USS Alaska VS the Graf Spee

[Yama]

Originally posted by Guy Off the Wall:

The 1kt advantage of the Des Moines may not be all that decisive. A Des Moines would first have to survive the ride through the Alaska's imunity zone before she could swamp the Alaska with her 8 inchers. The Alaska could just maintain distance until it damaged the Des Moine enough then swoop in for the kill. A Des Moines is not designed to withstand that caliber of shell.

 

I'm not sure that would have worked out that well in real life. First off, you can cause considerable - even crippling - damage without penetrating opponents' main belt and turrets, if you get enough hits (see KIRISHIMA) (whether DES MOINES would get enough hits on ALASKA before herself getting hit fatally is another matter, as her armour would give very limited protection against 12")

 

Secondly, I think most 'paper' comparisons assume way too long and unrealistic fighting distances. WW2 experience was that longest-ranged gunfire hits _ever_ were at about 26km, and only very few hits were attained (or even attempted) at that distance. Usually, battles took place in much shorter ranges.

 

 

[Edited by Yama (24 Nov 2003).]

[Tiornu]

At 20,000 yards, an Alaska shell delivers twice as much striking energy as a Graf Spee shell. Combine that with the 75% greater armor penetration, and that seems considerable to me.

[gewing]

I would think the (presumably) greater HE content would make it much more devastating on impact also[ What was the HE content of these shells?

 

QUOTE]Originally posted by Tiornu:

At 20,000 yards, an Alaska shell delivers twice as much striking energy as a Graf Spee shell. Combine that with the 75% greater armor penetration, and that seems considerable to me.

[Tiornu]

The difference in burster size was minimal--about 17 lbs for each shell. The Americans used very small bursters, the theory apparently being that it was more important to assure the shell remain intact (capable of bursting) than to provide a larger bang. American shells had impressive proofing requirements, which meant that they could survive angled hits on face-hardened surfaces where German shells would be broken and thus less destructive.

[FITZ]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

At 20,000 yards, an Alaska shell delivers twice as much striking energy as a Graf Spee shell. Combine that with the 75% greater armor penetration, and that seems considerable to me.

 

The figures posted below indicate that against vertical armor at 20kyds the difference in armor penetration was little over an inch. Am I missing something? That's not 75%.

[FITZ]

Originally posted by Yama:

 I'm not sure that would have worked out that well in real life. First off, you can cause considerable - even crippling - damage without penetrating opponents' main belt and turrets, if you get enough hits (see KIRISHIMA) (whether DES MOINES would get enough hits on ALASKA before herself getting hit fatally is another matter, as her armour would give very limited protection against 12")

 

Secondly, I think most 'paper' comparisons assume way too long and unrealistic fighting distances. WW2 experience was that longest-ranged gunfire hits _ever_ were at about 26km, and only very few hits were attained (or even attempted) at that distance. Usually, battles took place in much shorter ranges.

 

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Yama (24 Nov 2003).]

 

Precisely. And at shorter ranges rate of fire is often more important than individual round effectiveness. Take for example the naval battles around Guadalcanal where the slow-firing 8" cruisers proved far less effective than those armed with 6", in spite of the reduced lethality of the latter.

 

In many ways the Des Moines were the perfect gun-cruisers, combining the high volume of fire of a light cruiser with the lethality of a heavy.

[Tiornu]

Here's what I posted earlier on penetration: "GS gun, belt 6.6in and deck 1.7in; Alaska gun, belt 11.6in and deck 2.5in." I also mentioned that the 2.5in deck figure is an underestimate because of the unusual shell form.

[Guy Off the Wall]

Originally posted by Yama:

 I'm not sure that would have worked out that well in real life. First off, you can cause considerable - even crippling - damage without penetrating opponents' main belt and turrets, if you get enough hits (see KIRISHIMA) (whether DES MOINES would get enough hits on ALASKA before herself getting hit fatally is another matter, as her armour would give very limited protection against 12")

 

Secondly, I think most 'paper' comparisons assume way too long and unrealistic fighting distances. WW2 experience was that longest-ranged gunfire hits _ever_ were at about 26km, and only very few hits were attained (or even attempted) at that distance. Usually, battles took place in much shorter ranges.

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Yama (24 Nov 2003).]

 

The critical factor here is the relative sophistication of the fire control system. In the era of optical range finders, volume of fire may dominate shell caliber. But as the sophistication of fire control systems improves (radar / computer) the bigger guns can be used to fuller advantage.

 

If I am not mistaken the USS Washington fought and won a nighttime engagement using radar controlled fire alone.

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Guy Off the Wall (24 Nov 2003).]

 

[Edited by Guy Off the Wall (24 Nov 2003).]

[Tiornu]

Washington was using Mk 3 radar, which was a capable range-finder but unable to to differentiate bearing to a satisfactory degree. Therefore the turret training was directed optically.

The battleships at Surigao may have relied on radar alone--not sure. West Virginia scored at a range of 22,000 yards...on her first salvo!

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

The battleships at Surigao may have relied on radar alone--not sure. West Virginia scored at a range of 22,000 yards...on her first salvo!

 

Most of the firing at Surigao was done by the three most heavily reconstructed BBs: West Virginia, California and Tennessee, which had the latest FC radar (Mk5, IIRC). The ones with Mk3 radar had problems. Pennsylvania never fired, and Mississippi's only salvo was "unloading through the muzzle." CRS about Maryland. Apparently other ships (including US) masked the target area. If the Mk3 radar had to be optically pointed that would account for the ships with that radar not firing.

[Tiornu]

It was Mk 8 radar for the "Big Three." They also had RPC for their main guns, which no other old BB had. Had their tactical instructions allowed it, they could have opened fire at extremely long range. I'd love to know how that would have turned out.

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

It was Mk 8 radar for the "Big Three." They also had RPC for their main guns, which no other old BB had. Had their tactical instructions allowed it, they could have opened fire at extremely long range. I'd love to know how that would have turned out.

 

 

Actually, them firing at all was overkill, but they deserved a little fun...

[Scott Cunningham]

Surigao Straight was one of the greatest examples of overmatch seen in WWII. The Jap battleship never had a chance. It was the oldest one in their fleet, and it had been harassed all night long up until the final showdown (its sister ship had already been sunk hours earlier).

 

One modern US BB (and by modern I mean FCS modern) could have handled the job. 6 was just turned it into a live fire training event. Who cares, in war nothing exceeds like excess.

[Scott Cunningham]

Some of the older US BB's were just as effective as the new ones by wars end. I know the WV, California, and Tennesee were heavily modified (they looked like Alabama class BB's with straight bows and a 4th turret). Others (Pennsylvania, Nevada, , the NY class, the New Mexico's) were far less modified and were not much more capable in 45 than they had been in 1941.

[Dan Robertson]

Originally posted by Scott Cunningham:

Some of the older US BB's were just as effective as the new ones by wars end. I know the WV, California, and Tennesee were heavily modified (they looked like Alabama class BB's with straight bows and a 4th turret). Others (Pennsylvania, Nevada, , the NY class, the New Mexico's) were far less modified and were not much more capable in 45 than they had been in 1941.

 

Where they fell down compared to newer battleships was their speed and range. They could only make 20-21 knots, so a newer battleship could control the range in an engagment, thus choosing the optimum range for its guns.

 

The also weren't fast enough to move with a carrier on flight opperations to give it AAA support.

[Scott Cunningham]

Thats why the older BB's were assigned to invasion support, while the fast ones moved with the carriers. Most of the old BB's were 100% adequate for the missions they saw in the war. By 1944 we had plenty of fast, moderm battleships (10 BB's, and 2 BC's) to make modernizing the 14 -16 older BB's a waste of time.

