Secondary Battleship Batteries in WW2

[DesertFox]

How much were secondary batteries on Battleships used against small surface craft during World War 2?

Could a battleship have been built with no secondary "anti-destroyer" battery (single purpose or dual purpose) and not be crippled by the loss?

[RETAC21]

How much were secondary batteries on Battleships used against small surface craft during World War 2?

Could a battleship have been built with no secondary "anti-destroyer" battery (single purpose or dual purpose) and not be crippled by the loss?

 

You mean, like the US? don't see why not.

[DKTanker]

You mean, like the US? don't see why not.

???

[Assessor]

The use of the 5"/38 on US vessels as a "dual purpose" anti torpedo boat / antiaircraft weapon was seen as a success. The British KGV followed the concept, albeit without such a successful weapon

 

IIRC, capital ships of other nations were seen as using space inefficiently by having dedicated large calibre AA weapons and a separate anti-surface battery.

[Tony Williams]

The use of the 5"/38 on US vessels as a "dual purpose" anti torpedo boat / antiaircraft weapon was seen as a success. The British KGV followed the concept, albeit without such a successful weapon

Indeed. But the remodelled Renown plus the Queen Elizabeth and Valiant had 20x 4.5 inch, which were much better AA weapons; in fact better against anything except cruisers, I suspect.

[DesertFox]

What I mean is to not carry any medium caliber battery and only carry the main gun and perhaps a light anti-air battery

A secondary question might be on how well heavy anti-aircraft batteries can be used against destroyers. For example, I would think that the German 4.1 inch secondary batteries might be effective against destroyers.

[RETAC21]

???

 

 

How many destroyers were targetted by battleship 5 inchers? Even in Washington vs Kirishima they were used against the big target. It would take a courageous Admiral to advocate the switching of medium for light guns.

 

Besides, there's a limit on the AA firepower you are gaining, even if only because of deck space.

[Guest aevans]

What I mean is to not carry any medium caliber battery and only carry the main gun and perhaps a light anti-air battery

A secondary question might be on how well heavy anti-aircraft batteries can be used against destroyers. For example, I would think that the German 4.1 inch secondary batteries might be effective against destroyers.

 

You just answered your own question -- DP guns existed because they solved the problem of squeezing as much heavy anti-air and light anti-surface capability into the same deckspace and displacement cost.

[DesertFox]

You just answered your own question -- DP guns existed because they solved the problem of squeezing as much heavy anti-air and light anti-surface capability into the same deckspace and displacement cost.

 

The reason why I am asking is because an author who I read recently suggested the secondary battery would have been better off not carried at all but instead that only a light AA battery be carried (I hope he means to at least carry a light AA battery not none at all but he actually does not make that clear)

[Tiornu]

Do you mean DK Brown?

[binder001]

I think your author is off track. The 5" class DP was an essential addition to the anti-air battery in WW2 whetther or not it was useful against light surface targets. The USN 5"/38 has been criticized over the years as being less than perfect for surface engagements. The 5"/38 was a compromise for dual-purpose work and as in any compromise it fell short of being perfect. Without that class of weapon one would find oneself with 8-10 main guns of 14-18.1 inch and a deck full of 40mm, 20mm, 25mm, pom-poms or whatever. For the USN the 5" gun gave the capability for the proximity fuze for AA work. There was a thread on the Warships1 board that showed that the 5" gun was a major player in AA work through the war, increasing with the VT fuze and improvements in radar and fire control.

 

By WW2 the destroyer had grown into a fairly large ship capable of taking quite a bit of damage. Look at the damage that US destroyers were able to take in the action against Japanese BB's in San Bernardino Straight. Two of the three DDs were sunk along with a DE, but the damage, the delay and the morale effect of their battle certainly was to their credit. On paper 3 DDs and a couple DDs attacking a battle line with crusers and destroyers should all cease to exist before they got within torpedo range, but the reality was far different (poor Japanese tactics DID help the USN). So the BB secondary of 5-6 inch wasn't very effective as a destroyer stopper but would it have been better with decks filled with 25mm guns? Yamato had landed two of the original four 6in secondary turrets to ship more 25mm mounts but they didn't help her in the end either.

 

The Germans with their divided 5.9 inch/4.1 in didn't seem to be able to kill destroyers any better than anybody else. Whether Bismarck would have benefitted by adding more AAA is open to debate.

[DesertFox]

Do you mean DK Brown?

 

Yes.....Why do you ask?

[Tiornu]

That was the article I thought of when you first posted your topic. I didn't agree with his reasoning on this, just as I didn't agree with his reasoning on unarmored cruisers. But he's DK Brown, and I'm me, so there ya go.

[DesertFox]

That was the article I thought of when you first posted your topic. I didn't agree with his reasoning on this, just as I didn't agree with his reasoning on unarmored cruisers. But he's DK Brown, and I'm me, so there ya go.

 

Where does he talk about unarmed cruisers?

 

If he argued that they would have been better mounting the 4.5 inch battery, I don't think I would have argued against his view.

Just because he is DK Brown does not mean he is always right. We just need to see if his arguments really hold up to scrutiny.

That is why I am asking when the medium batteries were used in combat on battleships.

[RETAC21]

Where does he talk about unarmored cruisers?

 

Warship 1992

 

If he argued that they would have been better mounting the 4.5 inch battery, I don't think I would have argued against his view.

Just because he is DK Brown does not mean he is always right. We just need to see if his arguments really hold up to scrutiny.

That is why I am asking when the medium batteries were used in combat on battleships.

