1000 Pounders versus Battleships

[Tiornu]

The "3-inch" armor deck aboard Hood needs some qualification. It consisted of three layers of HT steel. Obviously a lamination of three plates is not as effective as a single 3-inch plate, and HT steel is far inferior to NC armor. And the 3-inch thickness covered only a limited area.

[BrucePowers]

Hi Pasternakski! Long time no see. How are you?

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

The "3-inch" armor deck aboard Hood needs some qualification. It consisted of three layers of HT steel. Obviously a lamination of three plates is not as effective as a single 3-inch plate, and HT steel is far inferior to NC armor. And the 3-inch thickness covered only a limited area.

Which proves the point that Hood was in fact far more weakly armored than the Battleships it would be fighting against. Also, you do note that I said 3 inches at the thickest point. Overall it ranged from 1.75"-3".

It seems that Hood would also have been very vulnerable to air attack, unlike the newer, more heavily armored battleships.

But we are comparing a WWI BC to WWII BBs. Hood's modifications had actually left her overloaded, and IIRC she was due for another refit but never made it into the yards before WWII started. She had been built for a different war.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

Hi Pasternakski! Long time no see. How are you?

I'm better than a sharp stick in the eyeball, Bruce. Howz yer own nasty self?

Oh. The thread topic. What's the point here, fellas? GP bombs didn't do much against BBs. Later in the war, when there wasn't much left to sink by way of armored ships, SBDs and SB2Cs got big, bad AP bombs.

Time marches on. Rust never sleeps.

Now, let's move on to the greatest failing of WitP (and one that doesn't promise to be fixed by AE), that lame-o attempt at modeling the Japanese war industry.

I mean, deciding which and how many aircraft engines to produce? Come on.

Of course, we are, apparently, going to get Brady's wet dream in midget subs, that vitally important element without which no Pacific war simulation could ever be successful, so I suppose I shouldn't seppuku just yet...

Should I militate for Japanese jet fighters, do ya think?

[witpqs]

I say scramjets. Why go halfway?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Terminus




Then why wasn't the Home Fleet destroyed at Scapa Flow?

Been there. (They remember my family, but not with love.) It was garrisoned by a large number of troops and fighter squadrons.

So was Pearl Harbor, Taranto and Kure.

The Pearl Harbor and Taranto attacks were not symptomatic of a longer-term loss of air superiority (although the Italian Navy did withdraw its heavy forces from Taranto).

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

Hi Pasternakski! Long time no see. How are you?

I'm better than a sharp stick in the eyeball, Bruce. Howz yer own nasty self?

Oh. The thread topic. What's the point here, fellas? GP bombs didn't do much against BBs. Later in the war, when there wasn't much left to sink by way of armored ships, SBDs and SB2Cs got big, bad AP bombs.

Time marches on. Rust never sleeps.

Now, let's move on to the greatest failing of WitP (and one that doesn't promise to be fixed by AE), that lame-o attempt at modeling the Japanese war industry.

I mean, deciding which and how many aircraft engines to produce? Come on.

Of course, we are, apparently, going to get Brady's wet dream in midget subs, that vitally important element without which no Pacific war simulation could ever be successful, so I suppose I shouldn't seppuku just yet...

Should I militate for Japanese jet fighters, do ya think?

Didn't ya hear? We're getting those too![:D]

[panda124c]

ORIGINAL: herwin

I think you should consider battleships taken out of action for extended periods. That's a rather long list. Sure, battleships were survivable, but all you usually wanted was a mission kill. Anchoring a heavy ship within air attack range just so the ship would be available when needed--read what I wrote--was simply asking for a load of hurt. It couldn't stay ready, and it would get hit if it remained static for long enough.

I agree, so has anyone managed to win WITP without sinking a BB. A BB that does not sortie is as good as sunk. [:D]
In this content the US divebombers trump the Japaness torpedo bombers.

[mdiehl]

Hood had nothing like a BBs overall deck armor protection and therefore was not remotely construable as a BB. Therefore her sinking by a shell does not constitute an instance of a BB being sunk by another BB.
 
Here's trivia. How many BBs in WW2 were sunk by a torpedo fired by a CA or DD? What are they and which ship fired the torp?

[Tiornu]

Hood had nothing like a BBs overall deck armor protection and therefore was not remotely construable as a BB.

That's incorrect. Hood's deck protection was superior to that of the "R" class battleships that preceded her. Any pre-treaty British battleship would have been as vulnerable to the fatal hit as Hood, if unmodernized like Hood. The primary difference between older types and the "R"/Hood design is the position of the armor deck, but not the thickness.
Here's a quote from ADM 1/9387 showing early discussions on the KGV design: "Following the principle worked to in the case of the Hood, a battle cruiser's protection should be the same as that of a battleship...."

[John Lansford]

Fuso was sunk by numerous torpedo hits from several destroyers.
 
I'd say that Scharnhorst was sunk by torpedoes fired from both destroyers and cruisers.  Duke of York slowed her down, but the torpedoes are what sank her.
 
Same with Bismarck; assuming she wasn't scuttled, then Dorsetshire should take the honors for firing the torpedoes that sank her.
 
 

[DuckofTindalos]

No.

[mdiehl]

You're still talking classification where I'm talking armor. The discussion was about what bombs might do to BBs. The conclusion was to some that "given the evidence from for example Yamato, Musashi" etc "bombs could not substantially penetrate the armor of battleships in WW2."

Your point is that Hood was as well armored as any British "battleship" laid down before 1920. Fair enough. But considering that R-class armor protection was on the order of half to one-third of more modern BBs, it doesn't really seem so applicable to call them "battleships" or else if one does accept that these are "battleships" then one must conclude that "battleships" were indeed quite vulnerable to bombs during WW2.

Hood was almost up to KGV standards. And KGVs were nothing special in re armor protection among modern BBs. They certainly weren't as well-armored as Yamato, Richelieu, SoDak or Iowa.

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Hood had nothing like a BBs overall deck armor protection and therefore was not remotely construable as a BB.

That's incorrect. Hood's deck protection was superior to that of the "R" class battleships that preceded her. Any pre-treaty British battleship would have been as vulnerable to the fatal hit as Hood, if unmodernized like Hood. The primary difference between older types and the "R"/Hood design is the position of the armor deck, but not the thickness.
Here's a quote from ADM 1/9387 showing early discussions on the KGV design: "Following the principle worked to in the case of the Hood, a battle cruiser's protection should be the same as that of a battleship...."

I tend to agree with this, Hood at the time of her construction (1920) was very well protected. That said, she was never modernized or refitted since then so when WWII rolled around she was sadly outdated. The Hood's design seems more in line with the KGV class (built in 1940) in my opinion; fast, well protected and decent firepower. Of course, this is comparing them to their contemporaries when built.

[Tiornu]

But considering that R-class armor protection was on the order of half to one-third of more modern BBs, it doesn't really seem so applicable to call them "battleships" or else if one does accept that these are "battleships" then one must conclude that "battleships" were indeed quite vulnerable to bombs during WW2.

I don't know why we'd hesitate to call a WWI battleship a "battleship." What else would we call it? If it musses a generalization about bombs--maybe the generalization needs some tweaking. I think the distinction between unmodernized battleships and modern/modernized battleships is fairly significant.
The KGVs actually had good armor protection, but it was not predicated on the same crieria used by other navies. The percentage of protected buoyancy and the percentage of armored waterline are both excellent, among the best of all modern battleships.

[mdiehl]

What else would we call it? If it musses a generalization about bombs--maybe the generalization needs some tweaking.

Fair enough.

[Darth Michalek]

Hiei eventually sunk by torpedoes from dd Shigure
 
Yamashiro eventually sunk by torpedoes from Melvin
 
 
btw Bretagne was sunk by Hood, Barham and Resolution at Mers-el-Kebir (July 3rd 1940)

[mdiehl]

Hiei was going to sink because of the USN and USMC with or without Shigure having anything to do with the situation. Hiei's number was up. She'd bought the farm, purchased the recondominium, thrown in the towel, tossed her final roll of the dice, and crossed the Rio Styx. She was an ex-parrot.

[marky]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Hiei was going to sink because of the USN and USMC with or without Shigure having anything to do with the situation. Hiei's number was up. She'd bought the farm, purchased the recondominium, thrown in the towel, tossed her final roll of the dice, and crossed the Rio Styx. She was an ex-parrot.

lol agreed, her time was up

[jwilkerson]

When a vessel is attacked and receives significant damage from multiple platforms, it is problematic to ascribe the "sinking" of the vessel to just one of these platforms. An initial attack might not have been fatal, nor a subsequent attack. Perhaps the final attack was required to prevent the vessel from surviving, yet in many cases, this final attack might not have happened had not the earlier attacks been successful.

Bismarck (haha) is an example. Without the damage from the Swordfish, the surface battle probably would not have happened. So to say she was "sunk" by surface battle is not a complete statement. Likewise, for the "scuttle theory" fans, she would not likely have been scuttled, had there not been prior damage. [:)]

Yorktown is probably another example. Without the damage from the air strikes I would think it doubtful that the I-boat and the CV would've crossed paths nor would the Yorktown have been moving as slowly. Yet without the sub attack, the Yorktown possibly would've survived. All the attacks she suffered may have been required to sink her.