Models of Naval Combat

[hawker]

am a big fan of the Prinz - and her proudest moment is during this action - when she beats up on KGV - and inflicts significant damage. This is a bit unusual for a CA against a modern battleship. If you are laughing, you are the ignorant (and anti-German) one.

I consider Prinz Eugen one of the best cruiser of WW2,but in fight against BB she cant do much. She hit POW few times but main damage is come from Bismarck.

I agree. Prinz is an impressive ship. Give here real AAA and she'd have been one of the better cruisers of the war. Of course she beat up on Prince of Wales not KGV. So that's not so impressive. Fighting a BB that can only get one barrel working in a salvo must be as proud a moment as knocking down an old lady.

Its quite impressive how litle you know about facts. POW has malfunction turret,ok. But POW has,i think,six more 356 mm properly working guns. Prinz Eugen has 8x203 mm guns.
So,your sratement is very false.

Bismarck: the greatest BB ever to sink an overgunned cruiser and run from an unarmed battleship. Whoopdeedoo.

Should i answer that[:-]

But what is the point of your point? Why is it a criticism? It is the best system in the world at the time, probably. It is certainly functional - even in battle conditions. And most of all it makes your statement false. It IS "radar controled fire control." It is patantly false to say otherwise. It produces a result wholly different in quality from purely optical fire control.

And you have missed MY point: OUR system which you seem to regard as "proper radar fire control" is probably NOT as good with the early radars we used. Radar is not good at bearing measurement even now.
And battleship optics were very very good at it.

At last someone with facts.[&o]

[mdiehl]

Should i answer that

I do not know. Why don't you ask someone who thinks you have a clue?

[mdiehl]

Optical bearing only worked for LOS from the fire director and only in good visibility. In 1941 I think you have to give Bismarck credit for having the best optical ranger on a BB afloat although I'd be curious about Yamato's optical RF. German seaborne radar was not capable of range estimation in 1941, so in combined optical and radar use the comparison would be something like this.

UK: inferior bearing superior ranging as compared with Germans
US: inferior bearing superior ranging possibly mitigated by operator inexperience as compared with Germans

By 1942 Allied radar ops will have better ranging but inferior bearing during clear daylight and better ranging and bearing at night or in limited visibility.

By 1944 Allied radar ops will have better ranging and bearing under all circumstances because Allied seaborne fire control radars were horizontally multi-lobed. Here is a technical paper by a fellow who operated and maintained SG1 and F-FD in combat and for two years during WW2. His words:

FD was at its best at night or in bad weather, when optical gun control was impossible. However, FD’s range precision was far superior to that of optical ranging, and was used even in broad daylight. Range was accurate to 23 yards at 100,000 yards!

Before we hear "well, what about azimuth" bear in mind that FD was able to maintain accurate bearings on attacking AIRCRAFT with sufficient precision to put proximity fused 5"L38 in front of fast moving attackers at 10,000 yards.

So:

And you have missed MY point: OUR system which you seem to regard as "proper radar fire control" is probably NOT as good with the early radars we used. Radar is not good at bearing measurement even now.

That is not correct. Indeed, the "even now" part does not pass the "duh" test.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: hawker
At last someone with facts.[&o]

Your criteria for agreeing with anyone is strictly whether or not they tell you what you want to hear.

You are, in fact, a pure fan boy. You start from a conclusion, and any facts that do not support that conclusion are ignored or dismissed. No differnt than a religious fanatic.

If some piece of information could be construed to make the Bismark look good, you go on and on about what a great "fact" it is, and if some fact can be construed to cast doubt on the "OMGTEHBISMARKISTHEBESTSESTEVER!!!! fundamentalism, you simply ignore it.

The amusing part is that you then actually have the audacity to complain that nobody uses facts. When inf act theya re used all the time, and you simply refuse to respond to them, choosing instead to cut and paste people posts to exclude the data and go after some minor point.

But this is no longer about WW2 battleships, so is not really all that interesting anyway.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
It is the best system in the world at the time, probably. It is certainly functional - even in battle conditions. And most of all it makes your statement false. It IS "radar controled fire control." It is patantly false to say otherwise. It produces a result wholly different in quality from purely optical fire control.

It is NOT a "radar controlled fire control" it is a radar-ASSISTED fire control. Not at all the same thing.

I was a TOW missile gunner in the army, and we used a laser range finder to get range information. Does that make the TWO missile "laser-controlled"? Of course not, you still had to sit there and guide the thing yourself.

So no, it is NOT "patently false" to say otherwise. In fact, it would be "patently false" to say that the Bismark had "radar controlled fire control" - since the radar did not, you know, control the fire of the guns.

[hawker]

Your criteria for agreeing with anyone is strictly whether or not they tell you what you want to hear.

You are, in fact, a pure fan boy. You start from a conclusion, and any facts that do not support that conclusion are ignored or dismissed. No differnt than a religious fanatic.

If some piece of information could be construed to make the Bismark look good, you go on and on about what a great "fact" it is, and if some fact can be construed to cast doubt on the "OMGTEHBISMARKISTHEBESTSESTEVER!!!! fundamentalism, you simply ignore it.

The amusing part is that you then actually have the audacity to complain that nobody uses facts. When inf act theya re used all the time, and you simply refuse to respond to them, choosing instead to cut and paste people posts to exclude the data and go after some minor point.

But this is no longer about WW2 battleships, so is not really all that interesting anyway.

You just cant give me any fact for battle of Denmark strait when Bismarck destroy Hood while POW runs away like a chicken,except "she was lucky"[;)]. Yes, you choose answers that you liked.
Someone just say to me:"BISMARCK IS JUNK BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT MADE BY AMERICANS OR BRITTISH".

[mdiehl]

So no, it is NOT "patently false" to say otherwise. In fact, it would be "patently false" to say that the Bismark had "radar controlled fire control" - since the radar did not, you know, control the fire of the guns.

I agree. More than that El Cid's claims are just wierd. "Even now" radar can't maintain as accurate a bearing as optics? It's as though El Cid has been living under a sand dune since 1960.

Even now (aka three months ago) a USN standard hit a ballistic suborbital target. What's that closing rate... something like 12,000 mph? I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that you couldn't get an optically guided system within 10 clicks of that target.

Thirty years ago, a phoenix could track range and bearing sufficient to bag a foxbat at Mach 2.5 by putting the missile within 5m of target and knowing when that objective was achieved. All on internal guidance.

In 1945 a US 5"L38 firing on FD could maintain accurate enough ranging to put a proximity fused shell onto a target as small as a George closing at 380 mph (which it could achieve in a dive). And could track any object in the air and most surface objects (trouble detecting periscopes of submerged boats in moderate seas or worse) out to 100K yards. Using SD and SG, West Virginia hit Yamashiro at night at 30,000 yards with its first salvo.

The bulk of the evidence, indicates that Allied late war radar was better in every way to optical only fire control and most histories substantiate that reading of the results. As to "even now" an optically human guided instrument does not process information and react to it (things like changes of bearing) remotely as rapidly as a microchip. So "even now" makes not the slightest bit of sense.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: hawker

Its quite impressive how litle you know about facts. POW has malfunction turret,ok. But POW has,i think,six more 356 mm properly working guns. Prinz Eugen has 8x203 mm guns.
So,your sratement is very false.

PoW lost Y turret for good (jammed) as she turned away, but all mountings were giving trouble. Her civilan dockyard workers were fixing mounting problems throughout the action. Even when her A arcs were open, she was usually firing 3 gun salvoes (rather than 5 - half her full armament). At one point, I believe she had 1 gun from (IIRC) B turret working.

Also, Leach knew that KGV and Rodney were to the south, and Bismarck was heading straight for them - he did quite the correct thing and opened the range. There was nothing to be gained to compare with the risk of continuing the fight with defective armament.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: hawker
You just cant give me any fact for battle of Denmark strait when Bismarck destroy Hood while POW runs away like a chicken,except "she was lucky"[;)]. Yes, you choose answers that you liked.
Someone just say to me:"BISMARCK IS JUNK BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT MADE BY AMERICANS OR BRITTISH".

Who are youa rguing with?

When did I say anything about Bismark being junk?

When did I ever say "she was lucky"? You do realize that quoting someone and claiming they said something they did not is generally considered lying, right?

[mdiehl]

There was nothing to be gained to compare with the risk of continuing the fight with defective armament.

Also Leach requested permission to reengage once he'd cleared all but Y turret for action. At that point though the Admiralty sensibly reasoned that there was no need to fight a fair fight with one BB when you could fight an unfair fight with 3BB by waiting a little. Especially considering that PoW's guns might malf again after a few salvoes.

When did I ever say "she was lucky"?

I said Bismarck was "lucky." I stand by it. She got the hit on Hood more or less where she needed it and when. You make your luck. Credit to Bismarck for firing the shot and being accurate for the day. Poor marks to the admiralty for allowing an underarmored CB to languish all those years with known flaws without refit. IMO had Bismarck faced any two other UK capital ships in the Denmark Strait on that day she'd have been sunk or forced to return to Kiel. Bismarck's real luck can be said to be that she met up with the two UK capitol ships that were least ready for an engagement with any other capitol ship in the world (unless you include some of that Soviet or Turkish stuff).

[ChezDaJez]

In 1941 I think you have to give Bismarck credit for having the best optical ranger on a BB afloat although I'd be curious about Yamato's optical RF.

Yamato's optical fire control was superior to Bismarck's in range and bearing determination due to it's 15 meter width. Bismarck's optics however were better in low light conditions.

In good visibility, Yamato's optical fire control was roughly comparable in performance to US radar directed fire control systems with Bismarck's somewhat less. In poor visibility or night conditions over 12000-16000 yards, radar controlled FC was clearly superior though target identification became problematic when relying only on radar for targeting, especially once the battle lines had broken down into a confused melee. There were several Blue on Blue engagements in 1942 as a reseult. Under that range, radar FC's superiority is still very good though not as great as long range. As the war dragged on though, the differences between optic and radar control became more apparent and radar FC was demonstrated as overwhelmingly superior in 1944.

Basically, if the enemy could see the target, they could hit it with reasonable accuracy, assuming a well-trained and drilled crew. Yamato's poor performance at Leyte was more a function of crew training than equipment deficiencies. Bismarck's poor shooting at the end was a result of an early hit that knocked out her central fire control.

Chez

[hawker]

Yamato's optical fire control was superior to Bismarck's in range and bearing determination due to it's 15 meter width. Bismarck's optics however were better in low light conditions.

In good visibility, Yamato's optical fire control was roughly comparable in performance to US radar directed fire control systems with Bismarck's somewhat less. In poor visibility or night conditions over 12000-16000 yards, radar controlled FC was clearly superior though target identification became problematic when relying only on radar for targeting, especially once the battle lines had broken down into a confused melee. There were several Blue on Blue engagements in 1942 as a reseult. Under that range, radar FC's superiority is still very good though not as great as long range. As the war dragged on though, the differences between optic and radar control became more apparent and radar FC was demonstrated as overwhelmingly superior in 1944.

Basically, if the enemy could see the target, they could hit it with reasonable accuracy, assuming a well-trained and drilled crew. Yamato's poor performance at Leyte was more a function of crew training than equipment deficiencies. Bismarck's poor shooting at the end was a result of an early hit that knocked out her central fire control.

Chez

_____________________________

More good facts.

Who are youa rguing with?

When did I say anything about Bismark being junk?

When did I ever say "she was lucky"? You do realize that quoting someone and claiming they said something they did not is generally considered lying, right?

Sorry Berkut,i was thinking on Mdiehl. I apologize.

[Iridium]

To just expand on the Yamato's FCS:

Yamato was equiped with the Type 98 low angle fire control system which consisted of four 15m rangefinders, one on top of the tower bridge and the remaining three in the 46cm turrets. Also one 10m rangefinder on the top of the after tower. The one on top of the tower bridge was a triple rangefinder with stereoscopic set. It also had the Type 98 'Shagekiban' low angle computer with an electrical-mechanical follow-up system.

From what I can tell it was a similar system (in theory) to what the US had made.

I always attributed Yamato's poor performance at Letye due to being attacked by aircraft constantly. Combine that with notoriously bad AA, etc: Musashi sinks eventually and Yamato finally gets into the action only to be called back by an overly cautious admiral (hindsight being 20/20).

Also as it was noted earlier IIRC, the vaunted 18.1" shells had an enormous delay fuse in them...causing them to act like solid shot. Even if this was fixed and she sank all of Taffy 3 the war wouldn't have changed. Some real CV groups would have found her eventually...[:D]

[mdiehl]

In good visibility, Yamato's optical fire control was roughly comparable in performance to US radar directed fire control systems

With some key differences however. US all-weather radar directed in fire control in 1942 was roughly comparable to Yamato's daylight ranging. In 1944 Yamato was not even in the US ballpark. Several reasons for that including instant accurate ranging. US radar systems error in range estimation were less than the beam (max) of most BBs of the day. No optical system came close to that. US radar could maintain a constant range and bearing regardless of relative bearing to target. No optical system of the day could do that. The consequence of these differences was, according to Tully anyhow, that where most BBs could range and shoot or maneuver to throw off enemy ranging, but not both, US BBs could. His example is USS North Carolina's gun test in which she maintained constant accurate range and bearing on target while executing successive 450 degree turns followed by 100 degree turns. That is performancel far superior to any optical ranging system installed on any ww2 ship.

