How #&^%$* are you against an Iowa/NC/SoDak class battleship with radar/computer guided guns.

[FivebyFive 5,335]

& Russians will get Klingon ships for "ballance" purpose  :lol:

Preview of USSR Navy comrade

 

[Crag_r 8,620]

you are overlooking how the USS franklin got nearly sunk by two 250kg bombs.

 

There were Japanese ships were sunk by less if i am not mistaken? Japan at the time was not known for its damage control after all...

[General_Sultan 1,228]

There were Japanese ships were sunk by less if i am not mistaken? Japan at the time was not known for its damage control after all...

tell that to the yamato.

 

 

 

There were Japanese ships were sunk by less if i am not mistaken?

 

 

whats less then 2 450kg bombs? two torpedoes? because thats what also sunk the USS hornet. two torps. don't generalize based on nationality.

[Crag_r 8,620]

tell that to the yamato.

 

 

whats less then 2 450kg bombs? two torpedoes? because thats what also sunk the USS hornet. two torps. don't generalize based on nationality.

 

Well you did state how the Essex class USS Franklin took that little punishment, when i was comparing the early war carriers. I mean if we want to get technical it was the Unryu that only took two torpedoes as well, not too mention the spontaneous combustion of Taiho after a single torpedo hit when fuel vapor was vented rather inappropriately...

[RoflSeal 8,561]

I would say it's a showing of American damage control that the Franklin was saved.

 

Especially since wasn't just 2 250kg bombs but secondary explosions from 12 Tiny tim Rockets

[General_Sultan 1,228]

Well you did state how the Essex class USS Franklin took that little punishment, when i was comparing the early war carriers. I mean if we want to get technical it was the Unryu that only took two torpedoes as well, not too mention the spontaneous combustion of Taiho after a single torpedo hit when fuel vapor was vented rather inappropriately...

 

 

if its early war carriers then we can raise up the Hornet once again. it went down with two torps.

 

 

both the Unryu and Taiho are poor examples. Taiho got kicked in the balls. she was a goner the moment the torp hit her, fuel vapors spread through the hull along with dangerous avaition fuel. Unryu gets discredited aswell. she absorbed a full torp and then stood in the water. another torp ignited her entire storage of Ohka suicide rockets stored in the hangers along with aviation fuel. I don't see where the damage control went wrong.

[Crag_r 8,620]

if its early war carriers then we can raise up the Hornet once again. it went down with two torps.

 

 

both the Unryu and Taiho are poor examples. Taiho got kicked in the balls. she was a goner the moment the torp hit her, fuel vapors spread through the hull along with dangerous avaition fuel.

 

How is Taiho not an example?

 

Fuel storage and control is part of damage control, little to no measures were put into place to prevent the fuel and vapor from spreading. For a ship that was doomed no one knew it as it continued to launch several waves of aircraft, in fact the damage control teams were more pre-occupied with making a makeshift deck where the elevator was instead of stopping any vapor leaks. The closed hangar did not help either as it allowed for minimal venting, this was quite different from other carrier designs at the time.

 

It was 6 and a half hours from torpedo impact to ship detonation, i think that may have something to do with the damage control aspect, don't you?

[General_Sultan 1,228]

Fuel storage and control is part of damage control, little to no measures were put into place to prevent the fuel and vapor from spreading. For a ship that was doomed no one knew it as it continued to launch several waves of aircraft, in fact the damage control teams were more pre-occupied with making a makeshift deck where the elevator was instead of stopping any vapor leaks. The closed hangar did not help either as it allowed for minimal venting, this was quite different from other carrier designs at the time.

 

It was 6 and a half hours from torpedo impact to ship detonation, i think that may have something to do with the damage control aspect, don't you?

 

 

oh, sorry, I confused taiho with another ship. yes, I am well aware they actually apparently left the ship to die while continuing aerial operations. however. this was late war. and partially goes down to stupid admirals who threw away everything in an attempt to hurt the enemy. not an example of proper japanese DC. 

 

 

secondary explosions from 12 Tiny tim Rockets

 

 

 

this was very late in the incident. the rockets flew off the flight deck into the water. all the way after the damage was done.

[Robeye1999 13]

Germany did without a doubt have the best tanks of the war, but there were so few of them that they couldn't overcome the swarm of cheaper M4 shermans and T34's.

 

Japan did not have that disadvantage, they did have numbers on their side as well, unfortunately they didn't seem to be able to win any decisive victories with them.

