Posted: 3/19/2015 6:40:48 AM EDT
|
The wreckage was finally found after almost a 10-year search.
http://www.history.com/news/wwiis-largest-battleship-revealed-after-70-years-underwater I wonder which would have won if the Masashi and Yamato had a face off against the Bismarck and Tirpitz or Missouri and Iowa. The latter equipped with WW II-era stuff, of course. No aerial or naval support, just a 2 vs. 2 teams. 
|
|
1) The Japanese lost no battleships at Midway. The battleships were some 250 miles away from the battle.
2) It was normal for Japanese ships to blowup as they sank. The powder they used for their bigger guns tended to detonate as they sank. It was one way to confirm a ship was sunk as you could hear ammunition exploding underwater as the ship settled towards the bottom. Really cool find though. |
|
Quoted:
1) The Japanese lost no battleships at Midway. The battleships were some 250 miles away from the battle. 2) It was normal for Japanese ships to blowup as they sank. The powder they used for their bigger guns tended to detonate as they sank. It was one way to confirm a ship was sunk as you could hear ammunition exploding underwater as the ship settled towards the bottom. Really cool find though. You are right. The findings indicate it blew up while underwater. There's a cool movie in this link. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/new-musashi-footage-implies-wwii-battleship-exploded-underwater.html |
|
Quoted:
1) The Japanese lost no battleships at Midway. The battleships were some 250 miles away from the battle. 2) It was normal for Japanese ships to blowup as they sank. The powder they used for their bigger guns tended to detonate as they sank. It was one way to confirm a ship was sunk as you could hear ammunition exploding underwater as the ship settled towards the bottom. Really cool find though. I thought explosions were due to sea water hitting the boilers. Still, the shells could go off if something goes wrong. The Japanese battleship Mutsu did the Allies a favor by blowing up in harbor all by herself. 
|
|
Quoted: The wreckage was finally found after almost a 10-year search. http://www.history.com/news/wwiis-largest-battleship-revealed-after-70-years-underwater I wonder which would have won if the Masashi and Yamato had a face off against the Bismarck and Tirpitz or Missouri and Iowa. The latter equipped with WW II-era stuff, of course. No aerial or naval support, just a 2 vs. 2 teams. Iowa class BB was the most powerful ever. Speed, armor, and most importantly, gunnery accuracy, gave that class a big advantage. Iowa would be hitting effectively by the second salvo. Go here...http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm |
|
Quoted:
The wreckage was finally found after almost a 10-year search. http://www.history.com/news/wwiis-largest-battleship-revealed-after-70-years-underwater I wonder which would have won if the Masashi and Yamato had a face off against the Bismarck and Tirpitz or Missouri and Iowa. The latter equipped with WW II-era stuff, of course. No aerial or naval support, just a 2 vs. 2 teams.
Would have been an impressive heavyweight slugfest. |
|
Quoted:
Would have been an impressive heavyweight slugfest. Quoted:
Quoted:
The wreckage was finally found after almost a 10-year search. http://www.history.com/news/wwiis-largest-battleship-revealed-after-70-years-underwater I wonder which would have won if the Masashi and Yamato had a face off against the Bismarck and Tirpitz or Missouri and Iowa. The latter equipped with WW II-era stuff, of course. No aerial or naval support, just a 2 vs. 2 teams.
Would have been an impressive heavyweight slugfest. Strikes from 18 inch shells would have destroyed the opposing ships, including the turrets on BB's. |
|
Hard to beat those 18" guns in a straight up broadside, but our AP rounds were fairly effective.
Report 26" Japanese armor pierced by US 16" AP round 
|
|
Quoted: The wreckage was finally found after almost a 10-year search. http://www.history.com/news/wwiis-largest-battleship-revealed-after-70-years-underwater I wonder which would have won if the Masashi and Yamato had a face off against the Bismarck and Tirpitz or Missouri and Iowa. The latter equipped with WW II-era stuff, of course. No aerial or naval support, just a 2 vs. 2 teams. |
|
Quoted:
The Iowa-class ships had far better fire-control due to radar directed guns plus were faster if I'm not mistaken. The advantage in larger guns would have not been a big factor but Masashi and Yamato would have slaughtered the German ships. Zee Germans had good fire control equipment as well. I'd take the Bismarck and Tripitz |
|
Quoted:
Zee Germans had good fire control equipment as well. I'd take the Bismarck and Tripitz Quoted:
Quoted:
The Iowa-class ships had far better fire-control due to radar directed guns plus were faster if I'm not mistaken. The advantage in larger guns would have not been a big factor but Masashi and Yamato would have slaughtered the German ships. Zee Germans had good fire control equipment as well. I'd take the Bismarck and Tripitz I'd not underestimate the German ships either. Their fire direction was very good and let's not forget the Bismarck took quite a beating from a very superior force and still it was her own crew that scuttled her. And without Swordfishes laying torpedoes it would get more difficult to get to her rudder.