 

DK argued in defence of British shipbuilding compromises. Being compromises they can't be fully right or wrong. Tiornu dislikes single purpose secondaries, but before WW2 and before the plane proved deadly, no designer/Admiralty was willing to bet on their inefectiveness, despite WW1 evidence pointing out that secondary armament increased the risk of loosing a ship in exchange for little stopping power.

[Tiornu]

Wasn't the hit rate for dreadnought secondaries in WWI somewhere in the neighborhood of 1%? Looks like low-angle secondaries in modern ships was an exercise in faith too.

Can anyone specify the hits scored by Warspite at Narvik?

[RETAC21]

Wasn't the hit rate for dreadnought secondaries in WWI somewhere in the neighborhood of 1%? Looks like low-angle secondaries in modern ships was an exercise in faith too.

Can anyone specify the hits scored by Warspite at Narvik?

 

A quick perusal seems to indicate that Warspite only used its main armament at Narvik.

[Guest aevans]

Wasn't the hit rate for dreadnought secondaries in WWI somewhere in the neighborhood of 1%? Looks like low-angle secondaries in modern ships was an exercise in faith too.

 

Hit rates and effectiveness aren't necessarily the same thing. The existence of the secondaries, and the consequent perception of risk in destroyer and cruiser captains' minds, probably dictated just how closely torpedo attacks would be pressed. Likewise, the mere perception of a torpedoe threat, to say nothing of their actual use, could cause precipitous changes in tactical posture in the middle of a battle. Even battleships' main armament had this effect. Good gunnery ships scored only about 5% hits on average, but nobody thought to close in and shoot it out where hit rates would be much higher. The few shells that did hit were bad enough.

[Marek Tucan]

What I mean is to not carry any medium caliber battery and only carry the main gun and perhaps a light anti-air battery

A secondary question might be on how well heavy anti-aircraft batteries can be used against destroyers. For example, I would think that the German 4.1 inch secondary batteries might be effective against destroyers.

 

That's 105mm, you Imperial heathen!

Apart from that, from what have I read on the matter, 4"-5" AA guns were crucial for longer range defensive barrages, even more so with VT amo. If the battery can double to fire on surface targets if needed, the better IMHO. After all even in BB-BB engagements, a dose of 5" shells would mean a lot of trouble in itself, adding damage - while they won't push through main armor, there is plenty of unarmored stuff to destroy, cripple or set alight.

[ta192]

IIRC, the Iowa's were originally designed for thirty 3/50's rather than their actual fit of 5/38's.

Fortunately, no one bought into that one...

Edited January 4, 2010 by ta192

[JOE BRENNAN]

Is the idea that BB's would really only have *light* AA guns and main guns? I could see it, perhaps, if the argument were to have some optimized heavy AA guns (maybe lighter than 5", say 90-105mm) but then no single purpose ~6" secondaries, as BB's with 90-105mm AA often had. But just big machine cannon and 15-18" guns seems obviously unbalanced. Besides destroyers, there's the threat of medium altitude bombers. True, this form of air attack proved somewhere between only moderately effective (Japanese Navy level bombers) and non-effective (most other air arms most of the time) against moving ships; but ships weren't always moving or in well defended harbors, and pre-WWII planners couldn't discount the threat even for operations at sea. Also, heavy AA provided some 'area defense AAW capability' (to use later terminology), a rather important element of USN fast BB relevance later in WWII.

 

The Dutch light cruiser DeRuyter was a relatively large modern WWII era ship with no heavy AA battery, 7*150mm single purpose main battery, plus advanced and heavy, for the time, automatic AA battery of 5*twin Hazemeyer-Bofors 40mm stabilized mounts. But all Japanese air attacks which included DeRuyter among the targets were by medium altitude bombers (which had outrun/spent the available torpedo supply in forward areas). Forties were marginal against such attacks, and a bomb near miss KO'd the single central director for the 40's in one attack, though that might be blamed on the particular arrangement. The defense of the ABDA warship formations was considerably aided by the heavier AA guns aboard US and Brit/CW cruisers, especially Houston's 8*5"/25, once good ammo was obtained.

 

Single purpose secondary batteries on BB's were obviously suboptimal given hindsight of how WWII sea/air combat played out. But, if light automatic AA is proposed to replace time/VT fuze shell AA guns, that's a lot less obvious IMO.

 

Joe

[Tiornu]

IIRC, the Iowa's were originally designed for thirty 3/50's rather than their actual fit of 5/38's.

I doubt anyone ever suggested a 3in secondary battery, though 6in and 5.4in did figure in discussions. The 3in gun had already started into retirement as a heavy AA weapon, though some went back to sea as emergency "light" AA in 1940. Of course, the new rapid-fire model with its proximity fuzes came too late for war service.

 

Apart from that, from what have I read on the matter, 4"-5" AA guns were crucial for longer range defensive barrages, even more so with VT amo.

Heavy AA was not simply for barrage fire, and proximity fuzes effectively obviate barrages.

[DesertFox]

IIRC, the Iowa's were originally designed for thirty 3/50's rather than their actual fit of 5/38's.

Fortunately, no one bought into that one...

 

Err...What?

[Guest aevans]

Heavy AA was not simply for barrage fire, and proximity fuzes effectively obviate barrages.

 

Even with time fuzes, the 5"/25 and 5"/38 were effective against individual aircraft targets. They just weren't as effective as they were with proximity fuzing.

[ScottyB]

Indeed. But the remodelled Renown plus the Queen Elizabeth and Valiant had 20x 4.5 inch, which were much better AA weapons; in fact better against anything except cruisers, I suspect.

 

Says who?

 

Scott