Bismarck vs Yamato, or, precision gunnery.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So it committed the navy equivalent of a banzai charge?

Heard of "crossing the T"? There were some very hostile old battleships at the end of the Suriago Strait.

I hadn't, but I learn.

It was murder in the days of the sail navies. With radar and 14" guns, it was very, very, bad.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It boils down to gun-laying. It's hard to say, because so much of a battle is intangibles; but assuming identical crew efficiency, the Yamato, clearly.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It boils down to gun-laying. It's hard to say, because so much of a battle is intangibles; but assuming identical crew efficiency, the Yamato, clearly.

I said, "all else being equal" earlier. If the crews have equal skills the best machinery wins. The Big Y was the better machine. Chuck Yeager took a F-87 against a surrendered MiG-15 and beat it. Then they swapped planes and Yeager won again.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It boils down to gun-laying. It's hard to say, because so much of a battle is intangibles; but assuming identical crew efficiency, the Yamato, clearly.

I said, "all else being equal" earlier. If the crews have equal skills the best machinery wins. The Big Y was the better machine. Chuck Yeager took a F-87 against a surrendered MiG-15 and beat it. Then they swapped planes and Yeager won again.

Yeah, machine isn't nearly as important as the man using it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It boils down to gun-laying. It's hard to say, because so much of a battle is intangibles; but assuming identical crew efficiency, the Yamato, clearly.

I said, "all else being equal" earlier. If the crews have equal skills the best machinery wins. The Big Y was the better machine. Chuck Yeager took a F-87 against a surrendered MiG-15 and beat it. Then they swapped planes and Yeager won again.

Yeah, machine isn't nearly as important as the man using it.

"He who has no heart for the fight, let him depart! I will not stay him. Nay, I will give him coins for his purse."

[Warren Dew]

This is where I call on military experts here... given a moving target and the precision required to get a hit at a precise height, especially since entering the water would wreak hell with the shell's ballistics, just how likely is it that a battleship could have deliberately hit a target below said waterline? Would that be even feasible?

Deliberately targeting the area below the waterline would have been unlikely to work.

The issue is that, while one can get very fine control over azimuth in naval gunnery - the compass direction to the target - elevation is subject to bigger variations, both in terms of calculation of the effects and in terms of the effects of roll and pitch.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is where I call on military experts here... given a moving target and the precision required to get a hit at a precise height, especially since entering the water would wreak hell with the shell's ballistics, just how likely is it that a battleship could have deliberately hit a target below said waterline? Would that be even feasible?

Deliberately targeting the area below the waterline would have been unlikely to work.

The issue is that, while one can get very fine control over azimuth in naval gunnery - the compass direction to the target - elevation is subject to bigger variations, both in terms of calculation of the effects and in terms of the effects of roll and pitch.

Warren, flat trajectory rounds, i.e., close up, are capable of doing this if the right shells are used.

[Thumpalumpacus]

"He who has no heart for the fight, let him depart! I will not stay him. Nay, I will give him coins for his purse."

Or, as Pa Thump used to say, "Boy, it ain't the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog."

I look at guys like Lord Nelson or the Viscount Cunningham and am just happy I never pissed them off.

[Warren Dew]

This is where I call on military experts here... given a moving target and the precision required to get a hit at a precise height, especially since entering the water would wreak hell with the shell's ballistics, just how likely is it that a battleship could have deliberately hit a target below said waterline? Would that be even feasible?

Deliberately targeting the area below the waterline would have been unlikely to work.

The issue is that, while one can get very fine control over azimuth in naval gunnery - the compass direction to the target - elevation is subject to bigger variations, both in terms of calculation of the effects and in terms of the effects of roll and pitch.

Warren, flat trajectory rounds, i.e., close up, are capable of doing this if the right shells are used.

Battleships rarely if ever got that close.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is where I call on military experts here... given a moving target and the precision required to get a hit at a precise height, especially since entering the water would wreak hell with the shell's ballistics, just how likely is it that a battleship could have deliberately hit a target below said waterline? Would that be even feasible?

Deliberately targeting the area below the waterline would have been unlikely to work.

The issue is that, while one can get very fine control over azimuth in naval gunnery - the compass direction to the target - elevation is subject to bigger variations, both in terms of calculation of the effects and in terms of the effects of roll and pitch.

Warren, flat trajectory rounds, i.e., close up, are capable of doing this if the right shells are used.

Battleships rarely if ever got that close.

Yep, and when they did things would get frisky.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I was under the impression that plunging fire was preferred, anyway, due to the relative thinness of deck armor, especially once designers started using bunkerage as additional side protection.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I was under the impression that plunging fire was preferred, anyway, due to the relative thinness of deck armor, especially once designers started using bunkerage as additional side protection.

It depends on the range involved. Very long ranges give the benefit of acceleration due to gravitation, one reason the Japanese level bombers at Pearl Harbor attacked from 10,000 feet rather than the more accurate 5,000. When you got really close, say under 4,000 yards, you didn't get plunging fire. In those cases some navies used specially streamlined shells that would cut through the water and hit below the armor belt.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Cool, thanks.

I know the IJN in particular trained for underwater hits, at least according to Hornfischer's Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors, but I didn't know that other navies did so as well, nor that they had specialized shells for it. Thanks.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Cool, thanks.

I know the IJN in particular trained for underwater hits, at least according to Hornfischer's Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors, but I didn't know that other navies did so as well, nor that they had specialized shells for it. Thanks.

Have you read his book on the Guadalcanal campaign? He's one of the few authors I will buy in hardcover these days.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, I haven't, but I will look for it. Last Stand was a great read.