Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by Dave Saxton »

alecsandros wrote:... It doesn't get much cleaner than Komandorski islands - were neither aircraft, nor submarines or tactical factors (surprise, crossing the T, etc), did not play any role. Pure and simple, 2 battle lines going on parallel courses and blasting their guns at the enemy.
My comment was intended to be in the context of introduction of MK8 radar in 1943, which would be post Komandorski, I should have been more clear. My mistake. As pointed out earlier in this thread there is a dramatic improvement between IJN heavy cruiser shooting at Komandorski and Empress Augusta Bay. The Japanese CA shooting was described in the US action reports as exceptionally accurate. Admiral Merril commented:' "Its too bad for the Japs that their luck wasn't as good as their shooting." This shooting was between 20,000 and 13,000 yards- and at night. But maybe we should throw this out because it was only a couple of hundred rounds fired during a brief period of time? Even with Mk8 the USN cruisers posted in turn a 0.25% hit rate with more than 4,000 rounds fired. So far the Germans, the British, and now even the Japanese, posted some improved cruiser shooting from mid war. It was not all equally poor.
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.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by alecsandros »

... Komandorski was fought in March 1943, and it showed no distinct advantage in cruiser shooting on either side. It was several hours long and the 3 heavy cruisers present expended almost all of their 8" ammo supply.
Japanese cruiser shooting stayed apalling, just as all other cruiser shootings of all other major navies did.
Just take a look at Battle of Samar.

Empress Augusta Bay was fought between USN 6" gun cruisers and IJN 8" gun cruisers, so their gunnery should have been consistently different, with the 8" gun having a distinct advantage.

there will always be isolated events which will show very good marksmanship - but that is how they should be considered - the exception and not the rule.
In this regard, USS Portland severely damaged IJN Mogami during Surigao Sfrait, at night, from a range of 14-15km.
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by aurora »

Quote Dave Sexton re. Kormandorski and Empress Augusta Bay
" As pointed out earlier in this thread there is a dramatic improvement between IJN heavy cruiser shooting at Komandorski and Empress Augusta Bay. The Japanese CA shooting was described in the US action reports as exceptionally accurate.[/b

Quote alecsandros re. Kormandorski
" It was several hours long and the 3 heavy cruisers present expended almost all of their 8" ammo supply. Japanese cruiser shooting stayed apalling"

This appears to have become quite muddled-the statements are directly opposite-Alex previously claiming relatively successful IJN CA shooting at Kormandorski
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

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

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by alecsandros »

aurora wrote:
This appears to have become quite muddled-the statements are directly opposite-Alex previously claiming relatively successful IJN CA shooting at Kormandorski
6 hits from 1611 shots fired is not success.
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by aurora »

--but appalling-surely not Alex ? ? ?
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

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

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by alecsandros »

aurora wrote:--but appalling-surely not Alex ? ? ?
English is not my native language,
but isnt' "appalling" a synonim for "dreadfull" or "very poor" ? :oops:
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by aurora »

alecsandros wrote:
aurora wrote:--but appalling-surely not Alex ? ? ?
English is not my native language,
but isnt' "appalling" a synonym for "dreadful" or "very poor" ? :oops:
Yes it is- but what I am getting at is the complete difference between you and Dave;and I would have thought, by now the opinions would be nearer
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

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

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by alecsandros »

aurora wrote:
alecsandros wrote:
aurora wrote:--but appalling-surely not Alex ? ? ?
English is not my native language,
but isnt' "appalling" a synonym for "dreadful" or "very poor" ? :oops:
Yes it is- but what I am getting at is the complete difference between you and Dave;and I would have thought, by now the opinions would be nearer
0,37% hit rate for 14 to 20km (16.000y to 22000y SG-radar range) battle ranges surely isn't successfull shooting...
pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by pgollin »

.

If, when making due allowance for mitigating circumstances, real life experience is worse (or much worse) than training expectations then one should use "real life" for your future expectations.

THAT was one of the truths that professionals knew from WW1, but SEEMS to have been forgotten inter-war by some "experts".

Operational Research formalised the issue, and hopefully it hasn't been forgotten (except by the war gamer types, who cherry pick the best war game rules, or similar, and are disappointed when "real life" results are different).

By the bye, the British did a LARGE study of, mainly, medium calibre shooting in 1944 because they found that the initial shots TENDED to be rather short. This is another thing I really should do a short internet article on.

.
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by aurora »

Unlike the difficulty selecting the best Japanese heavy cruiser, there is no question which American cruiser design was the best in WW II: the Baltimore class. The only materially better heavy cruisers ever produced were the later Des Moines class, and they did not enter service until 1948-49, years after the end of the war.

The Baltimores were enlarged versions of the WW II Cleveland class light cruisers, and both classes stem from the very successful prototype heavy cruiser Wichita of 1935. They were built after the outbreak of the war, so treaty limits did not apply. U.S. cruisers built under the treaty adhered quite closely to the limits. Which explains why the Japanese cruisers of that period always seemed to be superior. The Baltimore class were designed to put an end to that.

By 1930, U.S. planners had concluded that battleships and heavy cruisers should not have torpedo tubes. There were a number arguments made to justify this conclusion, which I do not have space for here. The bottom line is, they were half right: battleships should not have torpedo tubes. Unfortunately, some flag officers had a tendency to look at heavy cruisers as a substitute for battleships, and confuse their roles. From 1930 on, torpedo tubes were ommitted from new designs (including the Baltimores), and removed from earlier ships that had them. All of the other major naval powers armed their heavy cruisers with torpedoes. The German Hipper class, for example, carried one less 8in gun than Baltimore, but added 12 torpedo tubes, on a similar displacement. The USN paid a terrible price in ships and men for this decision, particularly in the early part of the war.

The cruiser battles at the beginning of the Pacific war are no doubt responsible for the number of Baltimores completed, and their arrival with the fleet must have been greatly anticipated, since they corrected the faults of the previous heavy cruiser designs (except for lacking torpedo tubes), and provided a measure of superiority over the large Japanese heavy cruisers.
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by Thorsten Wahl »

Aurora do you have the total weights for armor used on the Baltimores and a armor scheme
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by Dave Saxton »

We are still misunderstanding, and once again its my fault. I did not mean to imply that the IJN shooting at Komandorski was good. I agree it was appalling and appalling is an appropriate descriptor for it. What I' meant to point out was the dramatic improvement of IJN CA shooting between Komandorski and Empress Augusta Bay. Furthermore, the IJN shooting at Komandorski was in daylight and their (described by the USN as excellent) Empress Augusta Bay shooting was at night. The IJN had to have made adjustments.

Also between Komandorski and Empress Augusta US cruisers had Mk3 replaced by MK8, but it made no improvement.

Cape Engano also indicates that USN CA (and CL) shooting remained appalling into the late war period even with MK8.
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: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by aurora »

Thorsten

Baltimore Class CA=14500 tons Standard=17500 Full Load
Armor
Another benefit of the increased tonnage on the Baltimore class was that they could carry a greater amount of armor. The belt was a full 6" thick over all vitals while deck armor was increased to 3". Turret armor was essentially unchanged at 8" from the previous classes though it was still heavily armored compared to other cruiser designs, both friendly and foreign. More armor was devoted to the conning tower which was now 8" thick at all sides. The only %age of total weight I found was the post war USS Alaska at 27.5%

Overall, the Baltimore class were incredibly tough ships that could take large amounts of punishment. A testament of their damage resistance could be seen in the USS Pittsburgh which had its entire bow ripped off in a typhoon in June of 1943. The ship was able to weather out 70 mile per hour winds minus a bow and still proceed under her own power to a port for repairs.

Unfortunately I could not source a jpeg image for you; although there were images in Janes
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by Dave Saxton »

pgollin wrote:.

By the bye, the British did a LARGE study of, mainly, medium calibre shooting in 1944 because they found that the initial shots TENDED to be rather short. This is another thing I really should do a short internet article on.

.
This is very interesting because the US cruiser doctrine was to shoot to hit with the first salvo (with cold guns) trusting completely the radar derived solution and then going straight to rapid as possible fire. Once the wall of water goes up the radar will be mainly ranging on the splashes, with the target being masked, and this measurement was fed automatically into the fire control computors without correction.* There's also the British finding of MK8/Mk13's ranging errors due to the extremely short pulse widths to look into, spoken of in ADM documents.

The 6" cruisers particuarly also tended to fire continuously as fast as the guns could be reloaded instead of by salvos, allowing no correction to be made between salvos from spotting.

Admiral King pointed out, but he issued no orders, that US fire distrubution (of all calibers) seemed to always be concentrating on the same target at once-usually the strongest pip, deluging the target with splashes continuously, which made proper spotting and correction unlikely.

* Halsey pointed out that shell splash spotting relative to the target with radar during night combat proved not reliable beyond about 12,000 yards for medium calibers.

I would look forward to an article Phil.
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.
Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Why was USN cruiser shooting so poor?

Post by Steve Crandell »

aurora wrote: By 1930, U.S. planners had concluded that battleships and heavy cruisers should not have torpedo tubes. There were a number arguments made to justify this conclusion, which I do not have space for here. The bottom line is, they were half right: battleships should not have torpedo tubes. Unfortunately, some flag officers had a tendency to look at heavy cruisers as a substitute for battleships, and confuse their roles. From 1930 on, torpedo tubes were ommitted from new designs (including the Baltimores), and removed from earlier ships that had them. All of the other major naval powers armed their heavy cruisers with torpedoes. The German Hipper class, for example, carried one less 8in gun than Baltimore, but added 12 torpedo tubes, on a similar displacement. The USN paid a terrible price in ships and men for this decision, particularly in the early part of the war.
USN destroyers fired a large number of torpedoes during the night actions in the Guadalcanal campaign. As far as I know, not ONE of them did any damage to IJN ships. They were defective, with exploders that often didn't work and they always ran much deeper than they were set to run. I don't believe that adding torpedoes to the cruisers would change this equation.
Post Reply