[Iridium]

Here's an interesting article on USN and IJN FCSs: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-086.htm

I've noted it doesn't look at the Type 98 FCS in the Yamato but it's probably safe to say it was similar, perhaps better. Here's it's conclusion:

Conclusion

It should come as no surprise that the newer USN Rangekeeper, and for that matter the Mark 38 GFCS, has an edge in operability and flexibility. The US system has the ability to operate in a closed loop fashion allowing the plotting room team to quickly identify target motion changes and apply appropriate corrections. The newer Japanese systems, particularly the Type 98 Hoiban and Shagekiban on the YAMATO class were more up to date, this system eliminated the Sokutekiban, and however, it was based on the same philosophy and still relied on 7 operators.

This is not to say that the Japanese systems were inaccurate, certainly the IJN demonstrated their gunnery proficiency during the Guadalcanal campaign, just perhaps not quite as flexible. They did, however, have more points for the introduction of inadvertent errors. Relying solely on optical range finders, lack of gyro for an artificial horizon, and manual follow-ups on the Sokutekiban, Shagekiban, Hoiban as well as guns themselves. Those types of errors tended to manifest themselves as battle wore on and crews became fatigued. This was a problem for both USS MASSACHUSETTS21 and HMS DUKE OF YORK at Casablanca and North Cape, respectively. This could have played a role in Center Force’s battleships dismal performance off Sumar in October 1944.

[mdiehl]

always attributed Yamato's poor performance at Letye due to being attacked by aircraft constantly. Combine that with notoriously bad AA, etc: Musashi sinks eventually and Yamato finally gets into the action only to be called back by an overly cautious admiral (hindsight being 20/20).

Well, I think her crew inexperience shows as well. The target identification error is understandable but it should not have affected her ranging unless someone was overriding the target solutions they were getting from optical ranging. It took Yamato an absurd amount of time to figure out the range, even considering that she was under air attack.

Some real CV groups would have found her eventually...

When you look at the battle aircraft from those unreal CVEs did for three cruisers while under fire. One reason why Kurita's withdrawal seems more reasonable to me than most I think. His TF was being shattered and all he had to show for it was a jeep carrier, a DD and a couple of DEs.

By the way, I *highly* recommend Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors. When you read about the damage that Johnston's 5"L38s could do delivering precision fire to targeted CA you see why the end war Japanese were so hopelessly outclassed.

[Iridium]

IIRC Kurita's TF was being disorganized by the torpedo barrages the DDs and DEs were sending their way. The constant manuevering to avoid torpedos had caused them to lose formation. I'd like to read that book sometime, unfortunately I'm busy with other things at the moment. Even 5" shells can beat up CAs, lots of unarmored places on them. I'd imagine the only safe place would be the belt and perhaps the conning tower.

The torpedo dodging might be the reason for Yamato not getting a good fix on a range...then again who knows, maybe some sailor was dyslexic and writing incorrect figures.[:D]

[mdiehl]

It's a great read. There's the description of Johnston's (IIRC) fire control officer registering superstructure hits with the guns and then deciding it might be a good idea to kill the bridge crew so he narrows the breadth of the "ladder" (azimuth distribution) on all the 5," targets the bridge windows, and puts several salvoes from all 5 guns right through the windows.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It's a great read. There's the description of Johnston's (IIRC) fire control officer registering superstructure hits with the guns and then deciding it might be a good idea to kill the bridge crew so he narrows the breadth of the "ladder" (azimuth distribution) on all the 5," targets the bridge windows, and puts several salvoes from all 5 guns right through the windows.

You mean an AMERICAN ship could actually find crewmen who knew how to fire their guns without having to ask the Japanese how to do it [X(][X(][X(]

[Hipper]

As a point about the bismark I half remember somewhere reading that she had large passive sonar microphones on her hull which aided judging bearing information while the opposing ships were out of visual range

ie she heard POW & hood coming before she saw them

anyone care to comment

A) if major german warships had such equipment

B) they would help in any way

cheers Hipper

(an admiral who really knew how to blow up BC's)

of course