|
|
Quoted: Hard to beat those 18" guns in a straight up broadside, but our AP rounds were fairly effective. Report 26" Japanese armor pierced by US 16" AP round http://www.strangemilitary.com/images/content/186274.jpg Damn. |
|
Quoted: Hard to beat those 18" guns in a straight up broadside, but our AP rounds were fairly effective. Report 26" Japanese armor pierced by US 16" AP round http://www.strangemilitary.com/images/content/186274.jpg 'murica |
|
Quoted:
Hard to beat those 18" guns in a straight up broadside, but our AP rounds were fairly effective. Report 26" Japanese armor pierced by US 16" AP round http://www.strangemilitary.com/images/content/186274.jpg Quoted:
Hard to beat those 18" guns in a straight up broadside, but our AP rounds were fairly effective. Report 26" Japanese armor pierced by US 16" AP round http://www.strangemilitary.com/images/content/186274.jpg Yes... That's what happens when you shoot a shell at a zero-degree offset target at muzzle velocity... Which in no way is indicative on how well it would've done at range and with a properly placed angle. FINAL COMMENTS:
At about 40,000 yards, the U.S. Navy 16"/50 firing a 16" Mark 8 Mod 6 AP projectile (the later Mod 7 and Mod 8 designs were post-WWII, so I usually do not count them and they were no better ballistically, to my knowledge) will hit at about 45° downward angle and 1607 feet/second (489.8 m/sec). Just as with a point blank hit at 2500 feet/second (762 m/sec) and 45° obliquity, this hit too will barely hole the plate as the projectile is hitting at 0° (normal) obliquity, though not completely penetrate it. Any slight barrel wear will lower the muzzle and striking velocities and no holing will occur at THESE OR ANY OTHER ranges, as mentioned. However, this is so far above any real fighting range (even with radar it is hard to see the target due to the earth's curvature interfering, especially in any kind of imperfect seeing conditions) that I do not even consider it in my computations, while putting the gun barrel up to almost touching the enemy turret is also a pipe dream in real life! Thus, no holing or complete penetrations, ever, though possibly some cracking of the plate and possible jamming of the turret if the crack-off plate piece is dislodged badly enough. Therefore, these plates are the only warship armor plates that could not be completely penetrated by ANY gun ever put on a warship when installed leaning back at 45°, as they were in the actual turrets!!! Even to completely hole the plate all the way through at that inclination requires a brand new 16"/50 Mark 7 or German 38cm SK C/34 gun at point-blank range firing the latest versions of their respective AP projectiles; it might be cracked at a lower striking velocity, but no hole put entirely through it! AND THEY SAID GUNS HAD COMPLETELY OVERMATCHED ALL ARMOR--*NOT SO*!!! |
|
Quoted:
Yes... That's what happens when you shoot a shell at a zero-degree offset target at muzzle velocity... Which in no way is indicative on how well it would've done at range and with a properly placed angle. Quoted:
Quoted:
Hard to beat those 18" guns in a straight up broadside, but our AP rounds were fairly effective. Report 26" Japanese armor pierced by US 16" AP round http://www.strangemilitary.com/images/content/186274.jpg Yes... That's what happens when you shoot a shell at a zero-degree offset target at muzzle velocity... Which in no way is indicative on how well it would've done at range and with a properly placed angle. FINAL COMMENTS:
At about 40,000 yards, the U.S. Navy 16"/50 firing a 16" Mark 8 Mod 6 AP projectile (the later Mod 7 and Mod 8 designs were post-WWII, so I usually do not count them and they were no better ballistically, to my knowledge) will hit at about 45° downward angle and 1607 feet/second (489.8 m/sec). Just as with a point blank hit at 2500 feet/second (762 m/sec) and 45° obliquity, this hit too will barely hole the plate as the projectile is hitting at 0° (normal) obliquity, though not completely penetrate it. Any slight barrel wear will lower the muzzle and striking velocities and no holing will occur at THESE OR ANY OTHER ranges, as mentioned. However, this is so far above any real fighting range (even with radar it is hard to see the target due to the earth's curvature interfering, especially in any kind of imperfect seeing conditions) that I do not even consider it in my computations, while putting the gun barrel up to almost touching the enemy turret is also a pipe dream in real life! Thus, no holing or complete penetrations, ever, though possibly some cracking of the plate and possible jamming of the turret if the crack-off plate piece is dislodged badly enough. Therefore, these plates are the only warship armor plates that could not be completely penetrated by ANY gun ever put on a warship when installed leaning back at 45°, as they were in the actual turrets!!! Even to completely hole the plate all the way through at that inclination requires a brand new 16"/50 Mark 7 or German 38cm SK C/34 gun at point-blank range firing the latest versions of their respective AP projectiles; it might be cracked at a lower striking velocity, but no hole put entirely through it! AND THEY SAID GUNS HAD COMPLETELY OVERMATCHED ALL ARMOR--*NOT SO*!!! And battleships were designed to fight in an "Immune Zone," inbetween which long range fire would plunge through the deck to the inner edge, where oblique hits would bore through armor like this. In the Bismark vs. Hood engagement, the chance hit at very long range on the Hood doomed the ship where getting hit at closer range may not have resulted in catastrophic damage. The Hood was trying to close the distance to get into this Immune Zone. |
|
Quoted: American ships had better steel and radars. Imho the ranking is as follows 1. Iowa class 2. South Dakota class 3. Yamato class 4. North Carolina class 5. Bismarck class 6. Vittorio class 7. King George V class 8. Richelieu class Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Iowas were the cream of the crop. In fact, iowa's guns could out penetrate the Japanese's 18 inches. Not to mention the Iowas had way better FCS. |
|
On paper, Hood and PoW had the advantage over Bismark/PE; in reality not so much. There's a multitude of factors involved( including pure luck) and relative ship attributes is only one of them.
