Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,737
- Dec 6, 2006
The shells were not effective in the AA role but were quite effective in the "ground attack" role wrecking 56 out of 87 aircraft parked on Henderson Field during the bombardment of Oct 13/14, 1942.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The shells were not effective in the AA role but were quite effective in the "ground attack" role wrecking 56 out of 87 aircraft parked on Henderson Field during the bombardment of Oct 13/14, 1942.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.
I had thought it was two separate types of ammo.
That's what I thought.
ExactlyRight, and I'm wondering if that is not where a miscommunication might be. To be fair, most of what I've read about Hiei and Kirishima mention ammo loadout for "shore bombardment" but do not go into specifics. A couple mention that they had the "AA" shells in the turrets' ready-rooms too, but most don't specify. Most just say the immediate rounds to hand were not AP, but for bombardment duties.
I've read that Kirishima hit South Dakota with "AA" shells first, then switching to AP. Hiei, I think, had the same transition of ammunition shot two nights earlier.
Exactly
From Imperial Battleships:
!st Battle
"During the battle, KIRISHIMA fires 27 Type 1 AP, 22 Type 3 and 8 Type 0 incendiary 14-in shells, plus 313 secondary caliber shells."
2nd Battle
"Within the next few minutes KIRISHIMA fires a total of 117 14-inch shells (68 Type 3 incendiaries, 22 Type 0 Common and 27 Type 1 APC), scoring multiple hits with secondary and main guns. One Type 1 APC explodes against SOUTH DAKOTA's No. 3 turret's barbette."
In this case the Type 0 common is the HE shell. The APC hit took place late in the battle.
The bombardment of Henderson Field
"KONGO fires 435 14-in. shells (104 Type 3, 331 Type 1) and twenty-seven 6-in shells. HARUNA fires 433 14-in. shells (189 Type 0, 294 Type 1) and twenty-one 6-in shells.
The 1,378-lb HE Type 3 "Sanshikidan" is used by KONGO for the first time in action. Only KONGO receives them before departure because there are not enough available for both battleships. Originally designed as anti-aircraft rounds, each time-fused shell contains 480 incendiary (rubber thermite) tubes and 192 steel stays. The older Type 0 is similar to the Type 3, but their 1,000 incendiary tubes are filled with a mix of rosin, magnesium, barium and sulphuric acid. Some 1,485-lb. Type 1 AP shells are also fired."
Keeping the WW I ships around depends on doing away with the naval treaties.British WW1 era battleships and battlecruisers would have firepower to take on anything in the Atlantic or Mediterranean smaller than a Bismarck or Littorio class, as the Axis are fielding 11" and 12.3" guns. Give HMS Tiger a Kongo treatment and she'll be good to face a Scharnhorst or Cavour class. But the Japanese failed in their effort to use WW1 spec ships in ww2, for example the 14" guns could not penetrate the USN battleships.
In the Med the rebuilt Cavours & Cavours & Dulios have such a speed advantage they can choose whether to fight or run away.British WW1 era battleships and battlecruisers would have firepower to take on anything in the Atlantic or Mediterranean smaller than a Bismarck or Littorio class, as the Axis are fielding 11" and 12.3" guns. Give HMS Tiger a Kongo treatment and she'll be good to face a Scharnhorst or Cavour class. But the Japanese failed in their effort to use WW1 spec ships in ww2, for example the 14" guns could not penetrate the USN battleships.
And this goes to the heart of the problem. The Italian ships got such extensive renovations because the Italians were prohibited from build new ships until Littorio class.In the Med the rebuilt Cavours & Cavours & Dulios have such a speed advantage they can choose whether to fight or run away.
We'd need modified British terms. Otherwise no chance.Keeping the WW I ships around depends on doing away with the naval treaties.
I don't think any armoured cruisers had turbine engines. That's an issue. Though I like Averoff.I would note that just about nobody rebuilt any of the old Armored Cruisers.
Under WNT 1922 Italy was allowed to keep 10 battleships, tonnage 182,800 tons. 4xRegina Elena class, Dante Alighieri, 3xCavour (Leonardo da Vinci was to be salvaged & reconstructed), & 2xDoria.And this goes to the heart of the problem. The Italian ships got such extensive renovations because the Italians were prohibited from build new ships until Littorio class.
But the Italians had a real problem
View attachment 801115
The old Italian battleships were armed with 12in guns, they had thin deck armor (nobody was fighting at long range in 1910) and they were slow. 21.5kts just out of dock was not going work against even the R class.
Yanking "Q" turret and more than doubling the engine power got them to 27kts. Which put them in a different class of ship.
If they had been allowed to build new ships in the 1930s would they have simple scrapped the old ones (or demoted them to training ships/yard hulks) and built new ships?
British fooling around with Tiger calls for a scenario in between the historical treaties and no treaties.
The British would be allowed to keep her but outright replacement is restricted enough to make it worth while to pour millions of pounds into her reconstruction (she needs completely new machinery)
An interesting note, all of Britain's WW1 battleships that served in WW2 were laid down before the Great War.
QE class: first laid down Oct 1912, final commissioning in Feb 1916.
Revenge class: laid down Nov 1913, final comm Sep 1917.
These ships then went on to see significant service in WW1, while for the most part the other Powers had newer ships. Putting Britain at a disadvantage in the interwar Treaties.
You would be better off building new ships.If the technology and money existed (and the terms of the Treaties were favorable) I would have liked to have seen the Revenge class cut in half and extended with a plug for more machinery and overall length.
Newer doesn't necessarily mean better.An interesting note, all of Britain's WW1 battleships that served in WW2 were laid down before the Great War.
QE class: first laid down Oct 1912, final commissioning in Feb 1916.
Revenge class: laid down Nov 1913, final comm Sep 1917.
These ships then went on to see significant service in WW1, while for the most part the other Powers had newer ships. Putting Britain at a disadvantage in the interwar Treaties.
Yes, that's why I suggested if the Treaties were favourable, i.e. allowing such a rebuild while prohibiting a new build. If we leave the Treaties unchanged then what we historically saw is not going to change.You would be better off building new ships.
To expedite the project while reducing the time out of service, the new centre sections and machinery could be completed while the ships remain in service.Since this sort of work required around 3 years (maybe a bit less) The British would only allow so many ships out of service at one time