Sumner and Gearing Class DD's

[Soth]

AH, thank you very much Rbax, thats greatly appreciated. Heres a link ive found I think folks will agree, if you look at the listing for the U.S "Battle Line", and then look to where it says how many BBs the japanese had, that could have been the very Big gun engagement most Battleship admirals had dreamed of. Two Iowas, 3 South Dakotas, both North Carolina class in the Battle line, commanded by Admiral Willis Lee, the U.S admiral that engaged and sank the japanese Battleship kirishima in a night action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Philippine_Sea

 

[BuShips]

Soth, you would be no doubt mentioning the infamous TF34.

My favorite Nimitz 'quote', including the included historical code fluff is-

TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG FROM CINCPAC ACTION COM THIRD FLEET INFO COMINCH CTF SEVENTY-SEVEN X WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE THIRTY FOUR RR THE WORLD WONDERS

Halsey was only supposed to read the blue part, but the decoded message given to him kept the last code "fluff" in, thus causing Halsey a tantrum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_world_wonders

 

[Soth]

actually, this would have been an earlier battle, according to this Spruance was in charge and didnt go haring off like a bat out of hell. but yeah TF34 when Halsey was in charge, youve got the Quotes down exactly right..its very Amusing with that fluff added isnt it? pissed Halsey off something fierce!. Of course another one of the classical great naval debates here..

 

[DM]

LOL, its right up there with the best of those "emails you wish you hadn't sent"

 

[BuShips]

actually, this would have been an earlier battle, according to this Spruance was in charge and didnt go haring off like a bat out of hell. but yeah TF34 when Halsey was in charge, youve got the Quotes down exactly right..its very Amusing with that fluff added isnt it? pissed Halsey off something fierce!. Of course another one of the classical great naval debates here..

Yeah, I should have seen from the link that you were talking about the "Turkey Shoot". To me, TF34 will always mean at Samar. Here is a link to assist a wargame list for a "what-if" slugfest. We'd have to put the sun over the horizon of course to keep those pesky aircraft out of our hair. :wink:

http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Leyte/TF-34-Leyte.html

It gives real historic orders of battle at various times for Lee to command. of course there are some other sites to assist this as well if you poke about the net. I had read at some point in the past of Lee forming a TF34 at the Turkey Shoot, so maybe I'll revisit your suggestion as well for battle ideas.

To make the "Samar TF34" battle more even, I'd add the Musashi, CAs Atago, Maya, Takao and DDs Naganami and Asashimo.

 

[Soth]

Its Interesting to note of course, that at the Turkey Shoot, every Fast U.S BB in comission(Except Massachusetts) was present in Admiral Lee's Battle Line. of course we need to make the carriers go away in order to game this one out! And as for Halsey and task force 34, that debate might be left for a later time, Im not entirely sure what to think as a Novice Naval tactition, of Halseys actions.. cause obviously I wasnt there and i couldnt possibly know what he was thinking, one might suppose that he was looking for that Battleship engagement. I have heard it suggested that he definately wanted to engage the Japanese carriers with his Big Guns, perhaps some fleeting chance at glory, as when the Germans caught British carriers off the coast of Noway.

 

[DM]

Don't forget if you are planning a game along these lines that, at this stage in the war, most of the Japanese CAs and BBs would have radar in VAS terms.

Not that it would help them much

 

[Soth]

Yeah, havent forgotten that they had Radar late in the war, and I Am just a little slanted towards The Iowa class battleships personally.. Naw, slanted towards the U.S fleet in general!

 

[DM]

Power gamer

 

[jbickley00]

Its an interesting question, the yamato v. missouri. Of course the entire analysis of the penetration gainst the frontal turret armour is relatively meaningless.

US tacitcal doctrine of the day was to engage at extreme range, where the plunging fire would be pentrating top and deck armour. Ultimately the battle would be decided, I think by the most accurate extreme range shooting. In this case, I would go with velocity over weight, and I would give the edge to the missouri. given radar, and superior fire control computers, I think the Missouri would score hits faster on the Yamato than vice versa. Ultimately, what kills ships is "critical hits."

Just a thought.

 

[BuShips]

This is fun stuff to look up.

18.1"/45 gun muzzle velocity is 2559 fps.
At around 33,000 yds, AP striking velocity is 1559 fps, losing 1000 fps in the transfer.

16"/50 gun muzzle velocity is 2500 fps. (in ideal conditions and w/ a new gun).
At around 33,000 yds, AP striking velocity is about 1560 fps, surprisingly similar to the Japanese gun.

The weight of the Japanese AP shell was over 500 lbs. heavier than the U.S. shell (3219 lbs. vs. 2700 lbs.), although this extra 2-3" belt armor penetration advantage was negated by the layered STS (Special Treatment Steel) armor of the Iowa class. The effect of having an STS enhanced belt, inclined (not that the Yamato belt wasn't inclined too), boosted the belt protection 3.9" extra.

Things were pretty even at the rate of fire. Basically at reasonable elevations each ship could fire two rounds per minute, so no big difference there.

My own feeling (that I said before dribbling all of this out) was that each ship could kill the other. That's better than saying one could powerfully outmatch the other one, which I'd say is more to fate than technology.

