WWII battleship IJN Musashi found

[SWTH]

Simpo Two said:

Ironically Taranto was the inspiration for Pearl Harbor. And whilst the latter caused much damage and loss, the ships under attack were moored up in harbour in peacetime - so hardly a fair fight or test of air vs sea.

We can see now that air was going to win - but it may not have been so easy at the time.

I have to admit I do like Al Murrays take on Pearl Harbour; 'Pearl Harbour, where the Americans were taken completely by surprise, TWO YEARS into a world war!'

But you are right, despite the issues at hand, the Americans weren't actually at war with Japan on the morning of December the 7th. But the principle stands - a WWII battleship could land a shell with some degree of accuracy over 20 miles away. Even if the Pacific Fleet had been at sea, they were being struck at by a force that could exceed that range by a factor of 10. Plus, even if a carrier loses half of its air wing, aircraft can be replaced much quicker than a capital ship (though I admit a pilot takes longer to grow). In just six years, the face of naval warfare changed completely - in 1939, aircraft carriers were seen as something to have supporting the main big guns - by 1945 (arguably, 1942 onwards), battleships were almost obsolete, with the aircraft carrier the centre of the fleet.

[mybrainhurts]

IanMorewood said:

Italian battleships only saved by shallow water;

Conte di Cavour

And they're still at it with their cruise liners....

[V8 Fettler]

IanMorewood said:

Indeed she was a battle cruiser, point being she took more torpedoes than PoW or the others like Barham or Royal Oak (I know they took bigger torpedo hits as they where sunk by submarines).

Another comparison would have been with the raid on Taranto in which 12 torpedo armed stringbags put three Italian battleships out of action one for the remainder of the war, had they been in open sea then at least two would have been properly sunk.

Musashi tonnage was about twice that of any of the other ships you've mentioned, hardly a like-for-like comparison. Barham, Royal Oak and Repulse were designed on pre-WW1 principles, again hardly a like-for-like comparison.

Musashi was a big beggar, but she lagged behind the best Allied vessels in the fire control and speed. I'm sure Iowa vs Musashi (or Yamato) has been done to death elsewhere.

[scubadude]

IanMorewood said:

I would have thought it fairly simple to locate a ship of such size sunk relatively recently, article though says it's taken him 8years of searching.

For what its worth we (divers) have found new wrecks in sight of shore where even the date, time and location of the sinking where known but the wreck was essentially "lost" because the sea is a tricky bugger :-)

Also, despite a 300mtr long battleship being pretty big once you sink it in an ocean full of valley's and mountain ranges its hard to find- try to find a whole ski resort in the alps, at night, during a power cut from an airliner without a map for example :-)

[SWTH]

V8 Fettler said:

Musashi was a big beggar, but she lagged behind the best Allied vessels in the fire control and speed. I'm sure Iowa vs Musashi (or Yamato) has been done to death elsewhere.

The only real unknown is how an Iowa would last in a situation of constant enemy bombardment - none of them were sunk. The only ships proven capable of taking a severe battering for sustained periods of time were the battleships of the Kriegsmarine - look at how many managed to limp back from Jutland with damage that would have sunk many other dreadnoughts (including those of the Royal Navy), and look at the punishment meted out to Bismarck in the final hours - even then she had to be sunk by destroyers close in with torpedoes (and aided by the crew opening the scuttling valves) rather than by the big guns.

The Yamatos also had a big advantage in their beam not being restricted to the width of the Panama Canal. More width, more armour, vital machinery further away from impact points all aid survival, and as much as the superstructure could be mangled by enemy guns, holes above the waterline do not sink a ship unless (especially in the case of the Hood) they hit something that'll make a far bigger explosion.

[Inertiatic]

Simpo Two said:

They were amazing ships. It still surprises me that a few relatively small bombs could sink them.

Mushashi got peppered with 19 torpedoes and 17 bombs. That's quite a few

[FourWheelDrift]

Talking of the Iowa class ships, USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin although currently loaned to museums have to be kept in a ready state and could be reactivated as per the National Defence Authorisation Act 2007, requiring the battleships be kept and maintained in a state of readiness should they ever be needed again. Congress has ordered that the following measures be implemented to ensure that, if need be, Iowa and Wisconsin can be returned to active duty:

1 Iowa and Wisconsin must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility;
2 The battleships must be preserved in their present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection, dehumidification systems, and any other preservation methods as needed;
3 Spare parts and unique equipment such as the 16-inch (410 mm) gun barrels and projectiles be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iowa and Wisconsin, if reactivated;
4 The navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Iowa and Wisconsin should they be returned to the navy in the event of a national emergency

[Simpo Two]

Inertiatic said:

Mushashi got peppered with 19 torpedoes and 17 bombs. That's quite a few

Furry nuff, I hadn't realised it was so heavily attacked. I guess the torpedoes did most of the work - were they air-launched though?

FourWheelDrift said:

Talking of the Iowa class ships, USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin although currently loaned to museums have to be kept in a ready state and could be reactivated as per the National Defence Authorisation Act 2007, requiring the battleships be kept and maintained in a state of readiness should they ever be needed again.

Good stuff; nothing like a proper battleship - perhaps too vulnerable to take on Putin etc but excellent for dispatching lesser troublemakers from a safe distance. I'm a great fan of 16" shells

[irocfan]

Simpo Two said:

Good stuff; nothing like a proper battleship - perhaps too vulnerable to take on Putin etc but excellent for dispatching lesser troublemakers from a safe distance. I'm a great fan of 16" shells

you - would put a serious crimp in your day having one of these drop something on your lawn...

[gwm]

irocfan said:

you - would put a serious crimp in your day having one of these drop something on your lawn...

That is seriously fantastic in this day of CIWS and missiles.

I wonder what the mobilisation budget would be for one of those ships. ETA: And if you could find the people to do it (please no-one mention Battleship!)

[Simpo Two]

I wonder if that shot was set up for maximum visual effect? Muzzle flash is generally to be avoided as you give your position away. So perhaps for that shot they used 'Extra Flame' propellant...?

[FourWheelDrift]

That's Iowa demonstrating it's guns after it's 1984 recommisioning

another view, kaboom

[Simpo Two]

Definitely a setup (not least the tripods being a clue) - if that was for real you wouldn't want to be that close.

[nikaiyo2]

Simpo Two said:

Definitely a setup (not least the tripods being a clue) - if that was for real you wouldn't want to be that close.

I am 99% sure that post 1984 the interconnects that allow all the 16" guns to fire at once were removed meaning only one gun per turret could fire.
They also had Katie rounds in the 80's, that were nuclear, really making a mess of your lawn!

[Inertiatic]

Simpo Two said:

Inertiatic said:

Mushashi got peppered with 19 torpedoes and 17 bombs. That's quite a few

Furry nuff, I hadn't realised it was so heavily attacked. I guess the torpedoes did most of the work - were they air-launched though?

Yep - Yamato and Mushashi were both sunk by planes. Big beasts but ultimately white elephants. Same as Bismark and Tirpitz really.

Edited by Inertiatic on Friday 6th March 19:51

[MBBlat]

Simpo Two said:

Good stuff; nothing like a proper battleship - perhaps too vulnerable to take on Putin etc but excellent for dispatching lesser troublemakers from a safe distance. I'm a great fan of 16" shells

A lot of manpower required for a very limited utility, there is a reason that everyone else has got rid of their battleships.

for taking out lesser troublemakers at an even grater distance you use one of these

or these

[irocfan]

MBBlat said:

Simpo Two said:

Good stuff; nothing like a proper battleship - perhaps too vulnerable to take on Putin etc but excellent for dispatching lesser troublemakers from a safe distance. I'm a great fan of 16" shells

A lot of manpower required for a very limited utility, there is a reason that everyone else has got rid of their battleships.

for taking out lesser troublemakers at an even grater distance you use one of these

or these

I'd imagine that dumping a stload of shells on the lawn, so to speak, would be somewhat cheaper than a dozen cruise-missiles...

[FourWheelDrift]

Inertiatic said:

Yep - Yamato and Mushashi were both sunk by planes. Big beasts but ultimately white elephants. Same as Bismark and Tirpitz really.

Edited by Inertiatic on Friday 6th March 19:51

Yamato was on a suicide mission on it's own, Musashi had no air cover, Bismarck was on it's own and Tirpitz was stationary in a Norwegian fjord. Repluse and PoW had no air cover. Aircraft carriers on their own or with little escort were also sunk such, Hermes, Glorious, Courageous and Ark Royal. Doesn't make them white elephants. Glorious was sunk by the big guns of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.

When used properly within a battle group they were very effective, in the Pacific, Salerno landings, Normandy. Post Pearl Harbour the USN never lost a Battleship but they operated in every theatre of the US Navy's war effort.

A big ship can carry a lot of big weapons, more Harpoon and Cruise missiles for long range precision attacks than a smaller lighter built cruiser or destroyer, but if you have a target within 20-25 miles then you do not want to be on the end of 9x16" shells hitting you twice every minute.

The Iowa's might cost a lot to run, but in terms of years of service and cost-effectiveness they are a bargain.

[Simpo Two]

The problem with Bismarck and Tirpitz was that the Germans really had no idea how to operate a naval surface force. Hitler understood land power and air power but not naval power - hardly surprising for a country that's virtually landlocked. And so with the exception of the Scharnhorst, which did some useful work and went down fighting - they were trophies, preserved for fear of embarassing loss.

[Inertiatic]

FourWheelDrift said:

Inertiatic said:

Yep - Yamato and Mushashi were both sunk by planes. Big beasts but ultimately white elephants. Same as Bismark and Tirpitz really.

Edited by Inertiatic on Friday 6th March 19:51

Yamato was on a suicide mission on it's own, Musashi had no air cover, Bismarck was on it's own and Tirpitz was stationary in a Norwegian fjord. Repluse and PoW had no air cover. Aircraft carriers on their own or with little escort were also sunk such, Hermes, Glorious, Courageous and Ark Royal. Doesn't make them white elephants. Glorious was sunk by the big guns of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.

When used properly within a battle group they were very effective, in the Pacific, Salerno landings, Normandy. Post Pearl Harbour the USN never lost a Battleship but they operated in every theatre of the US Navy's war effort.

A big ship can carry a lot of big weapons, more Harpoon and Cruise missiles for long range precision attacks than a smaller lighter built cruiser or destroyer, but if you have a target within 20-25 miles then you do not want to be on the end of 9x16" shells hitting you twice every minute.

The Iowa's might cost a lot to run, but in terms of years of service and cost-effectiveness they are a bargain.

True, but they basically became floating artillery rather than naval warships (if that makes sense). As air cover became more and more advanced, the big ships became less and less effective. Remember ships like Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were a class down really than the Iowa/Yamato/Bismarck's of the world.

Putting all that effort into a big battleship was not as effective as smaller specialist craft or a carrier. They were massive symbols of power, but ultimately submarine and air power made them ineffective. They were not utilised as they could have been because of the fear of them being sunk. Yamato, Mushashi, Bismarck, Tirpitz - all did little and were removed from the war by the threat / use of air power. If the Kriegsmarine had built two carriers with 109's and stuka's instead...