WWII battleship IJN Musashi found
Discussion
Mr. Potato Head said:
Been reading this thread with interest.Came across this site a good few years ago
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/history/bisf...
jmorgan said:
Been reading this thread with interest.
Came across this site a good few years ago
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/history/bisf...
Came across this site a good few years ago
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/history/bisf...
jmorgan's link said:
At first, Rodney’s 16” (40.6 cm) guns caused extensive damage to itself. The concussion of the powerful guns prompted water pipes to burst, cast-iron fittings and beams to crack and tile decking to shatter. Hundreds of water leaks sprang up, bolts and rivets popped loose, furniture overturned, lockers and wires were torn loose, light bulbs and ceramic toilets were smashed, and urinals were blown off bulkheads.
Tyne built, that ship. 
castex said:
jmorgan said:
Been reading this thread with interest.
Came across this site a good few years ago
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/history/bisf...
Came across this site a good few years ago
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/history/bisf...
jmorgan's link said:
At first, Rodney’s 16” (40.6 cm) guns caused extensive damage to itself. The concussion of the powerful guns prompted water pipes to burst, cast-iron fittings and beams to crack and tile decking to shatter. Hundreds of water leaks sprang up, bolts and rivets popped loose, furniture overturned, lockers and wires were torn loose, light bulbs and ceramic toilets were smashed, and urinals were blown off bulkheads.
Tyne built, that ship. jmorgans's link said:
Hundreds of water leaks sprang up, bolts and rivets popped loose, furniture overturned, lockers and wires were torn loose, light bulbs and ceramic toilets were smashed, and urinals were blown off bulkheads.
Talking of the Tyne, that brings back memories of the Tuxedo Princess in the mid-eighties....the only thing missing is a mention of the lingering smell of vomit.Great discussion.
My personal view is that war is just luck. I'm not aware of very many battles where one side just ground the other down with superiority alone. In almost every case at least one side has reacted or not reacted to an evolving situation and some of those reactions would prove counter productive.
It's not like a game of chess where you can spend hours thinking of your next move, playing out all possible future scenarios in your mind.
Being tactically and strategically brilliant is no match for being hopelessly out gunned or out numbered, in the same way that being numerically superior is no match for an enemy who sees an opportunity to exploit a sudden or temporary weakness.
So many things could have been slightly different at the Battle of Denmark Strait. Similarly if Admiral Nagumo hadn't re-prioritised American targets and been caught by a single Dauntless attack with flight decks covered in Kates and Vals with bombs and torpedos strewn everywhere and lost 75% of his fleet carriers, the Battle of Midway may have turned out differently. Similarly to the Battle of Denmark Strait, the Japanese certainly *could* have won that looking at trump cards alone. It didn't work out on the night. One decision (to re-arm the torpedo force with bombs for a 2nd attempt at Midway) probably cost Japan their ability to project naval air power in strength for the rest of the war.
My personal view is that war is just luck. I'm not aware of very many battles where one side just ground the other down with superiority alone. In almost every case at least one side has reacted or not reacted to an evolving situation and some of those reactions would prove counter productive.
It's not like a game of chess where you can spend hours thinking of your next move, playing out all possible future scenarios in your mind.
Being tactically and strategically brilliant is no match for being hopelessly out gunned or out numbered, in the same way that being numerically superior is no match for an enemy who sees an opportunity to exploit a sudden or temporary weakness.
So many things could have been slightly different at the Battle of Denmark Strait. Similarly if Admiral Nagumo hadn't re-prioritised American targets and been caught by a single Dauntless attack with flight decks covered in Kates and Vals with bombs and torpedos strewn everywhere and lost 75% of his fleet carriers, the Battle of Midway may have turned out differently. Similarly to the Battle of Denmark Strait, the Japanese certainly *could* have won that looking at trump cards alone. It didn't work out on the night. One decision (to re-arm the torpedo force with bombs for a 2nd attempt at Midway) probably cost Japan their ability to project naval air power in strength for the rest of the war.
jamieduff1981 said:
So many things could have been slightly different at the Battle of Denmark Strait. Similarly if Admiral Nagumo hadn't re-prioritised American targets and been caught by a single Dauntless attack with flight decks covered in Kates and Vals with bombs and torpedos strewn everywhere and lost 75% of his fleet carriers, the Battle of Midway may have turned out differently. Similarly to the Battle of Denmark Strait, the Japanese certainly *could* have won that looking at trump cards alone. It didn't work out on the night. One decision (to re-arm the torpedo force with bombs for a 2nd attempt at Midway) probably cost Japan their ability to project naval air power in strength for the rest of the war.
