Page 10 of 12

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:25 pm
by DuckofTindalos
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.

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

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:25 pm
by Nikademus
I would disagree because deactivated, skeleton crewed vessels that can't maneuver or fight back effectively are little more than floating targets. Also the mining effect of close near misses further skews things. Hence i don't personally count them.

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:53 pm
by niceguy2005
ORIGINAL: Nikademus

[active] battleships sunk by SAP or AP bombs alone were:

Marat
Tirpitz
Arizona
Roma

(not counting the sinkings of the inactive remenants of the Japanese fleet sitting in their harbors, nor the two greek pre_dreadnought BB's sunk at their moorings)
This actually looks like quite a list on the surface, but as pointed out, Tirpitz (and I would argue Arizona) were special cases.

But, I would argue that 4 BBs taken out by bombs is considerable. How many (in fighting condition) were taken out by other BBs (during WWII)?

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:58 pm
by Nikademus
ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
But, I would argue that 4 BBs taken out by bombs is considerable. How many (in fighting condition) were taken out by other BBs (during WWII)?

Five

Bismarck
Yamashiro
Kirishima
Scharnhorst
Hood

edited!

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:00 pm
by sprior
Do you mean in general surface actions or specifically by other BBs?

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:00 pm
by Nikademus
additionally, two ships were taken out or disabled but not in "fighting condition"

Bretagne
Jean Bart

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:01 pm
by DuckofTindalos
Well, I think that since he said "by other BB's", that was probably what he meant...[;)]

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:05 pm
by sprior
Some of the ships listed above were not sunk by BB gunnery alone but by ship launched torpedoes too. That's why I asked.

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:14 pm
by niceguy2005
ORIGINAL: sprior

Some of the ships listed above were not sunk by BB gunnery alone but by ship launched torpedoes too. That's why I asked.
Well, my thinking specifically was that I wanted to exclude the Bizmark as she was critically damaged long before the BBs showed up.

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:17 pm
by Nikademus
well you asked what BB's had been "taken out" by their own bretheren. Bismarck was most certainly "taken out" by Rodney and KGV. [:)] But yes, they wouldn't have caught up to her had she not been stopped by a torp to the rudders.

I made a boo boo though. Fuso was not taken out by a BB. She was killed by a mass torpedo attack prior to the bombardment. I'll edit accordingly. [;)]

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:47 pm
by mdiehl
Hood wasn't a BB and should not be on the list of BBs sunk by gunfire. It was a CB with that class' known deck armor weaknesses. Any of the larger bombs in the USN and IJNs arsenals could have penetrated Hood's deck armor.

Roma was sunk by a bomb. The means of guidance is immaterial. IIRC, several of the Fuso class were sunk by bombs dropped from B-29s as well. Possibly there were more BBs sunk by bombs during WW2 than were sunk by other means.

And yeah, the last of those end-war Japanese BBs were not at sea. But as this thread was about whether or not a few bomb hits could do sufficient damage to a BB to sink one, I'm not sure the objection is germane. Those ships did have crews and were at action stations (and presumedly with watertight integrity and damage control teams on board) when they were sunk.

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:59 pm
by niceguy2005
ORIGINAL: Nikademus

well you asked what BB's had been "taken out" by their own bretheren. Bismarck was most certainly "taken out" by Rodney and KGV. [:)] But yes, they wouldn't have caught up to her had she not been stopped by a torp to the rudders.

I made a boo boo though. Fuso was not taken out by a BB. She was killed by a mass torpedo attack prior to the bombardment. I'll edit accordingly. [;)]
I understood your reasoning for including Bismark. [:)]

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:56 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: Terminus

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.

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.

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:58 pm
by Tiornu
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Hood wasn't a BB and should not be on the list of BBs sunk by gunfire. It was a CB with that class' known deck armor weaknesses. Any of the larger bombs in the USN and IJNs arsenals could have penetrated Hood's deck armor....
And yeah, the last of those end-war Japanese BBs were not at sea. But as this thread was about whether or not a few bomb hits could do sufficient damage to a BB to sink one, I'm not sure the objection is germane. Those ships did have crews and were at action stations (and presumedly with watertight integrity and damage control teams on board) when they were sunk.
It's certainly true that Hood was a battlecruiser, but it's easy to misunderstand what that means. It does not imply a lack of protection, believe it or not. Really all it means, in Hood's case, is that she had cruiser-like speed. The battlecruiser term went through a spectrum of meanings; Hood herself was the ship that prompted the RN to use the term to indicate any fast capital ship. That's why you will find official RN documents referring to the early drafts of the modern KGV class battleships as battlecruisers. Terminology shifted again in the midst of the KGV design process, so she began construction as a battleship instead. Hood was arguably the best-protected ship in the RN at the time she entered service.
The two Fusos both sank in Surigao Strait, or Sergio Strait as Nik likes to call it. The similar Ise and Hyuga, though, were both victims at Kure. The bombs that sank them came not from B-29's but from carrier planes (Avengers?). This certainly proves that bombs could sink battleships, but I personally don't find it any more compelling than the Mitchell tests. The state of shipboard readiness was as good as possible under the circumstances, but the ships were completely swarmed, targeted by multiple dozens of bombs.

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:02 am
by DuckofTindalos
ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Terminus

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.

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.

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:11 am
by witpqs
I think for the question all bombs count. The basic question was about bombs versus torpedoes.

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:35 am
by Nikademus
ORIGINAL: Tiornu

It's certainly true that Hood was a battlecruiser, but it's easy to misunderstand what that means. It does not imply a lack of protection, believe it or not. Really all it means, in Hood's case, is that she had cruiser-like speed. The battlecruiser term went through a spectrum of meanings; Hood herself was the ship that prompted the RN to use the term to indicate any fast capital ship. That's why you will find official RN documents referring to the early drafts of the modern KGV class battleships as battlecruisers. Terminology shifted again in the midst of the KGV design process, so she began construction as a battleship instead. Hood was arguably the best-protected ship in the RN at the time she entered service.
The two Fusos both sank in Surigao Strait, or Sergio Strait as Nik likes to call it. The similar Ise and Hyuga, though, were both victims at Kure. The bombs that sank them came not from B-29's but from carrier planes (Avengers?). This certainly proves that bombs could sink battleships, but I personally don't find it any more compelling than the Mitchell tests. The state of shipboard readiness was as good as possible under the circumstances, but the ships were completely swarmed, targeted by multiple dozens of bombs.

aw.......Show-off [:'(]

All perfectly true, hence I stand by my wittle list. And btw it *IS* spelled Sergio Strait so there

I'll only add that in addition to being swarmed, the surviving Japanese BB's hiding in port were also not in the best condition, with prior battle damages mostly unrepaired or benefiting only from temporary jury rig repairs and were not fully manned because they were in essence deactivated at that point. Attempts to camaflauge them proved unhelpful. Swarmed and battered by repeated hits and punishing near misses in shallow water, 3 of 4 slowly settled onto the harbor bed....future targets of the scrappers. The fourth....Nagato survived in a quite run down and battered state.

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:00 am
by Shark7
Unfortunately in Hood's case it did mean weaker armor protection. Compared to the PoW that was travelling with it, the deck armor of the Hood was 3" thick at its thickest, versus 6" of armor for the deck of PoW. Even its belt armor was weaker than most BBs in service, only 12" at its thickest (Iowa and South Dakota classes were also limited to 12" of belt armor, but it was of a higher quality steel affording more protection).

Hoods Barbettes were protected by 12" of armor, some 7" less than PoW. However, it did have up to 11" of tower armor, which is 7" more than found in PoW.

Overall, it seems that Hood was more suited to a short range fight with low trajectories, while PoW would have been better at a long range fight. Ironically, the Hood was a good match armor protection wise to the Bismarck, the only thing that mattered was who got the first fatal hit.

Sources:

http://www.hmshood.com/ship/hoodspecs2.htm

http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_armor.htm

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:07 am
by pasternakski
What's wrong with you people? Bismarck was scuttled, not sunk.

Sheesh. Everybody knows that...

RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:12 am
by witpqs
Let's just call it scunkled and be done with it.