Warship Appreciation Thread

[Knowledgeispower]

It still managed to thoroughly embarrass itself (cough cough, Force Z) from time to time, much as the British Army did in France and North Africa. Indeed, it seems only the RAF managed to serve the dying empire without too much of a blemish on its record.

World War II was not Britain's finest hour militarily, alas.

Well there was the saga of Bomber Command struggling to hit the right country for several years and wasting hundreds of badly needed fighters and their pilots on sweeps of Nothern France in 1941 and 1942

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Well there was the saga of Bomber Command struggling to hit the right country for several years and wasting hundreds of badly needed fighters and their pilots on sweeps of Nothern France in 1941 and 1942

Oh crap, that too. The United Kingdom really could have done better in that war.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

Oh crap, that too. The United Kingdom really could have done better in that war.

To be fair the UK did rather well overall it's just that we remember failures far more than non major successes.

 

[BF110C4]

To be fair the UK did rather well overall it's just that we remember failures far more than non major successes.

And let's be fair about that part too. The public also remember the Battle of Britain, the eventual victory in North Africa and the fact that the Hunt for the Bismark ended with the battleship sunk, even if it came at a cost. The english gave far more than they got and the british people does not forget that, even if occasionally the rest of the world does.

 

[Vargas Fan]

Noticing the Japanese mentioned earlier, in particular their light AA, this long clip from the film Pacific Battleship Yamato is particularly good. Unfortunately someone put some music on top of it



Also, two vessels that are notable, not for their long record or heavy damage inflicted, but what they did...

HMS Jervis Bay

An innocuous looking Armed Merchant Cruiser that took on the German vessel KMS Admiral Scheer to give Convoy HX84 time to escape.

HMS Rawalpindi, another Armed Merchant Cruiser. She took on the KMS Scharnhorst and Gneisnau,

From Wikipedia

"
Whilst patrolling north of the Faroe Islands on 23 November 1939, she investigated a possible enemy sighting, only to find that she had encountered two of the most powerful German warships, the battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, which had been conducting a sweep between Iceland and the Faroes. Rawalpindi was able to signal the German ships' location back to base. Despite being hopelessly outgunned, 60-year-old Captain Edward Coverley Kennedy RN of Rawalpindi decided to fight, rather than surrender as demanded by the Germans. He was heard to say "We’ll fight them both, they’ll sink us, and that will be that. Good-bye".

The German warships sank Rawalpindi within 40 minutes. She managed to score one hit on Scharnhorst, which caused minor splinter damage. 238 men died on Rawalpindi, including Captain Kennedy. Thirty-seven men were rescued by the German ships, a further 11 were picked up by HMS Chitral (another converted passenger ship). Captain Kennedy — the father of naval officer, broadcaster and author Ludovic Kennedy — was posthumously Mentioned in Dispatches. Crew members on Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were eligible for the High Seas Fleet Badge for participating in the sinking of Rawalpindi."

 

[PsihoKekec]

This reminds of the Battle of Cape Machiaco, during Spanish Civil war, where four armed Basque fishing trawlers fought a nationalist heavy cruiser, to protect a bloackade runner. They fought for two hours, with one trawler sunk and one seriously damaged, cargo ship ultimately caught by the cruiser.

The crew of the cruiser pulled twenty sailors from the sunken trawler out of the sea and the Nationalist court sentenced them all to death as pirates, however the captian of the cruiser intervened and convinced Franco to commute the death sentences, they recieved heavy labor sentences instead and were released towards the end of the war.

 

[Harlock]

A snapshot of the USN, with Constitution in the foreground and a pair of Battleships further out including the Texas
On the same theme...

 

[Tiamat]

Noticing the Japanese mentioned earlier, in particular their light AA, this long clip from the film Pacific Battleship Yamato is particularly good. Unfortunately someone put some music on top of it

While the film in itself isn't bad, it didn't show much of, nor of the fate of the other ships that were tasked alongside Yamato in Operation Ten-Go. The U.S. launched nearly 400 aircraft (almost equivalent of all the aircraft waves of the Pear Harbor attack, ironically), and for the loss of ten aircraft, managed to destroy one battleship, one light cruiser, four destroyers, and heavily damage another destroyer by blowing off it's bow.

To call the battle a lopsided slaughter is an understatement. It didn't help that there was no fighter escort for the ships when the American planes arrived, much of the Japanese AAA lacked radar direction, and as for the AAA itself much of it still relied on the rather horrendous Type 96 25mm gun. It's telling in spite of the talk of "dying bravely in honorable death for the Emperor", quite a few Japanese naval officers were opposed to Ten-Go seeing it as ultimately wasteful and futile, which it was.

EDIT: In the clip you can see a few of the many problems with the Type 96, which are the triple mounts. Each gun had to be loaded/reloaded to fire using a closed 15-round magazine, so hence each magazine had to be individually loaded, then detached when the magazine was expended to allow a fresh magazine to be loaded in. This was opposed to the open-chute feed system of the Bofors 40mm autocannon used by the US which allowed continuous fire via 5-round clips. You can also see how they're struggling to keep the magazines squarely on top of the guns as they're firing, the Type 96 had a horrible reputation for vibrating like hell which caused accuracy and feed issues. It didn't help it was a very slow-turning and elevating gun, and the 25mm shells didn't pack much punch for anti-aircraft work either. Some Type 96's were used in an anti-ground role, though it was quickly found the 25mm could do little damage against an M4 Sherman.

ANOTHER EDIT: Even the flash suppressor, which had been changed from the original French Hotchkiss design that the Type 96 was based off of, wasn't good either. The muzzle blast and flash was often so bad the gunners couldn't even see what they were shooting at.

 

[Flintsteel]

A snapshot of the USN, with Constitution in the foreground and a pair of Battleships further out including the Texas
On the same theme...

The other BB would be New York, Texas's elder sister. Those were the only two US BBs that used a 2-A-1-2 layout. The other 5-turret designs, the older Delaware-class and Florida-class, used a 2-A-2-1 layout, and none of them ever got tripod masts anyway as they didn't survive the Washington Treaty.

At least it isn't the Fuso's 2-A-1-1-2 layout...

 

[PsihoKekec]

In the clip you can see a few of the many problems with the Type 96, which are the triple mounts. Each gun had to be loaded/reloaded to fire using a closed 15-round magazine, so hence each magazine had to be individually loaded, then detached when the magazine was expended to allow a fresh magazine to be loaded in. This was opposed to the open-chute feed system of the Bofors 40mm autocannon used by the US which allowed continuous fire via 5-round clips. You can also see how they're struggling to keep the magazines squarely on top of the guns as they're firing, the Type 96 had a horrible reputation for vibrating like hell which caused accuracy and feed issues. It didn't help it was a very slow-turning and elevating gun, and the 25mm shells didn't pack much punch for anti-aircraft work either.

And this is why 40 mm Bofors is rightfully considered the master race of the WWII light/medium AA guns.

 

[Tiamat]

And this is why 40 mm Bofors is rightfully considered the master race of the WWII light/medium AA guns.

Or you could say, the Bofors 40mm autocannon, which is still in use today, is essentially the 1911 or Ma Deuce, whichever you prefer, of the autocannon world.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

While the film in itself isn't bad, it didn't show much of, nor of the fate of the other ships that were tasked alongside Yamato in Operation Ten-Go. The U.S. launched nearly 400 aircraft (almost equivalent of all the aircraft waves of the Pear Harbor attack, ironically), and for the loss of ten aircraft, managed to destroy one battleship, one light cruiser, four destroyers, and heavily damage another destroyer by blowing off it's bow.

To call the battle a lopsided slaughter is an understatement. It didn't help that there was no fighter escort for the ships when the American planes arrived, much of the Japanese AAA lacked radar direction, and as for the AAA itself much of it still relied on the rather horrendous Type 96 25mm gun. It's telling in spite of the talk of "dying bravely in honorable death for the Emperor", quite a few Japanese naval officers were opposed to Ten-Go seeing it as ultimately wasteful and futile, which it was.

EDIT: In the clip you can see a few of the many problems with the Type 96, which are the triple mounts. Each gun had to be loaded/reloaded to fire using a closed 15-round magazine, so hence each magazine had to be individually loaded, then detached when the magazine was expended to allow a fresh magazine to be loaded in. This was opposed to the open-chute feed system of the Bofors 40mm autocannon used by the US which allowed continuous fire via 5-round clips. You can also see how they're struggling to keep the magazines squarely on top of the guns as they're firing, the Type 96 had a horrible reputation for vibrating like hell which caused accuracy and feed issues. It didn't help it was a very slow-turning and elevating gun, and the 25mm shells didn't pack much punch for anti-aircraft work either. Some Type 96's were used in an anti-ground role, though it was quickly found the 25mm could do little damage against an M4 Sherman.

ANOTHER EDIT: Even the flash suppressor, which had been changed from the original French Hotchkiss design that the Type 96 was based off of, wasn't good either. The muzzle blast and flash was often so bad the gunners couldn't even see what they were shooting at.

I always wondered about those sorts of engagements where warships bristling with AA manage to get sunk by aircraft and shoot scarcely any of them down in turn. I didn't realise how crap the Japanese AA was, which explains a lot. Myself being such a neophyte would think "just point all those guns in the enemy's general direction and you'll hit something eventually."

Would similar principles apply to the loss of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse?

 

[PsihoKekec]

Hiting anything in air is difficult, you have to gauge distance, height, movement vector and speed of target correctly. For example, if the muzzle speed of your round is 600 m/s and the attacking plane is 700 meters away closing at 350 km/h, you will have to aim at a point some 97 meters ahead of aircraft, adjusted for altitude drop of the round. If you got the speed, height and direction of the plane wrong, then you will miss. You might get some hits based soley on the law of probability, but that takes lot of ammo, the best cure for enemy aircraft were still your own fighters. And as Tiamat mentioned, Japanese 25 mm guns lacked punch, so when Hellcats, well known for their sturdiness, came to strafe the AA batteries the defender might have gotten considerable number of hits, but few kills, because Hellcats could soak up a lot of punishment.
However one important effect the light AA guns, especially when using the tracers, was that the unnerved the hell out of the attacking pilots, reducing their effectivness.

Of course during WWII there were many particularities with the AA defense. Torpedo bombers for example had to do the final part of their attack run low, slow and holding their direction making them easier targets for the defenders and their climb from the attack run made them even better target.

Bombing of the Reich was another one, RAF flying the bomber stream at night and USAAF flying in defens box formations. Gathering info from radar stations and obervation points, the command posts fed directions to AA battery grouping to fill imaginary box in the sky, through which the bombers should pass, with shell - time fused to detonate at that height, firing being done either on time (shells from multiple guns going off at the same time) or continious (all guns firing at their best speed). While bombers flew at preset path, they were instructed to make small direction or height changes at preset intervals, in order to throw off the AA box .
This is where the term flak jacket comes from, USAAF defense box formation made good targets for flak, with shrapnel having no trouble penetrating thin skin of the aircraft, so the aircrew were given heavy protective vests to protect them from flak shrapnel.

 

[BF110C4]

The ability to remove the alttitude variable out of the AA equation that the proximity fuze gave to the aerial defenses a vital advantage, with the british artillery having a solid advantage against the subsonic V1 rockets and the american 5'' naval guns improving their capabilities against kamikaze sevenfold. The advantage was such that at least in american service they were called VT shells to cover their purpose, they also forbidden their use over contested land until late 1944 in order to prevent the capture of an unexploded shell that could be used to reverse engineer the system or to develop countermeasures.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

I always wondered about those sorts of engagements where warships bristling with AA manage to get sunk by aircraft and shoot scarcely any of them down in turn. I didn't realise how crap the Japanese AA was, which explains a lot. Myself being such a neophyte would think "just point all those guns in the enemy's general direction and you'll hit something eventually."

Would similar principles apply to the loss of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse?

Well Repulse had a pathetic AA armament for its size and Force Z had less AA guns than Yamato alone mounted. They also had issues as related to climate affecting the fire control systems and AA ammo

 

[Husky_Khan]

Since this is about pretty pictures of ships, this seems topically relevant then.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

Since this is about pretty pictures of ships, this seems topically relevant then.

We like pretty ships not paintings of them sinking as such commissar do your duty

 

[Tiamat]

Just an additional note to Operation Ten-Go, the Japanese Army Air Force tried to make their contribution to the effort by launching an attack on the US Navy task force at Okinawa. 115 aircraft were sent, many of them kamikazes, but succeeded in only damaging one battleship, one carrier and one destroyer. Of the 115 aircraft sent, about 100 (no definitive number appears to be known) were lost. One could probably assume it was a mix of several factors, including the fact many of them were kamikaze to begin with, also that many were poorly trained pilots, there was US fighter cover for the task force, radar-directed AAA for the USN ships, and of course much better AAA guns like the Bofors.

As if to rub further salt in the wound, it's estimated of the 10 US aircraft that were lost, it's reported that only 3 were actually shot down by Japanese AAA. The other 7 were believed to have been lost to the explosion that went off when the Yamato's magazine detonated.

Just to give an idea of how big the explosion was, here is a photograph of the moment after detonation, with the three surviving Japanese destroyers also in the image.

In retrospect, you could probably argue the Yamato's best AAA asset was it's magazine going off, rather than it's AAA.

 

[BF110C4]

Just an additional note to Operation Ten-Go, the Japanese Army Air Force tried to make their contribution to the effort by launching an attack on the US Navy task force at Okinawa. 115 aircraft were sent, many of them kamikazes, but succeeded in only damaging one battleship, one carrier and one destroyer. Of the 115 aircraft sent, about 100 (no definitive number appears to be known) were lost. One could probably assume it was a mix of several factors, including the fact many of them were kamikaze to begin with, also that many were poorly trained pilots, there was US fighter cover for the task force, radar-directed AAA for the USN ships, and of course much better AAA guns like the Bofors.

As if to rub further salt in the wound, it's estimated of the 10 aircraft that were lost, it's reported that only 3 were actually shot down by Japanese AAA. The other 7 were believed to have been lost to the explosion that went off when the Yamato's magazine detonated.

Just to give an idea of how big the explosion was, here is a photograph of the moment after detonation, with the three surviving Japanese destroyers also in the image.

In retrospect, you could probably argue the Yamato's best AAA asset was it's magazine going off, rather than it's AAA.

Fitting end for a white elephant who did more damage to his own country's war economy than the enemy's. That last sortie was done at the expense of the fuel needed by the escort fleet desperately fighting to keep the sea lines open against relentless US submarines.

 

[PsihoKekec]

And mining operations, which in those months were reaping even worse toll than submarine operations, however those were stymied more by lack of minesweepers than the lack of fuel for the few they had.