 

[MektonZero]

I had personally figured the Radar Fire control would have made a big difference in that engagement, but I had also considered the fact of the actual damage Yamato had taken when she was destroyed. Its true that Aerial torpedos and Bombs dont do as much per shot as a 16 inch shell does, but Yamato absorbed so much damage and in the end it was a japanese destroyer that finished her off,but i do believe Two Iowa's would have eaten her up, i was thinking the VAS system to test out that engagement actually.

I ran one last night. The Iowa's speed is bigger factor than I realized. At flank speed she qualifies for the -1 to hit for a fast target. Broadside to broadside at Extreme range, Iowa needs a 4 +1 range (radar), -1 beam = 4. Yamato needs 4 + 2 range, -1 beam, +1 flank = 6 to hit. A 125% damage output advantage. Interestingly enough, if Yamato closes head on, the damage output advantage is still 125% to Iowa.

That changes once the range drops though; in the 12 - 20,000 yard range broadside to broadside Iowa needs a 3, Yamato needs a 4, each side scoring equal damage dice. Yamato's strong secondary armament becomes a factor, 8 dice at 3+ to hit; even with weak guns that's a 90% chance of an extra damage point per turn. At this range Iowa's speed advantage is in real danger, the odds of taking a speed critical are extremely good, dropping Yamato down to 3+ to hit as well and with the bigger guns giving a 38% damage output advantage to Yamato.

In the test I ran, Iowa crippled Yamato then the next turn Yamato returned the favor. Yamato got lucky and only lost 1 turret to Iowa's two, then a magazine critical the following turn left Iowa unable to fire for 2 more turns - game over. Yamato ended the game with 4 damage points, pure luck more than Yamato being that much superior.

 

[Soth]

okay, interesting engagement there. According to Jane's Fighting ships, the max speed reached by an Iowa was a recorded 35 Knots, and with the speed and the fact that they were fairly agile for battleships, certainly does support a good chance of one Iowa standing up to one Yamato. Im gonna go out on a limb here and make the statement with absolute certainty, that two Iowa's would definately Trash Yamato pretty quickly, of course that would be unbalanced tho!

 

[Soth]

Its too bad that in the area where I live, nobody plays the game but me. all i can do is put my little ship models down on the board, and fight my wife! and uh.. gee.. she has some incredible beginners luck at wargames
So Im very appreciative of scenarios run by folks to game out Ideas i come up with. Thank you MektonZero

 

[jbickley00]

you have hit on my point exactlty: why close to 20,000 yards with a ship designed to fight at 30,000 yards? ultimately speed can be used to maintain distance.

 

[Soth]

I would point out, that the longest ranged gunnery hit to a moving target, was HMS Warspite.

During the Battle of Calabria she was credited with achieving the longest range gunnery hit from a moving ship to a moving target in history.
This was a hit on the Giulio Cesare at a range of approximately 26,000 yards (see also the Scharnhorst, which scored a very long range hit on the Glorious in June 1940).

I believe Warspite was Equipped with radar at this time, i could be wrong. But if not equipped with Radar at the time that hit was recorded, that is a very Remarkable Gunnery achievement, and her Gunnry officer must have been one of the finest Gunnery officers ever to join any navy!

 

[DM]

you have hit on my point exactlty: why close to 20,000 yards with a ship designed to fight at 30,000 yards? ultimately speed can be used to maintain distance.

Because you'll probably empty your magazines before you kill the enemy. Even with RFC the single shot hit probabilities are pretty small at that range.

 

[Soth]

a demonstration of the amount of ammunition used in just one engagement, can be found here from the USS Washingtons website.
Standing west from this point, first radar contact was made at 0001 with enemy ships east of Savo. From 0016 to 0019 fired 42 rounds 16", opening at 18,500 yards, at large cruiser or battleship which it is believed was sunk. From 0016 to 0017 fired 100 rounds 5" at ranges 12 to 13,000 yards at enemy cruiser or large destroyer which was also engaged by SOUTH DAKOTA and was left burning. Standing on north-westerly courses fired 133 rounds 5" from 0025 to 0034 at ranges about 10,000 yards at light craft close to south-east shore of Savo which were engaging our destroyers; all were silenced and one was left burning. From 0100 to 0107 fired 75 rounds 16'' and 107 rounds 5" at ranges from 8,400 to 12,650 yards, at battleship northwest of Savo which was firing at SOUTH DAKOTA.
From 0100 to 0107, fired 120 rounds 5", at ranges from 7,400 to 9,500 yards, in succession at three enemy cruisers illuminating and engaging SOUTH DAKOTA.
So you can see in this particular engagement, the ammunition expenditure was tremendous.

 

[DM]

Indeed, and those were fairly short ranges. I have a handy report i the stash at the office that assesses US battleship main battery accuracy at varying ranges - at 30yards+ its down to about 2% under ideal conditions, even with later war FC (and the report notes that this is theoretical was never actually achieved in combat)

 

[BuShips]

Agreed. This is from the navweaps site, regarding the U.S. 16"/50 gun percentage.

A Naval War College study performed during World War II estimated that an Iowa Class (BB-61) battleship firing with top spot against a target the size of the German battleship Bismarck would be expected to achieve the following hit percentages. 
Range                    % hits against a broadside target     % hits against an end-on target     
10,000 yards (9,144 m)      32.7                               22.3     
20,000 yards (18,288 m)     10.5                                4.1     
30,000 yards (27,432 m)     2.7                                 1.4