One conlcudes that the outcome of many battles must have been decided by an element of luck - an intelligence break perhaps, or the first shell happening to hit the bridge and kill the Admiral. The superiority of your kit, or the training of your men, or your superiority in numbers, just reduces the amount of luck (risk) required...And going back to Pearl Harbor, it was luck/unluck that the US carriers were at sea - they were the primary targets.
I suppose you trust to good commanders that make their own luck. You can move the bigger pieces to the places that you want. The luck there I suppose is the enemy not getting wind of it, you then have to hope the the outcome you want is grasped by commanders with the wherewith all to think on their feet. The infrastructure to maintain ships and subs at Pearl Harbour was left alone, I assume that was down to planning but it would have been a bigger blow than the battleships.
Not so sure, without anything to oppose the Japanese fleet and with air attacks against the sleeping west coast I'm not sure that the American government would have had time to build up for a fight back. Instead the U.S. ceed control over the Philippines, Wake, Midway and Samoa in exchange for peace. In effect removing them from the war on both fronts in a single lethal strike.
The US were in a war were they were the attacked. They would have gone for it. H man assured they were in Europe, the military manufacturing might was going to get used. East coast US at the mercy of Japan? They would not have gone for peace.
Edit. East coast? Fopin el, I meant the other East, the one called west.
Edit. East coast? Fopin el, I meant the other East, the one called west.
Edited by jmorgan on Thursday 12th March 11:13
V8 Fettler said:
If the USN aircraft carriers were destroyed at Pearl Harbour when the Japanese attacked then the end result is still the same: the Americans defeat the Japanese because the Americans have a superior industrial base, superior technology and superior numbers of men.
You're right, it would just have taken longer. IIRC Yamamoto said after Pearl Harbor that all they'd done was 'pull the tail of the sleeping tiger' - and how right he was.IanMorewood said:
Not so sure, without anything to oppose the Japanese fleet and with air attacks against the sleeping west coast I'm not sure that the American government would have had time to build up for a fight back. Instead the U.S. ceed control over the Philippines, Wake, Midway and Samoa in exchange for peace. In effect removing them from the war on both fronts in a single lethal strike.
If the Japanese attacked the West Coast, the end result (perhaps 5 years later) would have been even greater destruction of the Japanese mainland. The Americans would never have accepted a negotiated peace following Pearl Harbour, hence the requirement for unconditional surrender in 1945.V8 Fettler said:
If the USN aircraft carriers were destroyed at Pearl Harbour when the Japanese attacked then the end result is still the same: the Americans defeat the Japanese because the Americans have a superior industrial base, superior technology and superior numbers of men.
The US bust a gut to repair the damage caused at Pearl Harbor and had most of the ships back in action within a year, including three battleships. All but three of the damaged ships were back in action by mid 1944. If the carriers had been hit I think the outcome would have been the same; they would have been repaired and the war effort might have been delayed by a few months. But what might the Japanese have achieved in that few months?If carriers had been destroyed at pearl and if it had gotten as far as japan attacking US west coast, any approaching carrier fleet would have had to deal with a very 'aggressive' response from a overwhelming land based air attack, I suspect that would then have been then end of said carrier fleet and any support or invasion fleet that might have been with it.
More likely it would have given J a period of free reign in the Pacific to take and 'harden' multiple targets and soften the appetite of the US to undertake counter offensive action, until such time that they had re built an overwhelming force. As it said at the end of the movie, 'a sleeping giant'
More likely it would have given J a period of free reign in the Pacific to take and 'harden' multiple targets and soften the appetite of the US to undertake counter offensive action, until such time that they had re built an overwhelming force. As it said at the end of the movie, 'a sleeping giant'
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff