StellarRat Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Well you're going to get 14" in CM:BN - is that good enough ;-) No, only wimpy British and German BBs used < 16". The Americans used manly 16" guns after diddling around with those girly-man 14" guns for far too long. The Japanese even had extra manly samurai 18" guns. :-) Remember it's size of your guns that matters not how you use them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 That would explain why the USS Texas (of all things!) had a 14" main battery. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barkhorn1x Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Older battle wagons supported the landings (the Texas for example) so 14" is appropriate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barkhorn1x Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 The Japanese even had extra manly samurai 18" guns. :-) Remember it's size of your guns that matters not how you use them. Ahh...the Yamato and Musashi - the two largest battleships ever built. Not quite as handy as the Iowa class however (and you can still visit those). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Ahh...the Yamato and Musashi - the two largest battleships ever built. Not quite as handy as the Iowa class however (and you can still visit those). You can still visit the Japanese ones too - just don't wear your good clothes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barkhorn1x Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Ahh...the Yamato and Musashi - the two largest battleships ever built. Not quite as handy as the Iowa class however (and you can still visit those). Here is shot of the Iowa in Suisun Bay CA. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Suisun+Bay&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl Zoom in - it's the one with the BIG guns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Here is shot of the Iowa in Suisun Bay CA. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Suisun+Bay&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl Zoom in - it's the one with the BIG guns. I had no idea that's where she was. Thanks. They should dock her next to the Hornet and make her part of the museum. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyJJ Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 No, only wimpy British and German BBs used < 16". The Americans used manly 16" guns after diddling around with those girly-man 14" guns for far too long. The Japanese even had extra manly samurai 18" guns. :-) Remember it's size of your guns that matters not how you use them. The Royal Navy had no need for bigger guns because they managed the job fine with the smaller 14". Bigger guns were just compensating 'cause y'all couldn't hit anything accurately. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Ahem *HOOD!* ahem.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerner Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 cough *Repulse* cough cough *Prince of Wales* cough 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 The Royal Navy had no need for bigger guns because they managed the job fine with the smaller 14". Bigger guns were just compensating 'cause y'all couldn't hit anything accurately. WASHINGTON ACTION REPORT SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING EVENTS AND GENERAL COMMENT On the night of November 14-15 WASHINGTON was flagship of Commander Task Force 64 (ComBatDiv 6). In column, with four destroyers ahead and SOUTH DAKOTA astern, she stood north between Russell and Guadalcanal, then east and southeast, passing north of Savo. Standing west from this point, first radar contact was made at 0001 with enemy ships east of Savo. From 0016 to 0019 fired 42 rounds 16", opening at 18,500 yards, at large cruiser or battleship which it is believed was sunk. From 0016 to 0017 fired 100 rounds 5" at ranges 12 to 13,000 yards at enemy cruiser or large destroyer which was also engaged by SOUTH DAKOTA and was left burning... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 The Royal Navy had no need for bigger guns because they managed the job fine with the smaller 14". Then explain to me please why the Nelson and Rodney were both fitted out with 16" main batteries. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Then explain to me please why the Nelson and Rodney were both fitted out with 16" main batteries. Michael Because they were so slow they wanted to make sure they could hurt anything that wandered by before it ran off? :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 What WW2 really proved is that the importance of battleship gun size is infinitesimal compared to the importance of the Combat Air Patrol. No fighter cover was, and is, a one way trip the bottom of the sea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 What WW2 really proved is that the importance of battleship gun size is infinitesimal compared to the importance of the Combat Air Patrol. No fighter cover was, and is, a one way trip the bottom of the sea. Up until about 25 years ago I might agree with you but today I'll take an Aegis cruiser in my TF over CAP any day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Late model BBs were the Aegis cruisers of their day. They had 3 - 4x the AA of early war BBs. Very few Japanese planes survived the final approach to American carriers late in the war. In the pictures and movies I've seen the flak is so heavy it actually blackens the sky. My guess is that massed modern missile cruisers probably would take a lot of fighters down in any attack on a well organized fleet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyJJ Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 13,000 yards? Is that the best you Yanks can do? HMS Warspite against the Italian Giulio Cesare provides an example of how the British and their "wimpy" Mk I 15" guns managed fine without another few inches. The famous engagement took place in the morning of 9 July 1940 near Punta Stilo, and the recorded distance of the hit was 26,000 yards (23,800 meters). Longest recorded naval hit ever. (I'll assume the Giulio Cesare was steaming away from the Brit offering her full length for penetration ... oh, that came out wrong.) That said, I'd rather not get into a fight with the main guns of the US Navy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 It was 18500 yards in the DARK. Only 117 rounds of 16" were fired and it sunk the Japanese BB. You Limeys spent two hours and 2800 shells shooting at the Bismarck with two BBs and two CAs and still couldn't sink it. They finally got bored and scuttled their own ship. :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Perhaps the fact that the Japanese BB was was a pre-WW1 design BC (upgraded to fast BB in the late 1920's) and launched in 1913 and the German BB was a 1930's design, launched in 1939, might suggest a possible weakness to this particular comparison. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Perhaps...:-) or it could have been radar. :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I can't remember which article it was but the author suggested that the RN's understandable tactic of closing and blasting the crippled Bismark prolonged her eventual death as the shells struck her virtually impenetrable belt armour, causing gradual flooding. The best tactic was to steam away and lob shells at her much weaker deck armour apparently, either way, German survivors testify to the ship becoming a floating wreck (or in SPI's Dreadnaught game a 2S2G counter!). Talking of the relative weakness of the Krishima's armour, her sister ship, Hiei was severely damaged by close range 5" and 8" guns, heaven knows what Krishima suffered when Washington's 16" guns hit her! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackcat Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Perhaps...:-) or it could have been radar. :-) Stunning ignorance in your posts, Mr. Rat, truly stunning. However, please don't let facts get in the way of your enjoyment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLaurier Posted March 4, 2011 Author Share Posted March 4, 2011 Be nice. This is still my thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Up until about 25 years ago I might agree with you but today I'll take an Aegis cruiser in my TF over CAP any day. Truly modern air defense is a ridiculously complicated subject. Even more to the point the people that really understand it are subject to severe sanctions if they talk about it. The rest of us are just blowing smoke for the most part. I do know I wouldn't trust my rear end to Russian radar if I had any choice in the matter, though. It seems to malfunction at the most inconvenient times. If I may be permitted one more smoke ring, the biggest issue facing a top line battle group in today is missile saturation. What happens if a shore based defense launches 800 of the things at the same time. Energy weapons may help this eventually but there are only so many vertical launch cells to go around. On the other hand I would hate to have tell the fearless leader ^#^#^^##head of the moment that I had just fired 800 missiles at an electronic decoy. It might be a shade embarrassing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Stunning ignorance in your posts, Mr. Rat, truly stunning. However, please don't let facts get in the way of your enjoyment. Why don't you fill us in then? I'm only going by what I've read. I do know 16" guns have way more foot tons of impact energy and that radar rangefinding is far superior to optical range finding especially at night. I also know the Washington managed to sneak in to less 8000 yards eventually. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.