OT - WWII quiz

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: ItBurns

Okay, I'll try again:

How many functioning 16" caliber guns did the Battleship South Dakota have on the night of 14-15 November 1943 at the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal?

The answer is NONE the South Dakota did not have 16” caliber guns. She had nine 16-inch guns of 45 calibers.


The length of artillery barrels has often been described in terms of multiples of the bore diameter.

Therefore a 16-inch gun of 45 calibers would have a barrel 45 x 16 inches = 720 inches or 60 feet long.

45 times their 16-inch (406 mm) bore, or 45 calibers from breechface to muzzle.


South Dakota Class Battleship:
Displacement 35,000 Tons
Dimensions: 680' 4" (over all) x 108' 2" x 36' 2" (Max)
Armament:
9 x 16"/45 caliber Mark 6 guns (3 turrets with 3 guns in each turret)
16 x 5"/38AA (South Dakota had 10x 5"/38AA she was set up as a flagship)
12 x 1.1"
12 x 0.5"
3 Aircraft
Armor: 12 1/4" Belt, 18" Turrets, 1 1/2" +6" +1/3" Decks, 15" Conning Tower
Machinery: 130,000 SHP; G.E. Geared Turbines, 4 screws
Speed: 27 Knots
Crew: 1793


The Battleship Action 14-15 November 1942

00:33 All power gyros and all electric fire control equipment out. Circuit breakers on No 14 switchboard tripped out. Load shifted to No3 switchboard. Bus transfer panel for No. 56 and 58 5-inch mounts shifted to alternate source on No. 3 board, causing No. 6 generator to trip out. Feeder circuits also tripped. Regained power in plotting room then lost it again almost immediately.

It is said this was the Chief Engineers fault.


USS South Dakota (BB-57) damage at The Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal

Good pictures of the damage.


South Dakota Damage Report June 1944

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: ItBurns

Okay, I'll try again:

How many functioning 16" caliber guns did the Battleship South Dakota have on the night of 14-15 November 1943 at the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal?

The answer is NONE the South Dakota did not have 16” caliber guns. She had nine 16-inch guns of 45 calibers.

Warspite1

Wrong again.

South Dakota had no 16-inch guns of 45 calibers. She had nine 16-inch guns of 45 calibre [;)]

[ItBurns]

38 special had the answer I was looking for, only 7 main battery guns were operational before the battle. Shrapnel from a large bomb hit on the 1st turret penetrated the gap between the guns and the armor in the 2nd turret and made to guns inoperable.

As for the 16" 45 caliber stuff any mistake in nomenclature was mine, I was not trying to be tricky.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Wrong again.

South Dakota had no 16-inch guns of 45 calibers. She had nine 16-inch guns of 45 calibre [;)]

[:D] Funny. But this is not the write-ups and I can use calibers. [:D]

Since I’m using calibers to describe the multiple and not the gun type I can use the plural (or calibres).

[brian brian]

In early April 1942, 6 loaded Norwegian merchant ships were sunk in the eastern North Sea by a variety of mines, Luftwaffe, and scuttling in the face of imminent capture by light surface ships of the Kriegsmarine. At what port did they load their cargoes?

[warspite1]

While you are pondering brian brian's question here's two more:

1. The original Pearl Harbor attack plan called for four - not six - carriers. Under this plan, which two carriers would not have taken part?

2. Why was Mount Niikata used by the Japanese - as in Climb Mount Niikata - the coded order to Nagumo to proceed with the PH attack?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

In early April 1942, 6 loaded Norwegian merchant ships were sunk in the eastern North Sea by a variety of mines, Luftwaffe, and scuttling in the face of imminent capture by light surface ships of the Kriegsmarine. At what port did they load their cargoes?

Warspite1

I'm confused by this one. Presumably they must have been working for the Allies or the Germans wouldn't have attacked them; but if so, why were they in the eastern North Sea? Unless they were escaping, from being holed up in Sweden, to the UK? I'll plump for Stockholm.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: brian brian

In early April 1942, 6 loaded Norwegian merchant ships were sunk in the eastern North Sea by a variety of mines, Luftwaffe, and scuttling in the face of imminent capture by light surface ships of the Kriegsmarine. At what port did they load their cargoes?

Warspite1

I'm confused by this one. Presumably they must have been working for the Allies or the Germans wouldn't have attacked them; but if so, why were they in the eastern North Sea? Unless they were escaping, from being holed up in Sweden, to the UK? I'll plump for Stockholm.

I think Warspite1 is on to something. But I go with Gothenburg.

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

While you are pondering brian brian's question here's two more:

1. The original Pearl Harbor attack plan called for four - not six - carriers. Under this plan, which two carriers would not have taken part?

2. Why was Mount Niikata used by the Japanese - as in Climb Mount Niikata - the coded order to Nagumo to proceed with the PH attack?

Because it was there, of course! [;)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

ORIGINAL: warspite1

While you are pondering brian brian's question here's two more:

1. The original Pearl Harbor attack plan called for four - not six - carriers. Under this plan, which two carriers would not have taken part?

2. Why was Mount Niikata used by the Japanese - as in Climb Mount Niikata - the coded order to Nagumo to proceed with the PH attack?

Because it was there, of course! [;)]

Warspite1
[:)]

I can't argue with that logic RP, however I was thinking more in terms of what was so specail about Mount Niikata as opposed to say Mt Fuji.

[Extraneous]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

While you are pondering brian brian's question here's two more:

1. The original Pearl Harbor attack plan called for four - not six - carriers. Under this plan, which two carriers would not have taken part?

2. Why was Mount Niikata used by the Japanese - as in Climb Mount Niikata - the coded order to Nagumo to proceed with the PH attack?

I would guess Shokaku “Flying Crane” and Zuikaku “Fortunate Crane”.

Because Mount Niikata (on Formosa) was the tallest mountain in the Japanese empire.

[brian brian]

Orm has it right with Gothenburg. Next super trivial question - what was the cargo?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: warspite1

While you are pondering brian brian's question here's two more:

1. The original Pearl Harbor attack plan called for four - not six - carriers. Under this plan, which two carriers would not have taken part?

2. Why was Mount Niikata used by the Japanese - as in Climb Mount Niikata - the coded order to Nagumo to proceed with the PH attack?

I would guess Shokaku “Flying Crane” and Zuikaku “Fortunate Crane”.

Because Mount Niikata (on Formosa) was the tallest mountain in the Japanese empire.

Warspite1

1. Wrong
2. Is the correct answer.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

While you are pondering brian brian's question here's two more:

1. The original Pearl Harbor attack plan called for four - not six - carriers. Under this plan, which two carriers would not have taken part?

2. Why was Mount Niikata used by the Japanese - as in Climb Mount Niikata - the coded order to Nagumo to proceed with the PH attack?

1. Hiryu and Soryu - the two light carriers.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: warspite1

While you are pondering brian brian's question here's two more:

1. The original Pearl Harbor attack plan called for four - not six - carriers. Under this plan, which two carriers would not have taken part?

2. Why was Mount Niikata used by the Japanese - as in Climb Mount Niikata - the coded order to Nagumo to proceed with the PH attack?

1. Hiryu and Soryu - the two light carriers.

Warspite1

Is the right answer, although as Mr Picky I have to point out that in no way can Hiryu and Soryu be classified as light carriers. Yes they were smaller than the other four carriers of the Kido Butai, but their aircraft complement was not in the light category.

Apparently Rear-Admiral Tamon Yamaguchi was a tad miffed at the original decision; so much so that he put Admiral Nagumo in a headlock in a bid to make him see reason. The two were seperated by another officer and Yamaguchi eventually got his way.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Orm has it right with Gothenburg. Next super trivial question - what was the cargo?

Warspite1

The cargo was from IKEA; flat-pack tanks I believe.

[warspite1]

What was the nickname of Admiral Harold Stark, the chief of naval operations at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

What was the nickname of Admiral Harold Stark, the chief of naval operations at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Warspite1

Surprised there were no takers for this. From Wikipedia:

Stark enrolled in the United States Naval Academy in 1899 and graduated with the class of 1903. As a plebe there he received the nickname "Betty" after Elizabeth Page Stark, the wife of the Revolutionary War general John Stark, who was being commemorated at the time.

I am reading Tolland's The Pacific War at the moment and it is interesting to see senior US officials referring to him simply as Betty.

[brian brian]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Orm has it right with Gothenburg. Next super trivial question - what was the cargo?

Warspite1

The cargo was from IKEA; flat-pack tanks I believe.

I'm sure that would have been just the ticket for the Allies in the first half of the war, when their tank designers had nothing to write home about....and make for some darn interesting Squad Leader counters too.

Anyhow the details about my two questions are in my new thread about WWII books.

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Orm has it right with Gothenburg. Next super trivial question - what was the cargo?

Warspite1

The cargo was from IKEA; flat-pack tanks I believe.

I'm sure that would have been just the ticket for the Allies in the first half of the war, when their tank designers had nothing to write home about....and make for some darn interesting Squad Leader counters too.

Anyhow the details about my two questions are in my new thread about WWII books.

bofors AA guns ???