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

[Madwolf 10,218]

We can debate like gentlemen.

Here's the post I'm referencing: http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/49774-montana-class-battleship/page-2

Post 28: " the US battleships at suraigo strait fired 3000 shells to finish off the dying yamashiro" - General Sultan.

That's what I'm referring too. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. If you meant all the ships and not just the battleships then that's fine. Just correct yourself.

[General_Sultan 1,228]

We can debate like gentlemen.

Here's the post I'm referencing: http://forum.warthun...ttleship/page-2 

Post 28: " the US battleships at suraigo strait fired 3000 shells to finish off the dying yamashiro" - General Sultan.

That's what I'm referring too. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. If you meant all the ships and not just the battleships then that's fine. Just correct yourself. 

 

 

we can debate like gentlemen when you start reading my posts.. would you do that please?

 

 

now, the thread you quoted, and the post you are quoting, you might've aswell just scrolled down a bit to read the following:

 

Post #34, general sultan said:

 

West Virginia fired 16 salvoes, Maryland 6, Tennessee 13, California 9, Mississippi 1 and Pennsylvania 0. Then Japanese Wiki under the Type 22 radar topic also stated that the overall US fleet hit rate was only 0.6-0.7% and the Yamashiro was ultimately sunk by TORPEDOES.

Then this is what the American historians prefer not to say:

West Virginia : MK 8 FC radar malfunctioned when firing, 1st and 3rd main turret shell hoist mechanism malfunctioned and one main gun were not able to fire due to a misfire.

Maryland: Unable to identify radar target because she was confused by the "superior" radar screen that displayed water splashes from WV.

California: after some 9-gun salvoes fired, the 2nd and 4th main turrets failed after some misfires. 

Pennsylvania: simply did exactly nothing just because she can't locate the target via radar, (willfully blinding herself just because the radar failed)

Then, on 25th, the visual range of US battleship fleet was 2,000-20,000 yards, where they fired 279 rounds and scored only 2 hits ( 0.72%), the US cruisers fired at an average range of 13,000 yards with 3,379 rounds fired and scored 23 hits (0.68%)

I'm not sure whether or not the BB's secondaries were involved, but here's more details about dispersion, hit rate and range of each US ships that I think can give you a clearer picture of what was going on, these infos were also discovered on one Japanese forum posted by some Japanese, althought contradicts the 2 hits per 279 rounds and 0.72% above, but neither shows any sign that the USN gunnery was good:

http://www.warbirds....2/B2000850.html

this same link also have the dispersion list I brought up previously (which you chose to ignore)

Ship rounds hits initial firing range dispersion

West Virginia 93 3 22,800yd 300m
Maryland 48 0 19,800yd ?
Tennessee 69 1 20,500yd 400 m
California 63 3 20,400yd 400-500m 
Mississippi 12 0 ? ?


Average firing interval 41 sec. avg, range 20,880 yards.

7 hits from battleship caliber, then the rest was from cruisers. Now this is a historical proof that the USN radar was unable to improve the poor dispersion, and the avg. firing interval and radar firing range was also unimpressive as Kurita was also able to fire on radar around 20km.

 

 

 

 

Now if you actually red this post when I posted it to you back then, we would'n be having this argument. this is what frustrates me, "gentlemen arguing" to you is just the method of typing.

 

can we close this now please?

[Madwolf 10,218]

First of all let's clarify a few things here:

Only 3 of the participating USN battleships where fitted with the more modern radar assisted directors.

I know the USS West Virginia was able to hit with her first salvo. I haven't seen any site that has stated what else specifically hit, just that she was fired upon by cruisers and battleships.

The reason I don't like your source from warbirds is because warbirds is a video game website, and with the translation from google it appears to be the old message board from the site. If there was sources to the information used I'd have no issue with it.

The dispersion from the West Virginia seems like it would be about accurate though. She is an older battleship shooting long distance with a modern director. 300m dispersion is not too bad. My issue is how did they determine the dispersion? Battle reports from each ship? I could see them correcting as much as they could after their initial shots.

[Madwolf 10,218]

I also don't think 6 aging ships prove the quality of the USN fleet during the war.

[General_Sultan 1,228]

Welp. I'm done here. 

[Swiftus 1]

Well. the first half of your post can be dismissed considering my supporting evidences already puts the longest range hit in history (confirmed too, just not widely accepted or famous) is by yamato.

 

 

a less known event in the same engagement was the 2nd longest range hit in a naval battle, it was scored by the IJN kongo on the USS heerman at 17 miles.

 

 

the rest of your post - I'll let my better informed friend Bobbyspongka handle it. and since you're using navweaps as backup source. prepare to get schooled.

Hate to burst your bubble, but it wasn't a hit, it was a straddle which knock equipment out, not a hit. Scharnhorst still holds the longest confirmed and widely accepted, hit on another vessel at 26400 yards.

[General_Sultan 1,228]

Hate to burst your bubble, but it wasn't a hit, it was a straddle which knock equipment out, not a hit. Scharnhorst still holds the longest confirmed and widely accepted, hit on another vessel at 26400 yards.

 

[Crag_r 8,620]

 

Thats still a straddle, if the shell itself made contract then it would be a hit. 

[General_Sultan 1,228]

Thats still a straddle, if the shell itself made contract then it would be a hit. 

a water geyser does'n make an 8" deep dent on a hull.

 

its still damaging, and like I stated previously, alot of projectiles and weapons don't rely on directly hitting the ship to destroy it, torpedoes, naval mines, flak shells.

 

 

imagine that you are sitting in a car, under artillery fire

 

one of the shells literally glances off the edge of your car, hurles your car up, does extensive damage and rips off the doors without fully contacting your car

 

would you still say you were'n hit by an artillery shell?

 

directly contacting the enemy vessel is'n the metaphor or neccessity for a ship. some ships were sunk by nearby explosions from enemy action, not direct hits.

[Crag_r 8,620]

a water geyser does'n make an 8" deep dent on a hull.

 

its still damaging, and like I stated previously, alot of projectiles and weapons don't rely on directly hitting the ship to destroy it, torpedoes, naval mines, flak shells.

 

 

imagine that you are sitting in a car, under artillery fire

 

one of the shells literally glances off the edge of your car, hurles your car up, does extensive damage and rips off the doors without fully contacting your car

 

would you still say you were'n hit by an artillery shell?

 

directly contacting the enemy vessel is'n the metaphor or neccessity for a ship. some ships were sunk by nearby explosions from enemy action, not direct hits.

 

If that were the case then why is the Yamato not recognized to not hold the longest range naval gunner hit on another moving naval target then?

[General_Sultan 1,228]

If that were the case then why is the Yamato not recognized to not hold the longest range naval gunner hit on another moving naval target then?

 

I don't know

 

 

who'd rate a Japanese battleship like yamato over a european or American counterpart?

[Madwolf 10,218]

The artillery shell wouldn't graze the car, but land close would be a better example. The difference between the two shots is that the Scharnhorst landed a direct hit. If we were talking about damage from near misses I'm sure there would be more ships involved and it would be heavily disputed.

[General_Sultan 1,228]

The artillery shell wouldn't graze the car, but land close would be a better example

 

 

Land closely and? where does all the dents and bulges come from? magic?

 

a near miss does'n do superficial damage, only direct contact does.

 

 

 

The difference between the two shots is that the Scharnhorst landed a direct hit. If we were talking about damage from near misses I'm sure there would be more ships involved and it would be heavily disputed. 

 

 

once again, a near miss is a straddle. if we are to account all near-misses then alot of yamato's shells would count as near misses due to the small radius of straddles she landed on her targets on that battle.

 

I'm talking about the one shell that nearly crippled her and broke her bilge keels and left an 8" deep dent below the hull. alot of shells crashed near the ship and did'n inflict damage. This one shell did. and it was'n luck

[Katsukai 6,157]

Can't believe you guys are still debating which ship is the best for almost 3 months.

[Madwolf 10,218]

An HE shell would cause damage from the explosion. Especially to a lightly armored escort carrier.

[Rumpullpus 3,883]

sheesh nearly 8 pages of this....

 

get a room already!

[General_Sultan 1,228]

An HE shell would cause damage from the explosion. Especially to a lightly armored escort carrier. 

 

 

the shells fired were APC

 

alot of projectiles have an HE charge. it does'n work like tanks where there's AP and HE

 

if it was the result of an explosion the following straddles would've sunk her. shells came extremely close to her throughout the bombardment. the ones that straddled on the first salvo would've sunk her if this is true. especially the one that left an 8" deep dent on the deck.

 

without this, we have Kongo's hit on Hermann later in the engagement. thats two of the longest ranged hits in history.

[Madwolf 10,218]

I believe if the shell would have hit the White Plains she would have sunk. Never heard anything about the Kongo, do you have a link?

[General_Sultan 1,228]

I believe if the shell would have hit the White Plains she would have sunk. Never heard anything about the Kongo, do you have a link?

Bosamar.com

 

 

and no, because as I said, the shell did'n actually land on the carrier. it only made brief contact with it.

 

as for sinking, numerous other carriers took multiple other projectiles and did'n sink. look up how much it took to sink the Gambier bay.

 

 

as for Kongo, I've mentioned it numerous times in our previous discussions, have you not read it or what?

[Madwolf 10,218]

Don't remember the Kongo discussion but we've been debating so long I've no donut forgotten. Do you have a direct link. The Hermann's section on Bosmar only mentions the Kongo once and says nothing of being hit by her specifically.

[gaw5024 112]

Most of the damage with land based artillery comes from the stones and other debris projected of from the crater if it is an impact detonation. Large naval shell in a fleet action are all impact or delayed impact detonation shells. Using anything else would be considered fool hearty(exempting star shells and other special specific purpose rounds.) There is no debris to kick out on a straddle in the water. What is there then? There is the over pressure shock of the shell detonating. This phenomenon has been known to damage ships seams and bulkheads. That is why modern torpedoes are designed to detonate under a ship to break its keel. There doesn't need to be an impact to cause damage. That is why The White Planes straddle isn't considered a hit. There is no damage that can not be explained by other types of battle damage, and no reports of impact noise/ detonation from a hit on the White Plain by it's crew or any any other with that salvo.

 

P.S. sorry if I misspelled something and missed it.

[KatTsun 16]

It will be cool to see a Yamato vs Iowa duel, no doubt the Iowa will land the first hits, the challenge is if the Yamato can survive enough salvos to get close for an effective salvo of her own with those huge 18 inch guns against a faster and more accurate enemy.

 

It wouldn't. Yamato would be squashed.

 

16" guns were nearly as effective as the 18", and American gunnery was, as shown, significantly better than the antiquated dye shell and binoculars range finding of Japanese ships.

 

A better fight would be Richeliu versus Iowa.

[Lance007 2,625]

It wouldn't. Yamato would be squashed.
 
16" guns were nearly as effective as the 18", and American gunnery was, as shown, significantly better than the antiquated dye shell and binoculars range finding of Japanese ships.
 
A better fight would be Richeliu versus Iowa.

Dis gunna be gud! *gets out popcorn*

[General_Sultan 1,228]

It wouldn't. Yamato would be squashed.

 

16" guns were nearly as effective as the 18", and American gunnery was, as shown, significantly better than the antiquated dye shell and binoculars range finding of Japanese ships.

 

A better fight would be Richeliu versus Iowa.

 

 

How would yamato be squashed?

 

Yamato would detect the Iowa hundreds of miles away while Iowa can't fire at ships that are already within her gun range.

 

Yamato can entirely dictate the engagement and choose her fight, while Iowa would sail around obliviously with its pathetic 40k yards maximum sighting range. it literally cannot fire at ships that are already within the range of her guns. just like what happened with the Nowaki at Truk, which was lost track of at 35k yards

 

 

yamato would literally play with Iowa like a puppet, she's slap the Iowa around without the Iowa even realizing where the shells are coming from, because Yamato has a large immunity GUNFIRE zone, and this Immunity zone is even further extended with Iowa's 40k yard detecting radius.

 

SK MK8 mod.3 can detect 40k yards max, while E-27 Mod.3 can detect radar & Radio wavelength 300km away while emitting very low KW and wavelength while Iowa's crude FCs system and MK8 emits large amounts of radar wavelength, operates at high Voltage, is sensitive and would be the first thing to go out of action under attack, and yet can only detect BATTLESHIP sized targets at 40k yards.

 

 

you are being extremely shallow with the guns comparision. a small WW2 cruiser with 5" guns could sink a fleet of Dreadnoughts and Ironclads due to radar advantage. guns don't mean everything.

 

 

as for American gunnary, it was significantly inferior, 16"/50 cal dispersion was inferior to IJN 18.1" dispersion, two worthy examples are samar & Truk lagoon.

 

Truk lagoon on its own serves as a huge example of Iowa's overrated gun accuracy being put to shame. 

 

6 main gun hits and 5 secondary hits from 46 16" rounds and 125 5" rounds on a static bismarck-sized target at ONLY 14,500 yards.

 

6 hits figure is even disputed by a recon pilot who reported TWO large main calibre hits in the hull.

 

compare that to yamato at samar, fired on USS Johnston, a DD, at a range in excess of 20km, scoring 3 main battery and 3 secondary hits with only one or two salvoes, and before anyone flips for sources, BuShips report on Johnstons 3 large calibre and 3 6" hits that puts Yamato as the ONLY BB that could've fired those 6 rounds...BuShips estimated the Angle of Fall of 3 maingun hits @ 18* which implies 21-22,000yrds, this puts Yamato as the only ship capeble of firing this salvo, she was at 21,000yds at that time, Kongo was 28k yds and her rangefinder was out of action, Nagato and Haruna checked fire at 717.

 

 

Firepower is only superficial and does'n matter. there are far more important things, such as which shoots farther, which dictates the engagement, which has better other specs. such as gun dispersion, blindfire. other then that if we compare the raw firepower of the guns the Yamato has better gun velocity of 780M/S.

 

Don't remember the Kongo discussion

 

 

because you did'n read it.

 

 

 but we've been debating so long I've no donut forgotten. Do you have a direct link. The Hermann's section on Bosmar only mentions the Kongo once and says nothing of being hit by her specifically. 

 

 

Sorry I meant Johnston, not Hermann. I often make that mistake

 

also new evidence reveals Kongo did'n actually hit the Johnston, it was yamato.

 

Hermann was hit with multiple 8" projectiles probably from cruisers

Edited October 19, 2013 by General_Sultan

[gaw5024 112]

I'm tired of this crap. The first actual hits of Samar were scored by the Johnson at a range of 18,000 yards on the Kumano at 710. The Center Force Opened fore on Taffy three at 657. The first confirmed hit that Center Force scored was at 725 by the Kongo on the Hoel and around 14000 yards. That's nearly half an hour after the Japanese main guns opened fire. The first impact damage any of the CVEs receive is from a kamikaze Zero hitting the Santee at 740. It is 750 when the Kalinin Bay is actually hit by shell fire. That was by 8 inch guns shooting AP rounds that went straight though the ship. That's nearly  hour after the Japanese main guns opened fire. I have never seen evidence the Yamato fired effectively with her main guns on the DD's and DE's. I would love to be pointed toward this "new evidence"

 of how well the Yamato did.

Let us also not forget that throughout the battle the logs of the Japanese ships with their "superior" equipment and training consistently confused the CVEs with Essex Class Fleet carriers and the DDs and DEs with light and heavy cruisers.

You want to talk about Samar like the Japanese crushed Taffy three and continues on to destroy Oldendorf's support force. They should have if you simply look at the ships listed on each side, and the fact the aircraft scrambled against the Center Force almost all lacked the bombs, rockets, and torpedoes needed to do real damage to ships. The truth is Samar was the biggest embarrassment the history of the Japanese Navy and especially VAdm Kurita's otherwise excellent career.