[Steel_Talon 1,101]

Germany did without a doubt have the best tanks of the war, but there were so few of them that they couldn't overcome the swarm of cheaper M4 shermans and T34's.

 

Japan did not have that disadvantage, they did have numbers on their side as well, unfortunately they didn't seem to be able to win any decisive victories with them.

Japan did not have suprerior ships, where u got that from?

[General_Sultan 1,228]

Japan did not have suprerior ships, where u got that from?

 

 

Yamato, Akizuki, fubuki, Shimakaze, Akagi, Nagato, Mogami, Furutaka, Tone.

 

 

Where YOU get that from? their ships were largely equivalent and sometimes superior then that of most other nations. they had the best CA classes of the world (unless we bring up the "pocket BBs" of germany) some of their DD classes including the Akizuki class were some of the best of the world, and their Yamato class is unquestionably the best of the class and type, in history. not just WW2.

 

 

I think Rboeye could've put it better as "japan had more ships"

[Robeye1999 13]

Japan did have good ships...some were superior than US ships for their respective classes. Battleship wise, I will make it simple and say that the Iowa class and Yamato class are on par. Destroyer wise, i would  put my money on the japanese, aircraft carrier wise, USA takes it. Submarines are on par as well, Heavy cruisers go to japan but light cruisers go to USA. This is my view on how the two countries stack up against each other.

[Renamon1 463]

Soviet stalinwood will protect the suprem navy of glorious ussr  :lol:

[Steel_Talon 1,101]

 

I think Rboeye could've put it better as "japan had more ships"

Better, but mainly thanks to Pearl Harbour

[General_Sultan 1,228]

Better, but mainly thanks to Pearl Harbour

pearlharbor only sunk a few BB's. it was nothing much on the grand scale. largely reduced the BB pool of the USN but did'n really have a huge effect. there were still a good deal of other BBs.

[Madwolf 10,218]

I think the CA advantage was mostly due to the naval treaty that limited the size of ships. Japan didn't really adhere to that.

For instance, the Northampton class cruisers were originally light cruisers, but were redesignated heavy cruisers under the treaty. The Baltimore class cruisers stood up much better than the older, 1920-30 era American cruisers.

I do take great pride in the fact that the USS Louisville, a Northampton class cruiser, did have a hand in the Mogami's demise.

[Steel_Talon 1,101]

Dont forget to battlecruisers (CB)

[Crag_r 8,620]

Dont forget to battlecruisers (CB)

 

The US called them large cruisers...

[Madwolf 10,218]

Right, the CB designation by the USN was large cruiser not battlecruiser. It's essentially the same thing, but it'd be nice if we stuck to the terms given by their own navies.

[Enkidu69 1,014]

Germany did without a doubt have the best tanks of the war, but there were so few of them that they couldn't overcome the swarm of cheaper M4 shermans and T34's.

 

Japan did not have that disadvantage, they did have numbers on their side as well, unfortunately they didn't seem to be able to win any decisive victories with them.

 

They only had the advantage at the start. Once american industry switched to war mode they were quickly outnumbered.

 

Total tonnage of 1942-45 IJN is 550,000t. USN 3,200,000t.

 

That's almost 6 to 1.

 

Midway was the turning point of the war and at Midway USA had 360 planes vs 250 japanese planes.

 

Later USA always had at least 2 to 1 advantage.

 

I'm not trying to defend all the horrible mistakes Japan made in the war, but when it comes to navy and air force quality they were easily a match for USA. They screwed up on the tactical and strategic side of things though. Like not using their great subs to cripple very vulnerable US supply lines. Something US subs did with no mercy (while slaughtering passenger ships too, funny how this is always overlooked in Axis bad Allies good TV programs and movies).

 

And about carriers, it's true late war US carriers were better. But that's because Japan was already losing the war and had no resources to build good carriers. The supposed Taiho based class would've easily matched Essex class. Taiho could actually hold up to 120 planes while being better armored and faster than Essex. It was just never used to it's full potential and sunk due to the incompetence of it's rookie crew.

[_TomokoAnabuki 8,995]

They only had the advantage at the start. Once american industry switched to war mode they were quickly outnumbered.

 

Total tonnage of 1942-45 IJN is 550,000t. USN 3,200,000t.

 

That's almost 6 to 1.

 

Midway was the turning point of the war and at Midway USA had 360 planes vs 250 japanese planes.

 

Later USA always had at least 2 to 1 advantage.

 

I'm not trying to defend all the horrible mistakes Japan made in the war, but when it comes to navy and air force quality they were easily a match for USA. They screwed up on the tactical and strategic side of things though. Like not using their great subs to cripple very vulnerable US supply lines. Something US subs did with no mercy (while slaughtering passenger ships too, funny how this is always overlooked in Axis bad Allies good TV programs and movies).

 

And about carriers, it's true late war US carriers were better. But that's because Japan was already losing the war and had no resources to build good carriers. The supposed Taiho based class would've easily matched Essex class. Taiho could actually hold up to 120 planes while being better armored and faster than Essex. It was just never used to it's full potential and sunk due to the incompetence of it's rookie crew.

 

not to mention that the IJN carrier Doctrine at the beginning of the war was revolutionary and had proven to be incredibly deadly. 

[Azrael72898 3,025]

you do know that the area of a ship with roughly half lenght and width than other is a QUARTER of it, not half, don't you?.

 

Oh, hell, is plain to see - no ,you don't.

Do simple math. Take two rectangles. One is 4m long, 2 m wide, the other 2m long, 1m wide. Lenght and width dimensions are exactly the half in the 2nd vs the 1st.

Yet one rectangle is four times smaller than the second. Not half.

Rectangle 1 area: 8m^2

rectangle 2 area: 2m^2

 

Rectangle 1 area= rectangle 2 area x 4

 

Rectangle 1 is 4 times as big as rectangle 2 (not half).

I'm sorry for replying to such an old post, but this entire thread has made me want to bash my head against a wall. I read/skimmed through the rest of the thread to see if anyone replied to you, and didn't find anything. Anyway, on to my point:

Take a piece of paper. Draw a vertical line. Now, halfway down that line, draw a perpendicular line (lets say 2cm long, for this example). At the far end of the vertical one, draw another perpendicular line that is twice the size of the first. If you take a ruler or something similar, you will be able to place the edge on the nearest end of the vertical line, as well as the ends of both of the perpendicular lines. Now, unless I screwed something up somewhere, I believe that would mean that the Katori, being around half the length and beam of the Bismarck, would essentially be the same size target at half the range.

Edit: My 3am brain figured out the simple explanation (Yay logic); At half the range, both the length and beam of the smaller ship would appear double. Therefore, equal in relation to the Bismarck.

[Madwolf 10,218]

The question isn't the size of the ship ok the radar, but the likely hood of hitting the actual ship. It's easier to hit the Bismarck, than a ship half its size, at 31,000 to 35,000 yards. A range at which no ship has ever struck another ship with a canon.

[Azrael72898 3,025]

The question isn't the size of the ship ok the radar, but the likely hood of hitting the actual ship. It's easier to hit the Bismarck, than a ship half its size, at 31,000 to 35,000 yards. A range at which no ship has ever struck another ship with a canon.

 

the Katori is 426ft by 50ft or approximately half the size of Bismarck...now if 1 ship is at 15,000yrds and the bigger at 30,000yrds the radar signature/blip would be the same size

 

so 10% of 42 =4.2... 5% of 42=2.1 now 2.5% of 42= 1.05

 

so take the % of hits and the radar blip size of Katori at 15,000yrds and change 'only' the range to 30,000 yards, thus the Naval College study got the 2.7% @30,000yrds on bismarck size target just like my friend stated last page.

 

 

this bismarck size target was the IJN katori, which no, was'n small sized, the radar blip showed a Bismarck sized target, stop being biased and speculating "small ships, hard to hit", this is'n battlestations pacific, furthermore the Katori was crippled. you've only speculated what happened in the battle of truk so far, you did'n back it up that the Katori was actually conducting evasive manuevers. furthermore, sailors on Nowaki reported 100m splashes, you think that's accurate or do you just lack info on what naval battles mean?

What I gather he meant in this quote is that based on the Iowa's accuracy/hit ratio vs. the Katori at 15,000 yards, theoretically it would achieve the same if she fired on something the size of the Bismarck from twice the range, because the targets would essentially be the same size.

[Madwolf 10,218]

No they wouldn't be. They're still different sizes. Shells have a greater dispersion area travel time is longer, etc. It would be harder to hit the Bismarck at 30,000 than the Katori at 15,000. Much harder.