BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?

[lwd]

I'd ask over on the IJN board. Phrase it right and you're likely to get details down to the plane type and pilots involved. They are even working on TROM's for Japanese Maru's over there.

[alecsandros]

Does it have any relevance to the efficacy of "BattleCarriers"? I don't see any.

Well, I think it can attest to a hybrid's ability to fend off attacking planes just as well as a normal battleships.

[Bgile]

Does it have any relevance to the efficacy of "BattleCarriers"? I don't see any.

Well, I think it can attest to a hybrid's ability to fend off attacking planes just as well as a normal battleships.

OK, well we can differ about that. What type of AAA did they have? I believe SoDak claimed 25 once. Of course claims are just claims ...

[alecsandros]

Yes Steve, but the point is that the hybrid did not suffer to much damage (only by near misses). ALso, SoDak and North CArolina repelled large waves of enemy planes, with big casualties for the attackers and minimum damage to the defender.

What does AAA mean? I know AA = "anti aircraft" but what's the last "A" for?

Anyway, we should wait for LEe's answer coming from the IJN board...

[lwd]

AAA = Anti Aircraft Artillery came into use once missiles started playing a significant roll also useful if Anti (Tank) Armor guns are being discussed although most refer to the latter as AT some do call them AA as well.

[lwd]

... About Ise or Hyuga, I read on Wiki that one of them was attacked by ~ 80 dive bombers in 1944, and their AA shot down 10 for no hits.
Does anybody have any reference to confirm or infirm this?

Hyuga's TROM is at: http://www.combinedfleet.com/Hyuga.htm
From it this could be a reference to the attack on 24 October 1944:
Hyuga did take damage in that one but doesn't seem to have been the focus of the attack either.

HYUGA and light cruiser TAMA attempt to provide AA cover for carriers CHIYODA and CHITOSE. Near-misses by bombs rupture a hull plate and spray HYUGA's upper works with splinters. She takes on water and develops a five-degree list due to holes in her anti-torpedo blister that is corrected quickly. ISE is hit outboard of her port catapult mount and also takes on water.

Nothing else there would seem to fit. A book on the battles at Leyte Gulf might yield more details.

[alecsandros]

Here is the quote from Wiki:

"Ise was slightly damaged in the Battle off Cape Engaño, during which Ise's gunners shot down five of the 10 attacking dive bombers, suffering from one small hit on the No. 2 turret. Ise's anti-aircraft cover was ineffecive, and by the end of the battle, USN aircraft had sunk the Japanese aircraft carriers Zuikaku, Zuihō, and Chitose and the destroyer Akizuki. Towards the end of the battle, in the fourth attack, Ise was attacked by 85 dive bombers. After 34 near misses, Ise's hull plates near the waterline ruptured and port boiler rooms were damaged; a bomb damaged the port catapult, and some five crewmen were killed, with 71 wounded".

It seems I misread it earlier - they shot down 5, not 10 dive bombers. Maybe we'll find more info somewhere else...

Anyway, I found info about Ise's AA defense at the time, and it is very powerfull:
8x2 - 127mm guns, 31x3 + 11x1 - 25mm guns, for a total of 16 x 127mm guns and 104 x 25mm guns. The AA was further augmented by 6x30 barrels AA rocket launchers, designed to create a barrage of fire agasint attacking aircraft.

[lwd]

Anyway, I found info about Ise's AA defense at the time, and it is very powerfull:
8x2 - 127mm guns, 31x3 + 11x1 - 25mm guns, for a total of 16 x 127mm guns and 104 x 25mm guns. The AA was further augmented by 6x30 barrels AA rocket launchers, designed to create a barrage of fire agasint attacking aircraft.

See for a : http://www.combinedfleet.com/ships/
for a good account of most Japanese ships. The TROMs will often give you details on when the modifications were made.
Here are some quotes from that source

During the first attack, ISE suffers two near misses.

1005: During the second attack, ISE's gunners claim five of the 10 attacking dive bombers. There are eight near misses, but one small bomb explodes on turret No. 2.
...
1726-1729: During the fourth attack, ISE is attacked by 35 dive-bombers from port and about 50 from starboard. Seven torpedoes are launched from starboard ahead and four from the port quarter. After 34 near misses, ISE's hull plates rupture near the waterline. She takes on water that causes minor damage to her port boiler rooms. Ninety-five tons of fuel oil in the damaged tanks are contaminated by sea water. A bomb hits outboard of the port catapult and inflicts some 40 to 50 casualties. Other near misses by bombs spray her upper works with splinters. Five crewmen are killed and 71 are injured.

Here's what it says about the rockets:

28 September 1944-10 October 1944:
Six racks of 30-tube (180) 127mm. (5-inch) AA phosphorous rocket launchers are mounted in sponsons on each beam far aft. The rockets are armed with multiple incendiary shrapnel charges and a time fuze. The launching crews must wear special protective suits and withdraw prior to each launch.

Given that and their evaluation of the 25mm guns I'm not sure I would consider it to be all that good an AA suite for the time.

[alecsandros]

Maybe, but I can't think of aby other ship which sustained so little damage from so many attacks...
And if they realy shot down 5 dive bombers, it means the AAA wasn't that bad after all.

[Bgile]

OK, as I understand it they were attacked by several hundred bombers and shot down five of them.

[lwd]

Well the first attack it's not clear how many went after Ise however given 2 near misses it doesn't sound like many.
The second attack was by 10 bombers. Resulting in 1 hit and 8 near misses. The hit was apparently a small bomb probably fused for attacking a carrier.
Not sure about the third attack.
4th attack sounds like around 100 with at least 34 near misses.
So hardly hundreds.

[Bgile]

Well the first attack it's not clear how many went after Ise however given 2 near misses it doesn't sound like many.
The second attack was by 10 bombers. Resulting in 1 hit and 8 near misses. The hit was apparently a small bomb probably fused for attacking a carrier.
Not sure about the third attack.
4th attack sounds like around 100 with at least 34 near misses.
So hardly hundreds.

Oh, sorry. Greater than 100? Is that better? I'm not wanting to go back and add up the numbers right now. So they shot down five out of greater than 100? That makes them much better?

[lwd]

I thought it important more because the claims as to how little damage it had received for the number of attackers. Ise seems to have been both lucky and well handled during these attacks. Given the number of attackers you are correct only shooting down 5 doesn't look that impressive. On the other hand only being hit once is pretty impressive especially considering the number of near misses.

[alecsandros]

Exactly. After all, AA fire is meant to protect the ship, not necessarily to destroy everything in the sky (though it certainly is nice ). In Ise's case, my impression is that AA was so dense that many bombers and torpedo-planes were detered from coming to good launch positions, and had to asume less-than-perfect launch positions.

[lwd]

While I agree that AA fire is to protect ships more than shoot down opposing planes there are a number of things we need to consider here before we can make any conclusive judgment about the quality of the AA armament on these ships.
1) The TROMs on combined fleet make extensive use of Japanese sources but they are not always checked vs US sources. So are the number of attackers and kills claims or have they been verified?
2) If you look at at the TROMs for those ships they suffered a large number of attacks not just from planes but from subs and came out relatively unscathed. That suggest the possibility that other factors were at work here especially given the large number of near misses.