Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My apologies for having neglected this thread for far too long. You know something? I simply don't know!
German main battery guns threw their projectiles with much higher velocity -- which means much lower and flatter trajectories -- than their American and Japanese counterparts.
Regardless of nationality, the chief threat to heavily-armored ships was something called "plunging fire," which occurred at long range. This referred to projectiles coming down essentially from above, similar to an aerial bomb, so that they struck the much-thinner deck armor rather than the thick belt of armor along the hull.
It is obvious that German main battery guns threw lighter projectiles. However, it must be recognized that they threw them at roughly twice the rate of the Japanese main battery guns. Assuming absolute accuracy, which is more damaging -- one hole caused by a 6,000-lb. 18-inch shell or two holes caused by 1,700-lb. 15-inch shells?
[Yeah, I know, but go along with the scenario...]
A 1700 lb shell would hardly damage the Yamato. Only bombs and torpedoes proved to be effective.
A 1700 lb shell would hardly damage the Yamato. Only bombs and torpedoes proved to be effective.
That would greatly depend on the range from which they were fired. At long range, a naval shell is coming down at a high angle, commonly called "plunging fire". It is much more likely to hit the thinner deck armor than the thick armor belt along the waterline. In other words, they strike the target in much the same way as an aerial bomb, only with a good bit more velocity.
Meaning no disrespect here, since neither Yamato nor Musashi was ever taken under the guns of a capital ship or heavy cruiser, we have no way of knowing the true effectiveness of their armor. There WAS a design weakness near the bow, which directly led to the sinking of Musashi.
IIRC, the ONLY naval gunfire ever directed at Yamato came from the 5-inch guns of the destroyer screen protecting Taffy 3, and the single 5-inch gun of the spunky little jeep carrier Kalinin Bay, during the Battle off Samar. Conversely, this engagement was the only time Yamato fired her main and secondary batteries in combat.
Musashi was never fired upon by naval guns of any size, nor did it ever fire its main or secondary guns in combat. Prior to its sinking in October of 1944, Musashi's only "real" combat came when it was hit by one submarine torpedo the previous March.
A section of 26" thick Japanese armor the same as used on Yamato class turret faces was pierced by an American 16" gun in post war testing. However the American shell was somewhat heavier than a German 15" shell.
A section of 26" thick Japanese armor the same as used on Yamato class turret faces was pierced by an American 16" gun in post war testing. However the American shell was somewhat heavier than a German 15" shell.
Thank you for mentioning that. I have a strong feeling that the Japanese did not employ nearly the concentration of bullet stopping steel/molybdenum alloy as Germany or America.
The Climax Molybdenum mine in Colorado was, by far, the worlds largest supplier of molybdenum. Their sales started taking off in 1925 due, I believe prinicipally and certainly firstly, to demand from Germany and Russia. Japan was also purchasing some molybdenum but I do not how much.
The Climax Molybdenum mine was initially a Colorado operation that lacked the capital to really make it take off. They had a hard time attracting big time investors because, as Henry Ford so accurately noted at the time, the great demand for molybdenum was twenty years off.
A German holding company had the extremely deep pockets, ruthlessness, and foresightedness to go ahead and develop the worlds largest, by far, molybdenum mine.
We had plenty of moly, after all the mine is in Colorado. The Germans had plenty of moly, they "developed" the mine. The Japanese? Who knows?
*The mine did come under American ownership and control after a few decades...or so.
In a ship vs. ship encounter I would say it would not matter if one could sink the other. Any damage minimizing the fighting potential of the ship would be sufficient to cause one to disengage. That was the norm of single ship surface combat in WWII by cruisers and heavier ships. Vessels did not fight to the death unless they had no means to escape. Example being Bismarck and Scharnhorst. Battleships would be escorted by smaller vessels equipped with smoke and torpedoes to mask the withdrawl of any damaged heavier ship. Exceptions being the Germans who used their heavy ships as raiders and lost them when there was no escort.
And three props, rather than the four commonly found on the large warships of Great Britain, the US, and Japan. The center prop was a good bit larger than the two outboard props. This was a common feature of larger German warships (heavy cruisers Admiral Hipper, Blucher, Prinz Eugen; battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, and battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz. The older "pocket battleships" had two props of equal size.
I seem to remember - but cannot recall for certain - that the two smaller outboard props were intended for cruising. I think they were connected to the much more economical reciprocating (diesel?) engines. This gave them a phenomenal range. The large center prop was connected to high-speed turbines and used only when great speed was required.
I may have this backwards, and I no longer have access to the detailed historical data. So if I've gotten it wrong, you can scold me but ya can't beat me, okay?
I'm going from memory here but the weight of each nations battleships main guns would be a factor:
Yamato: 6000 pounds
16" Iowa: 3000 pounds
15" Bismarck: 1700 pounds
This hearkens back to earlier posts. You seem to have over-estimated the throw-weight of the Iowa-class BBs. Recalling, as always, that larger throw-weight does not necessarily equal an increased ability to inflict damage...
Too, and even though it does not directly apply to the current discussion, Colonel Jeff Cooper often stated "The gunfight isn't won by the first shot, but by the first HIT..." I suspect that, generally, a ship-to-ship gunfight would be governed by the same "rule"...
As always, YMMV.
-- Nighteyes
Last edited by Nighteyes; 03-01-2011 at 12:48 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