[Tiornu]

It's strange to think the Fusos were newer than the highly active Kongos. Yamashiro commissioned the same year as Mississippi.

The three oldest US ship--New York, Texas, and Arkansas--were pretty poor to start with, and their modernization left much to be desired. What bugs me most is that Maryland and Colorado never got a decent reconstruction.

[Scott Cunningham]

That excellent book "Combat Fleets of WWII" addresses the Yamashiro issue. They mention how the Kongo rebuilds were very sucessful and resulted in highly useful (if fragile) combat units. The Yamashiro and Fuso were far less modified. Instead of landing the nearly useless center turrets and replacing the huge volume/weight with additional propulsion machinery and armor, they were left as designed. Same situation with the creaky old Ise and Hyuga. They had (12) 14" guns, but little hope of getting them to a fight on time (or surviving once they got there).

 

Many of the US battleships were never heavily modernized because they were in constant service from 8 DEC until the end of the war. They were fully functional, and were needed from day 1 since the majority of the pacific fleet was out of action. All the ones trashed at Pearl Harbor were modenized while under repair, but many didn't rejoin the fleet until 1944 or so. By that time the need to rotate in the other pre-war BB's for similar modification had gone away and upgrades were mainly increased AA mounts and directors, and rudimentary fire conntrol radar.

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Scott Cunningham:

That excellent book "Combat Fleets of WWII" addresses the Yamashiro issue.  

 

Ummmm, Scott, just in case you're not aware, Tiornu wrote the book on this. THAT book, specifically.

 

Or are you his new advertising man?

 

[Edited by Sargent (25 Nov 2003).]

[Scott Cunningham]

I didn't know he wrote it. I just consider it a fascinating analysis of WWII navies, with loads of interesting snippets, facts, and educated opinions. Where most just give facts & figures, he actually does a bit of analysis and says what was good, and what wasnt.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

Combat Fleets is a super little book to keep around. I've got a copy and really like it.

[Tiornu]

Now, this is the kind of conversation I like! You know, the holidays will be upon us soon, and nothing says "I love you" like a signed copy of FLEETS OF WORLD WAR II by Richard Worth. It also serves to say the following:

"Merry Christmas. I'm not completely sorry that I married your sister/daughter/etc."

"Seasons Greetings. This should convince you that you really want to give me a raise."

"Happy Holidays. Now that I've given you this, will you go away and stop bothering me?"

And so much more! I'm selling them for just twenty bucks, so pick up that spare copy you've been wanting for the bathroom.

[Mk 1]

Originally posted by Tim the Tank Nut:

Combat Fleets is a super little book to keep around.  I've got a copy and really like it.

 

Kinda like "Rapid Fire", yet another super book to keep around.

 

I've got a couple of Rich's books, too (co-authored, at least...).

 

We really ought to do a permanent TankNet Author's thread or some such. I'd surely like to get a full accounting of published Tanknetters.

 

Oh, and a book-signing would go well too!

 

-Mark 1

[FlyingCanOpener]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

Now, this is the kind of conversation I like! You know, the holidays will be upon us soon, and nothing says "I love you" like a signed copy of FLEETS OF WORLD WAR II by Richard Worth. It also serves to say the following:

"Merry Christmas. I'm not completely sorry that I married your sister/daughter/etc."

"Seasons Greetings. This should convince you that you really want to give me a raise."

"Happy Holidays. Now that I've given you this, will you go away and stop bothering me?"

And so much more! I'm selling them for just twenty bucks, so pick up that spare copy you've been wanting for the bathroom.

 

Already have one m8, and I love it.I found it at a "one off" book store, and think it's ace. For a reference book, it sure is readable. All we need now is a Fleets of World War 1...

[Tiornu]

A couple people have asked me about a WWI Fleets book, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I'm fairly well rooted in WWII, and I generaly venture out of there only when the issue is directly relevant to my main interest--so WWI battleships get some attention.