With that said, I like an Iowa's chances. Much better fire control, and a speed advantage that allows them to dictate the time, place, and range of the engagement are not to be discounted. |
|
Quoted:
Yes... That's what happens when you shoot a shell at a zero-degree offset target at muzzle velocity... Which in no way is indicative on how well it would've done at range and with a properly placed angle. Quoted:
Quoted:
Hard to beat those 18" guns in a straight up broadside, but our AP rounds were fairly effective. Report 26" Japanese armor pierced by US 16" AP round http://www.strangemilitary.com/images/content/186274.jpg Yes... That's what happens when you shoot a shell at a zero-degree offset target at muzzle velocity... Which in no way is indicative on how well it would've done at range and with a properly placed angle. FINAL COMMENTS:
At about 40,000 yards, the U.S. Navy 16"/50 firing a 16" Mark 8 Mod 6 AP projectile (the later Mod 7 and Mod 8 designs were post-WWII, so I usually do not count them and they were no better ballistically, to my knowledge) will hit at about 45° downward angle and 1607 feet/second (489.8 m/sec). Just as with a point blank hit at 2500 feet/second (762 m/sec) and 45° obliquity, this hit too will barely hole the plate as the projectile is hitting at 0° (normal) obliquity, though not completely penetrate it. Any slight barrel wear will lower the muzzle and striking velocities and no holing will occur at THESE OR ANY OTHER ranges, as mentioned. However, this is so far above any real fighting range (even with radar it is hard to see the target due to the earth's curvature interfering, especially in any kind of imperfect seeing conditions) that I do not even consider it in my computations, while putting the gun barrel up to almost touching the enemy turret is also a pipe dream in real life! Thus, no holing or complete penetrations, ever, though possibly some cracking of the plate and possible jamming of the turret if the crack-off plate piece is dislodged badly enough. Therefore, these plates are the only warship armor plates that could not be completely penetrated by ANY gun ever put on a warship when installed leaning back at 45°, as they were in the actual turrets!!! Even to completely hole the plate all the way through at that inclination requires a brand new 16"/50 Mark 7 or German 38cm SK C/34 gun at point-blank range firing the latest versions of their respective AP projectiles; it might be cracked at a lower striking velocity, but no hole put entirely through it! AND THEY SAID GUNS HAD COMPLETELY OVERMATCHED ALL ARMOR--*NOT SO*!!! True, but that plate with the hole is the turret face armor and far thicker than any other armor on the Yamatos, except maybe the conning tower. The rest of the armor was 18" or less and not all that well designed. Metallurgy was thought to be mediocre also, but there isn't much in the way of samples left to evaluate. |
|
Quoted:
American ships had better steel and radars. Imho the ranking is as follows 1. Iowa class 2. South Dakota class 3. Yamato class 4. North Carolina class 5. Bismarck class 6. Vittorio class 7. King George V class 8. Richelieu class Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I live in Pittsburgh, and I think the Krupps of Essen laugh in your general direction
|
|
Quoted:
Damn. Quoted:
Quoted:
Hard to beat those 18" guns in a straight up broadside, but our AP rounds were fairly effective. Report 26" Japanese armor pierced by US 16" AP round http://www.strangemilitary.com/images/content/186274.jpg Damn. Yeah, damn. Seeing it in person is more like "Holy cat's ass". |
|
Quoted: American ships had better steel and radars. Imho the ranking is as follows 1. Iowa class 2. South Dakota class 3. Yamato class 4. North Carolina class 5. Bismarck class 6. Vittorio class 7. King George V class 8. Richelieu class Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I've always found it interesting that because the Iowa's were with the cv's, they never fought ship to ship as did a BB from almost evey other USN class. |