Destroyers vs. battleships - Comprehensive list from WW2 (al

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Destroyers vs. battleships - Comprehensive list from WW2

Post by Byron Angel » Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:31 am

Paul L wrote:
Serg wrote:
wadinga wrote:
Looking at the map of this clash it looks like the Glorious speed increases from 24 to 30 knots takes the warship 1 hour! Is that right?

The CB3011 - 1929 Wargame Rules acceleration curve for COURAGEOUS, FURIOUS, REPULSE, HOOD (which may be considered only as a very rough approximation of GLORIOUS's performance) indicates as follows -

Start Time 00 minutes - 24 knots (starting speed)
+25 minutes to reach - 30 knots
+32 minutes to reach - 31 knots
+37 minutes to reach - 32 knots

B

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2024
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Destroyers vs. battleships - Comprehensive list from WW2

Post by wadinga » Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:49 pm

Hi Byron

Thanks for publishing this :clap:

Do you have anything similar for Suffolk or Norfolk so those who feel the cruisers could have suddenly accelerated into the Denmark Straits fight can see how long building up steam pressure and therefore speed takes? It depends on how many boilers are lit up and ready to be steamed, Glorious was on her way home and evryone had, fatally, relaxed too soon. Maybe some boilers were cold and needed to start from scratch for full speed.

Re the Rules I am surprised it takes longer to get from 30kts to 31kts than from 31 to 32 :? Since the drag is going up under the square law it normally takes progressively more power and therefore more time for each additional knot.

Ede 144 Scheer's first torpedo fired at a stationary target from the stationary shooter missed at only 3-400 yds. The second landed on the picket boat which was in the way, damaged its rudders, circled back and headed for the Scheer luckily (!) sinking shortly before impact. Only the third shot hit the staionary target at point blank range. :lol:

Good Evening to you too Serg. It is not Mr Haar who might be mistaken since he only quotes, but the KorvettenKapitan. He thought the destroyer was close and I'm inclined to trust his judgement. He was there! If anyone saw torpedoes fired at them at 15,400 yds only the suicidal would steam towards them at full speed in order to give them a chance of hitting them. You only need to comb the tracks when the launch is close enough to hit.

The classic long range destroyer attack is Surigao Straits where unaware Fuso and friends steam straight toward disaster helpfully closing the range every minute until impact. At 10-12,000 yds (starting range) one destroyer unit fired 27 torpedoes and the other 54. Now that's how to get hits :D

All the best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Destroyers vs. battleships - Comprehensive list from WW2

Post by Byron Angel » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:10 am

wadinga wrote:Hi Byron

Thanks for publishing this :clap:

Do you have anything similar for Suffolk or Norfolk so those who feel the cruisers could have suddenly accelerated into the Denmark Straits fight can see how long building up steam pressure and therefore speed takes? It depends on how many boilers are lit up and ready to be steamed, Glorious was on her way home and evryone had, fatally, relaxed too soon. Maybe some boilers were cold and needed to start from scratch for full speed.

Re the Rules I am surprised it takes longer to get from 30kts to 31kts than from 31 to 32 :? Since the drag is going up under the square law it normally takes progressively more power and therefore more time for each additional knot.

..... Your observation re elapsed time reaching 30-31 versus 31-32 is correct. I was quickly reading off a graph and obviously erred slightly in doing so.

Here are stats on cruiser accelerations from the same document -

COUNTY CLASS, starting @ 23 kts
25 kts in 1.5 min
27 kts in 3.5 min
29 kts in 8.5 min
30 kts in 13 min
31 kts in 21 min
32 kts in 31 min

LEANDER CLASS, starting @ 23 kts
25 kts in 1.5 min
27 kts in 3.5 min
29 kts in 7 min
31 kts in 14.5 min
33 kts in 24.5 min
35 kts in 45 min


B

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Destroyers vs. battleships - Comprehensive list from WW2

Post by lwd » Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:28 pm

While I agree that both Japanese battleships were hit by DD torpedoes where did you get this info?
Paul L wrote:...
Battle of Surigao Strait, Oct 25th 1944; .... USN BB expended 273 x 14-16” shells and got 6 hits finishing off one Japanese BB. ....
Everything I've read indicates considerably more hits than that.

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Destroyers vs. battleships - Comprehensive list from WW2

Post by Paul L » Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:28 pm

lwd wrote:While I agree that both Japanese battleships were hit by DD torpedoes where did you get this info?
Paul L wrote:...
Battle of Surigao Strait, Oct 25th 1944; .... USN BB expended 273 x 14-16” shells and got 6 hits finishing off one Japanese BB. ....
Everything I've read indicates considerably more hits than that.

Its not the number of shells but the relationship between the number fired and the number of hits.
"Eine mal is kein mal"

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Destroyers vs. battleships - Comprehensive list from WW2

Post by lwd » Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:58 pm

Paul L wrote:
lwd wrote:While I agree that both Japanese battleships were hit by DD torpedoes where did you get this info?
Paul L wrote:...
Battle of Surigao Strait, Oct 25th 1944; .... USN BB expended 273 x 14-16” shells and got 6 hits finishing off one Japanese BB. ....
Everything I've read indicates considerably more hits than that.
Its not the number of shells but the relationship between the number fired and the number of hits.
????
We have good data for the number of shells fired. The number of hits is less well determined but you are making a statement about the number of shells that hit when you say 6 hit. Again I've read it was considerably more, indeed West Virginia may have exceed that number herself. It's also pretty clear that rather than just "finishing off" Yamashiro the battleships inflicted a huge amount of damage.

Indeed from: http://www.combinedfleet.com/atully06.htm
Despairing of a response from FUSO, the YAMASHIRO again increased speed to 15 knots back into the storm of gunfire. By all indications, she was particularly hard hit from 0355 to 0400.
.... After a few unimportant hits, the YAMASHIRO's No.4 turret was blasted (probably at 0355), and a large fire broke out amidships. Thus illuminated, thereafter the brave battleship "suffered many direct shell hits" and "fire raged from aft of No.3 turret to the mainmast".

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Destroyers vs. battleships - Comprehensive list from WW2

Post by alecsandros » Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:02 pm

lwd wrote: It's also pretty clear that rather than just "finishing off" Yamashiro the battleships inflicted a huge amount of damage.
Just an addition:
Yamashiro was not finished off at all by BB gunfire. Japanese accounts mention "tens of hits" (probably 20-25 high caliber hits from wha I;ve read so far), BUT the ship continued to fight well, and even damaged a destroyer and forced 1 CA to withdraw.
Yamashiro was only sunk later, when 2 torpedoes fired by US DDs at extreme range managed to hit her. THe ship rolled over and sank. At the time, she was making 14-15kts, and still had at least 2, if not 3 main turrets operational. No vitals were reached by US gunfire (very interesting).

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Destroyers vs. battleships - Comprehensive list from WW2

Post by Paul L » Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:34 am

As I already said the figures related to a review of the relation ship between the number of documented known caliber shots and the corresponding hits . Nothing to do with total number of shots and/or hits encountered.
"Eine mal is kein mal"

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Destroyers vs. battleships - Comprehensive list from WW2

Post by lwd » Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:33 pm

Paul L wrote:As I already said the figures related to a review of the relation ship between the number of documented known caliber shots and the corresponding hits . Nothing to do with total number of shots and/or hits encountered.
This just doesn't make sense to me. You simply can't determine the relationship between the number of of shots and hits without knowing the number of each. Furthermore if you use an accurate number of shots for an engagment and an inaccurate number of hits your relationship is off.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Destroyers vs. battleships - Comprehensive list from WW2

Post by alecsandros » Tue Jun 26, 2012 9:03 pm

lwd wrote:
Paul L wrote:As I already said the figures related to a review of the relation ship between the number of documented known caliber shots and the corresponding hits . Nothing to do with total number of shots and/or hits encountered.
This just doesn't make sense to me. You simply can't determine the relationship between the number of of shots and hits without knowing the number of each. Furthermore if you use an accurate number of shots for an engagment and an inaccurate number of hits your relationship is off.
HE wasnt saying that.
It's a quote from a previous source.

The exact number is unknown, at least in the sources that I read. Yamashiro was pounded by battleships, cruisers and destroyers, and there were only 10 survivors, shocked and confuzed. The closest to an estimate I guess is Tully, and from what I understand he hints at 20-25 hits. However, it's not clear how many were 8", 14" and 16", and I have my doubts that the majority were battleship shells. [because the damage would have been much more severe after 20 heavy hits. Yamashiro sailed clear out of the battle, with 2-3 main turrets operational, no vital points destroyed, and 15kts sustained, fire control in working order. HE was sunk only by 2 torpedoes fired late in the action by US DDs]

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Destroyers vs. battleships - Comprehensive list from WW2

Post by lwd » Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:15 pm

alecsandros wrote:
lwd wrote:
Paul L wrote:As I already said the figures related to a review of the relation ship between the number of documented known caliber shots and the corresponding hits . Nothing to do with total number of shots and/or hits encountered.
This just doesn't make sense to me. You simply can't determine the relationship between the number of of shots and hits without knowing the number of each. Furthermore if you use an accurate number of shots for an engagment and an inaccurate number of hits your relationship is off.
HE wasnt saying that.
It's a quote from a previous source.
He wasn't? Here's a direct quote from what he posted:
Paul L wrote: Battle of Surigao Strait, Oct 25th 1944; The Japanese command developed a number of plans to counter American advances on Japan, when it became clear that Macarthur planned to move on the Philippines, Toyoda executed the naval component of “Sho-Ichi-Go’. Four separate fleets converged on the Philippines to defeat Nimitz’s Third and Seventh Fleets. In the south, Admiral Shima’s Third Strike Force with 2 CA + CL+ 6DD plus Admiral Nishmura’s 2 BB a CA and 4 DD and clashed with USN Admiral Kinkaid’s Task Group 38.4 with 6 BB + 4 CA + 4 CL & 26 DD. This moonless night battle lasted 5 hours and the out number Japanese were outfought and defeated loosing both BB and 3 DD, while 2 cruisers were crippled and another damaged along with a DD. The Americans only suffered one DD crippled in the exchange from friendly fire. Americans were again successful in torpedo attacks launching about 90-100 torpedos resulted in about 10 hits helping to sink both BB and two DD. USN BB expended 273 x 14-16” shells and got 6 hits finishing off one Japanese BB. American Cruisers expended 553 x 6-8” shells getting 11 hits crippling an IJN CA. Overall the Americans fought well, while the Japanese fought poorly apparently suffering from conflicting leadership and poorly trained crews.
There is absolutley nothing to indicate that it is a quote from anywhere. Furthermore it is flawed or misleading in several ways.
1) 6 battleship hits on Yamashiro (probably consideralby more although as you saw we don't know so possibly even less)
2) "finished off one Japanese BB". Yamashiro was in good shape before the battleline opened up the same cannot be said afterwards nor did they "finish her off" as has been pointed out DD torpedos did that.
3) It imlies that the CA's fired 553 shells to only get 11 hits on a Japanese CA where they were also firing on Yamashiro.
... Yamashiro sailed clear out of the battle, with 2-3 main turrets operational, no vital points destroyed, and 15kts sustained, fire control in working order. HE was sunk only by 2 torpedoes fired late in the action by US DDs]
She didn't "sail clear out of the battle" by any means nor is it clear that "no vital points were destroyed. The battleline checked fire to avoid friendly fire which there had already been some of and could have reengaged quite easily. Just how much damage had been done is also unclear. She may have been in sinking condition or not, we don't know how much of her fire control apparatus was still functional or what other damage had occured.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Destroyers vs. battleships - Comprehensive list from WW2

Post by alecsandros » Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:27 am

lwd wrote:
She didn't "sail clear out of the battle" by any means nor is it clear that "no vital points were destroyed. The battleline checked fire to avoid friendly fire which there had already been some of and could have reengaged quite easily. Just how much damage had been done is also unclear. She may have been in sinking condition or not, we don't know how much of her fire control apparatus was still functional or what other damage had occured.
Yes we do, from the reports of the few survivors.
Again, I recommend Tunny's book...

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Destroyers vs. battleships - Comprehensive list from WW2

Post by lwd » Wed Jun 27, 2012 3:24 pm

alecsandros wrote:... Yes we do, from the reports of the few survivors.
Again, I recommend Tunny's book...
I've got it and I've read it. There's no way we have an accurate image of her status from the reports of what 10 survivors? Shinano wasn't knonw to be in sinking condition until at least a couple hours after she was hit I beleive and that was a much simpler case.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Destroyers vs. battleships - Comprehensive list from WW2

Post by alecsandros » Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:00 pm

Indeed,
Yet this is what the author wrote and it is the only source than I know that treats this aspect.

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Destroyers vs. battleships - Comprehensive list from WW2

Post by Paul L » Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:00 pm

Lee why don't you sit back and enjoy Spain and Portugal game instead of nitpicking over nothing. My figures only relate to relation ship between shot and hits.
"Eine mal is kein mal"

Post Reply