A desicive battle WW2

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2863
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby Dave Saxton » Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:17 pm

Correct me if I am wrong Dave- but wasn't Rodney with the HF at that time-given that she was the BB count would have been two 9 X 16" gun BB's and one 14" BB- ranged against the major KM units Bismarck,Tirpitz and Scharnhorst????

Rodney was already on its way for an extended dock yard stay in late May when it was historically diverted to the Bismarck hunt. It would likely not be available for the hypothetical time period.

The British really needed new battleships to counter relatively new battleships deployed by the enemy. It has been pointed out by Admiral Mustin, that the North Carolinas were: "an order of magnitude more capable, even with modernization, than the old battleships." Deploying modernized but old battle cruisers to combat was a mistake made by the Japanese.

The same applied to KGVs vs old British battleships. The old British battleships with the exception of Nelson and Rodney, even with added armour during modernization, had weaker protection than the Hood had at Denmark St.

Although, Rodney had 6" deck protection over the magazines, over the machinery it was only 3". But it was really such things as firecontrol where old battleships were most wanting.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby aurora » Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:50 pm

So no Rodney or KGV-leaves Washington and Duke of York to do battle with the three major units of the KM,however we did have Victorious- if she was not taken out of the battle early on- by the Luftwaffe's dive and torpedo bombers.The really bad news is that Washigton's 16"guns did not outrange Bismarck's 15" guns ie. both about 23 miles!! :o
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2863
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby Dave Saxton » Wed Dec 10, 2014 4:20 pm

What time period are you thinking? The original post was late 41, if I recall correctly, and in the North Sea without any previous warfare. It kind of morphed into a PQ17 scenario as a more realistic clash. Scharnhorst wasn't there in July 42.

The max range of the USN 16"/45 used by Washington was 36,000 yards (~33,000 meters). Tirpitz's 15"/52 max range was 36km or 39,600 yards.

Such ranges are not likely to be a factor though. The British fighting doctrine of the time favored by Tovey was to close to 12,000 yards as end on as possible and fight it out there. After the Bismarck hunt the Admiralty issued a memo that the best range to fight Tirpitz was about 22,000 yards in the mistaken belief that the decks could be defeated at that range. 28,000 yards (~25km) was considered the max practical battle range by the British during WWII according to Howse and Roskill.

In a north sea clash in late fall any surface battle will likely be at night. Air battles by day and surface battles at night. Night battle will almost always be at shorter battle ranges simply because the exact enemy target and ship type can not be identified at long ranges at night.

A July PQ17 scenario means 24 hours of day light. But in those waters, anytime of year, fog and mist will likely be present.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby aurora » Wed Dec 10, 2014 4:48 pm

I thought that the setting was late 1941-early 1942-any time after that -no Bismarck.Do you agree the Allies are represented hy the HF with DOY vice KGV,Renown and Victorious- augmented by the American's Washington.Wicita and Tuscaloosa.The German contingent being Bismarck,Tirpitz,Hipper and Prinz Eugen.The venue.say the Barents Sea
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby RF » Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:23 pm

tameraire01 wrote:The reason for the sortie is disrupt the convoys and force the RN into a battle it cannot win.


OK, that's the first part, however I did mention the requirement that the Germans had a substantial chance of winning in order for Raeder and Hitler to be interested.

At that stage of the war there was little prospect of forcing the RN into a battle it couldn't win - and then there is the US Navy in the background, or rather, after 11 December 1941, in the foreground.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby RF » Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:26 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:What time period are you thinking? The original post was late 41, if I recall correctly, and in the North Sea without any previous warfare. It kind of morphed into a PQ17 scenario as a more realistic clash. Scharnhorst wasn't there in July 42.


A full scale fleet action at mid- 1942, wherever it takes place, must overwhelming favour the Allies.

Unless of course the run of WW2 is going substantially differently than it was to reality.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 563
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby paul.mercer » Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:38 am

Gentlemen,
Could Washington have handled either Bismarck or Tirpitz on her own, i.e. one to one?

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2863
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby Dave Saxton » Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:10 pm

paul.mercer wrote:Gentlemen,
Could Washington have handled either Bismarck or Tirpitz on her own, i.e. one to one?

Anything is possible but North Carolina and Washington had the lightest armour protection of the modern battleships. They would have little to no IZ against Tirpitz's guns. The Tirpitz could hold up to the 16" fire better than Washington could hold up to 15" fire. I would expect it more likely that Tirpitz would hit first and more often.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Harrywek

A desicive battle WW2

Postby Harrywek » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:29 pm

History reports that during the Battle for Midway, about 35 or so torpedo bombers TBMs I presume were sent to attack the Japanese carriers. However, the attack was a disaster in that the bombers got no hits and most were shot down by Japanese Zeros. Another US air attack on the Japanese carriers by dive bombers SBDs I presume this time was very successful in that they sunk three of the four Japanese heavy carriers. My question is: Were the torpedo bombers, slow lumbering aircraft with mostly inexperienced pilots, sent to sucker in the Japanese Zeros so that the dive bombers can have their field day?

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: A desicive battle WW2

Postby RF » Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:36 am

There wasn't any specific plan for that, its just how it all panned out.

Japanese fighters should have been poisoned over the carriers as a reserve against further attack - but they had all gone after the torpedo bombers and didn't have enough time to climb and meet the dive bombers.

The diamond close formation of the carriers didn't help either, as three out of the four were attacked.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests