I know a missed a handful, but it looks like 4-6 torpedoes were usually sufficient to sink battleship up to about 40k (empty) displacement.
So for a modern battleship the size of the Yamato to take 10-14 torpedoes to sink seems to make sense. I have left out ships sunk in port on purpose, as these were often not at battle stations when hit, which effects damage control in a huge way. I'd also add that while bombs carried by strike aircraft generally did not pose much danger to the sinking of a battleship, they could effect damage control both the parties conducting it and the mechanical issue of damage control.
There is no way even a 1760 pound AP bomb should have been able to pierce her deck armor.
we have the Prince of Wales sunk by 4 torpedoes, though 1 may well have done the job,
Unlike naval artillery, bombs can strike decks at or very near the normal (a right angle). Given a high enough release point and corresponding high velocity even a much smaller AP bomb striking at or near the normal could defeat such deck protection. A bomb penetration is not unlikely at all. It may have been flash rather than a full intact penetration, however.
I have found original data on the US 1600 lb AP bomb. The terminal velocity was 270m/s. At 270m/s and striking at the normal, the penetration is ~205mm homogenous armour.
Yoshimura shows 16 direct bomb hits and 17 damaging near misses from bombs.
In the case of the Prince of Wales it was the warping of a drive shaft by the first torpedo hit aft, which destroyed the water tightness of the ship for some 280 feet-all the way to and into the turbine rooms. It was a fatal hit, but kind of fluke result unlikely to very repeatable.
What is of greater concern was the knocking out of most of the ship's electrical power by the first hit.
Garyt wrote:I might add though that 17 damaging near misses add a lot of below waterline damage to the hull. It's amazing that in addition to the severe torpedo damage the Musahi took those near misses, which I think are more damaging to the sea worthiness of a well armored vessel like the Musahi than direct hits.
Garyt wrote:Yes, I think the POW class was a bit weak in underwater defenses compared to other modern battleships. Not because of that one hit, but because it's voided area was a fair amount thinner than most other vessels of it's class.
Given that only one of PoW's four hits (and a relatively inconsequential one in the grand scheme of things) was in an area that was voided, and the void held up relatively well, what makes you say the above?
Garyt wrote:Given that only one of PoW's four hits (and a relatively inconsequential one in the grand scheme of things) was in an area that was voided, and the void held up relatively well, what makes you say the above?
Considering the breadth of it's voided area was 13', compared to about 18' for the Iowa, South Dakota and Bismarck classes, and a massive 23.5' or so for the Yamato class, and about 22-23' for the Richelieu and Vittorio Veneto classes.
The top of the POW system was not bounded by deck armor, which was a negative as well.
Garyt wrote:One thing that has struck me as odd about the attack on the Musahi - A bomb caused her to lose speed due to boiler room damage. There is no way even a 1760 pound AP bomb should have been able to pierce her deck armor. But the boiler room was not truly damaged, other than steam was pouring out in it. My guess is the concussive effects of a bomb, while not penetrating the deck caused damage to the piping which cause the massive steam leak to occur, rendering the engineering spave uninhabitable.
Garyt wrote:Problem is though that to get to a terminal velocity would require a higher drop than dive bombing. I don't have the exact numbers, but we'd be looking more along the lines of fairly high level bombing. Which to my knowledge, the US was using dive bombing against the Musahi. Level bombing from that height would have had almost no chance of hitting a moving battleship. Ask the B-17 bombers at Midway.
The Yamato class TDS was unique in that it had no liquid loading.The Japanese did some interesting research in this area. Interestingly the system they used for Yamato with no liquid loading was not the best system according to their own research. They went with no liquid loading to give them more options in terms of pumping and counter flooding, however.
A larger TDS doesn't necessarly mean larger capability. Indeed larger voids could mean more flooding and a larger list.
This system was not tested before the ships were laid down, and the results from later testing of purpose built caisson gave cause for concern.
Dave Saxton wrote:The main problem was the rigid lower belt could not deform to help absorb shock. And South Dakota did demonstrate a vulnerability to the shock of its own guns firing to knock out its electrical power.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests