# Flags of our Fathers... Fiction?



## comiso90 (Feb 28, 2007)

_Flags of Our Fathers has Fantastic audio... you must watch it on a good TV with a solid surround sound system. You have to turn up SFX of the Corsairs so that your domicile rattles and the neighbors whine._

One scene I wasn’t to sure about was how close some large naval vessels were to the beach. It appeared that Battleships were within 1000 yards of the beach and taking a pounding from Japanese shore batteries. 

Did they really take the big ships in that close? I know destroyers often scrapped bottom to provide support but I'd be surprised to learn that Cruisers and Battleships got in so close. I suppose that it would allow them to use AA guns offensively but damn..

Does the ammo on Naval gun need time/distance to arm?


----------



## timshatz (Feb 28, 2007)

It sounds like it was done for dramatic affect. One of the problems with the early invasions was the battleships being too close. The further out the ship fired, the better the penetration due to "plunging fire". At least that is how I understood it. The naval gunfire at Tarawa was ineffective because the ships were too close (and the bombardment was not long enough).

There are others on this board (Delcrois being one) who know more about it than I. Maybe they'll chime in.


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 28, 2007)

You know, I thought the same thing. As soon as I saw that battleship get hit, I told my wife, "Bull S**T, there is no way they would get there battleships in that close."

Or am I wrong?


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 28, 2007)

Thorlifter said:


> You know, I thought the same thing. As soon as I saw that battleship get hit, I told my wife, "Bull S**T, there is no way they would get there battleships in that close."
> 
> Or am I wrong?



It is totally unimaginable. The only feasible reason would be so they can use the 40 mm's. Not to mention the difficulty they would have tryin to maneuver the things if there was an air attack.

Why does Hollywood fail to see that the real - life facts are often dramatic enough?


----------



## Emac44 (Mar 1, 2007)

I would say it was done for dramatic effect only for the movie. Reality would be far different


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 1, 2007)

Its made up for the movie... Heres a pic of the first wave with Surabachi in the back... Dont seem very close do they???


----------



## evangilder (Mar 1, 2007)

I do seem to remember reading an account where the Marines were taking a hell of a beating at one point and a ship came in to assist because they were getting hit so bad. I do't recall what kind of ship it was. I will have to dig into it. It does sound familiar.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 1, 2007)

evangilder said:


> I do seem to remember reading an account where the Marines were taking a hell of a beating at one point and a ship came in to assist because they were getting hit so bad. I do't recall what kind of ship it was. I will have to dig into it. It does sound familiar.



Yeah, I know on Omaha Beach the destroyers were coming to with 500 yards of the beach to shell hidden German Machine guns, so it would not surprise me if there were ships in that close. However I don't believe that Battleships would be in that close (would depend on the shelving of the beach to an extent) and would prefer to stay further of shore to gain the plunging effect of their shells.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 1, 2007)

There was a ship (small one) called an LCI (G). It stood for Landing Craft Infantry (Gunboat). The job of these boats/ships was to go in with the infantry for close support. They were something like 160ft long and loaded with light (up to 75MM/3") guns. Most likely, that is what they sent in to support the Marines when they needed it. Designed to be very shallow drafted.

As for a BB getting hit by shore guns, good luck to the shore guns. Those things (BBs) had upwards of a foot of hardened armor on them (sides) and about 4-6" on the deck. Most of the shore guns on these islands came in at 8" and below. Most likely just bounce off the side of the BB and generally get the crew worked up about the gun.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 1, 2007)

timshatz said:


> As for a BB getting hit by shore guns, good luck to the shore guns. Those things (BBs) had upwards of a foot of hardened armor on them (sides) and about 4-6" on the deck. Most of the shore guns on these islands came in at 8" and below. Most likely just bounce off the side of the BB and generally get the crew worked up about the gun.



Thanks for the info..

In the movie, the shore gun was high enough on Suribachi and the BB was close enough that the shell shot straight down onto the deck and erupted into a conflagration.

I hate Hollywood


----------



## davparlr (Mar 1, 2007)

I did find this on the internet.

"CLOSING IN: Marines in the Seizure of Iwo Jima
by Colonel Joseph H. Alexander
U.S. Marine Corps (Ret)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D-Day

Weather conditions around Iwo Jima on D-day morning, 19 February 1945, were almost ideal. At 0645 Admiral Turner signalled "Land the landing force!"

Shore bombardment ships did not hesitate to engage the enemy island at near point-blank range. Battleships and cruisers steamed as close as 2,000 yards to level their guns against island targets. Many of the "Old Battleships" had performed this dangerous mission in all theaters of the war. Marines came to recognize and appreciate their contributions. It seemed fitting that the old Nevada, raised from the muck and ruin of Pearl Harbor, should lead the bombardment force close ashore. Marines also admired the battleship Arkansas, built in 1912, and recently returned from the Atlantic where she had battered German positions at Point du Hoc at Normandy during the epic Allied landing on 6 June 1944."

2000 yards is close, just over a mile.

I have not found any reference to damage to the Nevada or Arkansas.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 1, 2007)

Thats intersting Dav. I'll try to post a frame of the movie tonight.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 1, 2007)

I had heard about the Arkansas duking it out with shore guns near Point Du Hoc. Either the New York or the Texas was with her. Think it was the New York. They got in a shooting match with some German 9"-12" guns located inland. I believe there was an old British BB with them as well. 

Did not know about BBs getting close at Iwo. Could have happened. But it doesn't make much sense, given the guns they carried and gunnery methods. DDs? Yes. CLs? Maybe. CCs? Less so. BBs? What's the point?


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 2, 2007)

It looks a lot different on still frame. The scale is off but the second photo looks ike an Iowa class.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 2, 2007)

That is way too close for a Battlewagon. If nothing else it would screw up the traffic patterns close to the beach and blow the eardrums of everyone in the little boats every time they opened up. That pic is way too crowded and close. 

There was a class of Battle Cruiser that the US produced during the war. It was the Alaska Class (again, going on memory). Looked the same as the BBs but was smaller. Had 11" guns. I think they only made two of them and scrapped the other two. Were only in action for about a year to a year and a half. 

If the movie were accurate (and I doubt it is- Hollywood, sheesh!), it could be one of them. But again, I doubt it.

As always, IMHO.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 2, 2007)

The explosion is funny too. Was there Napalm in that 8 inch shell?


----------



## evangilder (Mar 2, 2007)

From the Naval history site of the US Navy:


> From: Commanding Officer U.S.S. "New York" (BB 34)
> 
> The construction and positioning of defensive installations such as pill boxes, blockhouses, coastal batteries, and antiaircraft installations necessitated in every case a direct hit or many near hits to complete their destruction. Spotting on the 16th and 17th was by ship's planes and on the 18th range was closed to 1,750 yards, and spotting was by both plane and ship. The last day of bombardment was most effective because of the great facility with which targets could be identified and salvos could be spotted, and also because of the large quantity of ammunition expended on targets by the 14"/45 caliber and 5"/51 caliber batteries.
> 
> ...


----------



## timshatz (Mar 2, 2007)

I stand corrected. Evidently they were in that close. My bad.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 2, 2007)

evangilder said:


> From the Naval history site of the US Navy:



Thanks Evan. I mentioned earlier that I wondered if the 40mm's were used and u answered my question.  

When using the big guns, do u know if they used HE rounds or Armor Pierceing for the bunkers?
I thought there was a minumum distance for the fuses to arm.

From WIKI..."New York sailed 21 November for the West Coast, arriving at San Pedro 6 December for gunnery training in preparation for amphibious operations. She departed from San Pedro 12 January 1945, called at Pearl Harbor, and was diverted to Eniwetok to survey screw damage. Nevertheless, despite impaired speed, she joined the Iwo Jima assault force in rehearsals at Saipan. She sailed well ahead of the main body to join in preinvasion bombardment at Iwo Jima 16 February. During the next 3 days, she fired more rounds than any other ship present; and, as if to show what an old-timer could do, made a spectacular direct 14 inch-hit on an enemy ammunition dump."


----------



## evangilder (Mar 2, 2007)

The site for all the info is here:

Capture of Iwo Jima

They have a ton of good info there. I think they used both for the bunkers. In most cases, it took several direct hits to destroy them.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 2, 2007)

great site!


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 2, 2007)

Ill tell u what guys, that was a bunch of information discussed most excellently... Great stuff.... 

Interestingly enough, I think if u look at the pic I posted,





I think that the distance of the third wave from the beach suggests more than 2,000 yards to me... I think we can assume that at the very least the Battlewagons were not inshore (under 3,000 yards) during the initial assault... I havent been able to find any other aerial photos to prove this once and for all...


----------



## timshatz (Mar 3, 2007)

I keep kicking it over in my head and the numbers for putting a BB in at less than 3000 yards don't work. Not saying the reports are wrong, but if you think about it, being in that close creates more problems than it solves. 

The only thing a BB can shoot at that close (with main armament) would be Suribachi. The rest of the island is relatively flat. Figuring they are about a mile off shore, the projectiles really don't start to drop in that space. If you are shooting at the mountain, all well and good. It is a big mound and it can be hit. But the rest of the island, you have a good chance of your big shells flying the width of the island and landing over the other side. And our ships were on the other side. 

Figured they might be doing reduced charge shots. That would work on the mountain. But really have little affect on the flat parts. In short, the BB guns are too close and the rounds do not have the opportunity to drop. No plunging fire. All direct. Doing that with a DD is fine, they're good for that. But above that, I would figure they would want the rounds to penetrate and burst deep (especially when shooting at bunkers and caves).

But then again, it shows in Evan's post that they did get that close. It is repeated in two different paragraphs with two different ships at slightly different distances. Hence, it is not a typo. 

This is the stuff I think about at 3am on sleepless nights. Shooting at Suribachi with main guns is the only thing I come up with at that range.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 3, 2007)

Keep in mind that the info on the Navy History site is from after-action reports and first hand information. I do know that ships coming dangerously close to shore to help our guys on the ground played itself out many times in the Pacific. My Uncle Jack was on Iwo, but unfortunately, he is not around anymore. One of the post-battle reports with Iwo stated that to be able to destroy the Japanese bunkers, several direct hits had to be accomplished. 

I don't think the Battleships came that close during the initial landings. But then, the Japanese held their fire initially to allow the Marines to get into the interlapping fields of fire. Once the guys on the beaches started coming under the tremendous barrage, I believe that is when it happened.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 3, 2007)

Hmmm.... Anyone know what the gun tube depression limitations are on those big guns of the BB???


----------



## evangilder (Mar 3, 2007)

I did find this picture of the Idaho supporting beaches on Iwo. It's a bit hard to gauge the distance.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 3, 2007)

That looks to be atleast as far away from the beach as the landing craft in my above pic... Judging that 2000 yards is equal to 6000 feet, Id say by my sailors eye that its atleast a mile from the beachfront..

Also, it looks like her 14 inch guns arent trained into the beach for fire support...


----------



## evangilder (Mar 3, 2007)

I was thinking that same. The picture description only said the Idaho firing on Iwo in support of the battle. It didn't say if it was a pre-invasion or a post invasion fire. I did notice that all the big guns were facing forward.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 3, 2007)

The two rear turrets could be facing toward the island. I think it is an optical illusion because I dont think there was room on these ships to face the rear turrets foward.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 3, 2007)

Heres another pic of her....


----------



## trackend (Mar 3, 2007)

Im not very ofay with the PTO but I found this recent image of Iwo Jima and the waters look very shallow for some way off shore and off the top of my head I would say the draught of a Battleship (around 30ft) would preclude much close inshore work in these waters as manouvering would be very difficult


----------



## timshatz (Mar 4, 2007)

Definitely using the old, slower BBs to do the job. Not the newer, Fast BB class. So the pic from the movie is a Hollywood shot. 

But back to the question of how close they were, it's very tough. Put a lot of stock in the after action reports, they are generally pretty accurate. Almost written from consensus as so many people would see them on a ship that size before sending them in (checked for everything from accuracy to typos). 

Trackend's pic is interesting as is the pic on the previous page. Shows they were close in but how close is anyone's guess. One thought I had was maybe they weren't using the main battery at that range. Secondary armament and light AA was the weapon of choice. In that case it could work.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 7, 2007)

trackend said:


> Im not very ofay with the PTO but I found this recent image of Iwo Jima and the waters look very shallow for some way off shore and off the top of my head I would say the draught of a Battleship (around 30ft) would preclude much close inshore work in these waters as manouvering would be very difficult



Mount Suribachi is 512 ft high, I believe, so, it appears, the shallow water here would go out no futher than 1000 ft near Suribachi, and no further than 2000 ft at the fartherest. Certainly, 1700 yards is plenty of distance for safe operation. I believe the ones that were there.


----------



## Emac44 (Mar 15, 2007)

That Track looks very much like a coral reef in those shoals which would disallow a very large vessel coming in to close to shore line or otherwise you would come aground on those reefs or shallow areas. I would hazard a guess that most Large craft like a battleship would have a very deep draft to much for those reef areas. Perhaps and I am guessing main 14 inch guns were not used but secondary was as long as large vessels stayed out beyond those reefs. any way i would hate to be under the shells from those BBs any way 5 inch or 14 inch. got to pity those poor bastards who were copping it from ship batteries. any way it was a great film. Like to see Letters from Iwo Jima now


----------

