IJN design philosophy, in consequence of the nation's certain position of numerical/productive inferiority in a war against the USA, was to seek a technical edge wherever possible.
While the Type 93 series oxygen torpedoes were never really employed during the war in their intended tactical role - i.e, very long range surprise browning attacks against a US capital ship battle-line,
I cringe to think of the potential of the Type 93 torpedo, had it possessed acoustic homing capability.
Where I would agree they were not used was against a Jutland style battle line of US Capital ships, as this just never came to fruition,
What about the failures of IJN torpedoes during Second Guadalcanal? It cost the Japanese that decisive battle.
Garyt wrote:Kind of reminds of a team that shoots a lot of 3's in basketball - when they hit, great, when they do not it's a problem.
the 15" guns are not quite the Equal of the Washington/South Dakota Class.
These torpedoes were not shot from 3 point range (see Frank). They were from inside the paint. They were shot at 7,000 meters or less, at good angles with good solutions.
At those ranges the US armour protection was also over matched by the old Japanese 14".
Garyt wrote:You missed the analogy I was making. I meant that surface to surface torpedo fire is by it's own nature less predictable than gunfire. Perhaps it's partially due to the law of small numbers, there will be a lot more rounds fired in an engagement than torpedoes fired.
Garyt wrote:Interesting point, as a rough rule of them without info on some of the specifics, it seems at around 10,000 yards the barbette of the US armor should be in danger of penetration by the 14"/45 (by comparison, the barbette of a Kongo class could be penetrated at al ost any range by the 16"/45). What seems to be at least on the surface a bit confusing though was the non-penetrating hit on South Dakota's barbette from the Kirishima. Dented it, made it unusable I believe, but a penetrating hit would have stood a very good chance of causing a magazine explosion on the South Dakota. Why it did not pierce I do not know, but the HE or incendiary rounds would not have dented it like it was. Was it luck perhaps for the South Dakota? I'm not sure, but a penetrating barbette hit would have made a huge difference in the battle obviously..
This is in keeping with un-capped shells striking face hardened armour at velocities above what is called the critical velocity. The de-capped shell will shatter when striking the face hardened armour in such conditions even if the thickness of the armour is not thick enough to defeat the same shell still retaining its cap.
Garyt wrote:This is in keeping with un-capped shells striking face hardened armour at velocities above what is called the critical velocity. The de-capped shell will shatter when striking the face hardened armour in such conditions even if the thickness of the armour is not thick enough to defeat the same shell still retaining its cap.
From what I have gathered, de-capping is a rather inexact and perhaps evolving science. Mr Okun has had to go back and revise his opinion on the matter.
From what I've gathered, most of the "test results" have been based on smaller shells, which may or may not behave exactly as larger naval shells.
IIRC, would it not take about .2 calibers to decap a shell based on a 30 or so degree angle?
Which would then mean 2.8 inches or so would be needed for a de-capping layer?
De-capping has been studied ten ways to Sunday for decades. It is not all that inexact.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests