swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
It would probably have problems against one class of USN cruisers: the Alaskas.
feasibility of keeping WW I battleships around for WW II.
- Thread starter Shortround6
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Alaska would have rocked the casbah in 1942.
In 1944 it's about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
So let's look at what it's rivals are.
Hood? Not in 1944. Scharnhorst? Not in 1944. Kongos? 2 were still about I guess. Renown?
At my learned colleague Thumpacalumpus said, it ain't going up against any battleship and coming out intact. It can run away but running ain't winning wars.
In 1944 it's about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
So let's look at what it's rivals are.
Hood? Not in 1944. Scharnhorst? Not in 1944. Kongos? 2 were still about I guess. Renown?
At my learned colleague Thumpacalumpus said, it ain't going up against any battleship and coming out intact. It can run away but running ain't winning wars.
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
Yeah, the remaining Kongos would be the only possible victims.
Hell, once the Baltimore-class introduced auto-firing 8" cannon, they made the Alaskas even more irrelevant.
Last edited:
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
In 1944 or 45 even if the Alaska could fight the Kongo then there is no guarantee that it's going to come through.
And the Iowa could match the speed with of course more firepower.
And plenty carriers gave airpower the nod.
Plus the older battleship could do shore bombardment better.
This is why the Alaska didn't last around. It simply had no role or reason.
Your certainly not chasing Yamato.
And the Iowa could match the speed with of course more firepower.
And plenty carriers gave airpower the nod.
Plus the older battleship could do shore bombardment better.
This is why the Alaska didn't last around. It simply had no role or reason.
Your certainly not chasing Yamato.
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
True enough, the Kongos have the heavier shot. But the Alaskas have more vessel speed, better fire-control, and the 12" guns, while nominally smaller, had similar range to the Kongos' 14"/45, could fire faster, and was roughly equivalent to the US 14"/50 in penetration, so takes your chances and throws your dice, 'cause it's still a crapshoot.
The Alaska came about due to reactive reporting. In other words it was a reaction to a report that Japan was going to build
ships similar to Deutschland / Scharnhorst. Thus the bit bigger guns and high speed. It turned out Japan never had any plan
to build similar ships at all so Alaska and Guam were rebels without a cause.
Thanks to their large AA armament and speed they were given the job of carrier protection instead.
ships similar to Deutschland / Scharnhorst. Thus the bit bigger guns and high speed. It turned out Japan never had any plan
to build similar ships at all so Alaska and Guam were rebels without a cause.
Thanks to their large AA armament and speed they were given the job of carrier protection instead.
- Thread starter
- #227
Shortround6
Major General
However since they didn't have any better heavy AA than a Baltimore (or a Cleveland) and not much better medium AA (40 mm) they were an expensive way to get twelve 5in/38s into action. I don't know if they carried more ammo.
That's right but since the opposition never appeared I suppose there had to be a use found.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Drachinifel slags off HMS Indefatigable in his latest video like it's on sale for 1999. He don't pull no punches and he riding that pony until the wheels fall off.
Now....is he saying history stuff or has he been told to be entertaining and building up the boil to get the extra clicks Coz it plenty funny.
I am not sure. Of course I have my doubts but a ranting bitch slap video bad? Again maybe not.
Now....is he saying history stuff or has he been told to be entertaining and building up the boil to get the extra clicks Coz it plenty funny.
I am not sure. Of course I have my doubts but a ranting bitch slap video bad? Again maybe not.
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
I agree with Drach that a warmed-over Invincible in 1911 is not a great ship against any putative peer, much less in a battle-line.
don4331
Senior Airman
Yorktown (CV-6) and Essex (CV-9): 450 rounds
North Carolina (BB-55), South Dakota (BB-57) and Iowa (BB-61): 450 rounds
Alaska (CB-1): 500 rounds
Baltimore (CA-68), Oregon City (CA-122) and Des Moines (CA-134): 500 rounds
Saint Louis (CL-49), Cleveland (CL-55) and Fargo (CL-106): 500 rounds
Atlanta (CL-51): 450 rounds
Pre-war destroyers of the Farragut (DD-348) through Sims (DD-409) classes: 300 rounds
Benson (DD-421) and Gleaves (DD-423): 320 - 360 rounds
Fletcher (DD-445): 350 rounds (420 in later ships)
Allen M. Sumner (DD-692) and Gearing (DD-710): 360 rounds (472 in later ships)
Same as CA/CL of the same vintage
Reluctant Poster
Staff Sergeant
- 1,381
- Dec 6, 2006
In the video you are referring to
()
Mathew Wright makes the point I was trying to make earlier. The New Zealand and Australia were 2nd class ships which were obsolete before they were ordered and should never have been built as repeat Indefatigables. Even if 13.5 in guns were in short supply a scaled down Lion would have been better. Britain's 12 in gun ships were all crippled by the desire to avoid superfiring turrets. Wing turrets added weight and compromised protection. Britain had already accepted superfiring (Neptune) before New Zealand and Australia were ordered.
Drachinifel gives the place of honor to Indefatigable in his list of "Naval Engineering Disasters - How not to design a ship"
He makes another point I was trying to make. The Indefatigables were inferior to the Invincibles they based on due to the much inferior armor protection. A and X magazines were not even proof against the armored cruisers they were supposed to dominate. New Zealand and Australia were slightly better in that regard but still inferior to the Invincibles built 4 years earlier.
Reluctant Poster
Staff Sergeant
- 1,381
- Dec 6, 2006
Read D K Brown when he quotes from test reports. Splinters travel around corners for surprising distances. And were not talking wood slivers here. Terrifying.
One person's heroic nonsense is another person's navy enforcing its sovereign waters with whatever it is equipped with, regardless of how out-of-date.
USS Wyoming BB32, Habana 1933.
From the estate of PFC Carlo ROTTI - ASN 392707493 - 620th Military Police Escort Guard Company, 9th US Army .
The WW 1 vintage Wyoming was used to train scores of thousands of trainees to gunnery practice with 5" and AA guns, after removal of the 12 '' turrets.
From the estate of PFC Carlo ROTTI - ASN 392707493 - 620th Military Police Escort Guard Company, 9th US Army .
The WW 1 vintage Wyoming was used to train scores of thousands of trainees to gunnery practice with 5" and AA guns, after removal of the 12 '' turrets.
Reluctant Poster
Staff Sergeant
- 1,381
- Dec 6, 2006
Indefatigable was inferior in amour protection to the Invincible it was based on with no redeeming features to counterbalance that. To build an inferior version of a 3 year old design cannot be justified. In particular the French style "lozenge" turret layout badly comprised protection of the magazines. There was no excuse for perpetuating this design when the RN had already dropped their objections to super firing turrets.
DK Brown was also critical of the Indefatigable design in his book "The Grand Fleet".
Reluctant Poster
Staff Sergeant
- 1,381
- Dec 6, 2006
The battle of Kirishima vs Washington and South Dakoata was a foregone conclusion. It is hard to visualize an outcome other than Kirishima laying at the bottom.
Two of the most modern Battleships in the world against a WWI Battlecruiser. Two against one in of itself should ensure victory for the Americans. The single ship can only fire against one of its 2 opponents leaving the other to fire unmolested which is exactly what happened.
Individually each American ship was far superior. 9x16-inch (SD only had 7 operable) guns firing 2700 lb shells against 8-inch amor (inferior in quality to the American) vs 8x14-inch firing 1485 lb shells against 12-inch armor. Kirishima's armor arrangement was also inferior as would be expected for a 25 year old design.
The Americans were reading the Japanese codes and knew what they were facing, the Japanese had no clue. This obviously was a huge advantage and further compounded Kirishima's gun inferiority as she was loaded with anti-aircraft shells which were not effective against armor (these shells could not penetrate San Fransico's armor two nights previously). It was late in the battle before Kirishima managed to fire any AP rounds.
If the Japanese had known they were facing battleships it is doubtful that Kirishima would have been sent in the first place and certainly she wouldn't have charged into the battle armed with anti-aircraft shells. They would have sent in the destroyers for a torpedo attack and held back the Kirishima. There would have been no one sided gun duel.
The Americans had radar and finally had someone in charge who knew how to use it they were firing on the Japanses well before the
Much is made of South Dakota losing power, but it only lost power for 3 minutes and later lost radar and radio for 5 minutes. South Dakota actually fired as many main battery shells as Washington during the engagement.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I just know someone is going to comment on the "anti-aircraft " shells.
Reluctant Poster
Staff Sergeant
- 1,381
- Dec 6, 2006
From Naval weapons website
Japan 36 cm/45 (14") 41st Year Type - NavWeaps
"Common Type 3 IS: 55.1 in (140 cm)
Common Type 3 IS 6a: 1,371 lbs. (622 kg)
^IS is my abbreviation for the incendiary shrapnel round (sankaidan) intended for AA use."
Also used for shore bombardment
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I had thought you meant fragmentation shells suitable for ripping up soft targets and other general mayhem as opposed to the "beehive " type anti aircraft shells I have read about. I have never read that description about IJN ammo before. I thought that there were two different kinds of shells.
The things one learns here.
The things one learns here.
