, and less torpedo protection than a a pre-war BB.
 
So some problems with the pre-war IJN plan: Actually "whittling down" by torpedo carrying surface ships by luring the USN during a night attack? That would require the USN to act as the IJN expected them too, a mental error that in part led to the Midway debacle. After the IJN fired their torpedoes, the surviving USN DD would need to get within about 6K yds to fire theirs. So, torpedo wise, we can never really know.  I guess the closes would be to game it several times and see what occurs. But the introduction of the torpedo bomber made the torpedo ship obsolete when CV were involved. 
 
This is not to take away from the power of the Type 93, or more importantly, the skill of the sailors using them, but the scenario which they depending on sinking the USN did not occur, nor could it appear.  

  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users