Plan Z

[Plain Old Dave]

Not at all. The United States Navy took a completely different lesson from Manila Bay, Tsushima Strait and Jutland than the rest of the world's Navies did. While other Navies built ships to be survivable close in, the USN stayed with their generations-long proficiency, built on ever since the days of Old Ironsides and Preble's Boys: VERY heavily armed and armored for their size ships with institutionalized proficiency in long range accuracy. Back when the "Gun Club" (Battleship admirals) ran the USN, the most prestigious battleship wasn't the best looking one. It was the best SHOOTING one.

How do you win a stand-up surface battle? Damage your enemy as much as you can before he can bring his guns to range, just like the USN had done since the days of the Six Frigates.

Here, Tirpitz would be in effective range of MASSACHUSSETTS' guns well before she could return any kind of fire. And with radar directed fire control with good enough radar to make corrections to firing solutions on the go, hit probability only increases as range decreases.

USS Massachusetts: 2700 pound projectile, max effective range 37,000m
Tirpitz: 1800 pound projectile, 35,600m

Math is in order.

That's 1.6km or .99 land miles or .86 nautical miles.

Assuming TIRPITZ is making 15 knots, as her Captain would understand your turning radius increases as your speed does and the more you change course the more difficult you make the firing solution, how long will she be in the kill zone before she can even START firing?

She'll be in the range of MASSACHUSSETTS' heavier and more accurate shells for about three minutes or more before she's even at MAXIMUM range for her visual fire control. And the 16"/45 could shoot twice a minute per barrel.

That's 9 barrels, each shooting twice a minute. 18 rounds a minute, 3 minutes. 54 rounds and 145,000 pounds of projectile before Tirpitz could even fire ONCE. BuShips and BuWeps (Bureau of Ships and Weapons, respectively) planned surface battle doctrine to minimize close combat, defeating enemies at long range with superior firepower as American Sailors have done since the days of Old Ironsides, the USS Constitution.

I give the KM their due credit; they had some of the best submersibles in WW2 and some of the later boats were copied in principle by Electric Boat in Groton. Later diesel-electric USN boats of the 50s and 60s weren't that much different from the last U-boats. But for surface combatants, a KM/USN battle would be shooting fish in a barrel that would make the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot look like plinking at tin cans in the back yard.

[Paul Lakowski]

longest range shot that hit any warship at sea in real war was 25-26km, all rest shooting is just a waste of ammo.

[Plain Old Dave]

longest range shot that hit any warship at sea in real war was 25-26km, all rest shooting is just a waste of ammo.

You're doing a good job of avoiding the point.

US battleships had radar-directed guns and could easily make long range hits; at Surigao Strait, USS WEST VIRGINIA scored hits at 20000+ meters with her first salvo. Regardless of range, the advantage in accuracy and terminal effectiveness have to go to MASSACHUSETTS. More metal, better directed.

[Paul Lakowski]

If a 'so called' advantage is not meaningful in the real world- it must be ignored.

[Takao]

If a 'so called' advantage is not meaningful in the real world- it must be ignored.

That would depend...There were not exactly a great number of long range firing actions between battleships. Likely less would involve having spotting aircraft up. So, you have a very limited data set with which to work with.

Still, the Big Mamie did connect with 4 rounds on a French DD at Casablanca at around 27 kilometers - although the exact distance has been the subject of a good bit of discussion. You also have the Iowa & New Jersey, in February, 1944, spattering the fleeing Japanese DD Nowaki, a much smaller and more maneuverable target than a battleship, with shrapnel at between 31 and 35.5 kilometers. so, it is not too much of a stretch to see getting hits on a larger, slower target at such ranges.

[Takao]

From what I've read IJN won most of the surface engagements in 1942, with USN airpower redressing some of this, while in 1943 the surface exchanges were more even and the American air power made up the difference. By 1944 USN had learned to fight and mopped the floor with the IJN.

Well, most of the 42-43 surface engagements took place at night, so, USN air power only got to "redress" this by picking off the occasional IJN surviving warship as they retreated after the battle(most notably the IJN battleship Hiei). In late-42, the Americans were struggling to learn night combat - still, the did have some great victories, but suffered some terrible defeats. During the first half of '43, they were coming off even or better in night combat. By late-43, the Americans had a solid grasp on the Japanese, and the US naval forces were usually mopping the floor with the Japanese in night actions.

You also have to remember that while the Americans were getting better (training, tactics, manpower, technology, etc.), it must be mentioned that the US cruiser/destroyer groups were no longer a pick-up mix of available warships, but warships that now trained and operated together. You also have to remember that the Japanese were becoming worse(repetition of tactics, fatigue, lack of replacements, etc.)

[Plain Old Dave]

, it is not too much of a stretch to see getting hits on a larger, slower target at such ranges.

Especially when you're dealing with the United States Navy, a Naval service that has used long range marksmanship at sea as a key part of battle doctrine since the 1790s. And a key part of the Battle E (USN award for battle efficiency) for surface combatants has always been how accurate the ship's gunfire is.

[Takao]

, it is not too much of a stretch to see getting hits on a larger, slower target at such ranges.

Especially when you're dealing with the United States Navy, a Naval service that has used long range marksmanship at sea as a key part of battle doctrine since the 1790s. And a key part of the Battle E (USN award for battle efficiency) for surface combatants has always been how accurate the ship's gunfire is.

Well, the USN cruisers were not all that accurate in 1942, although the Brooklyns somewhat skewed this as they were attempting to get hits ASAP, without regard to accuracy or expenditure. However, the 8-inch cruisers were not terribly accurate either.

But, then again, no one's cruisers shot very accurately during the war.

[Plain Old Dave]

, it is not too much of a stretch to see getting hits on a larger, slower target at such ranges.

Especially when you're dealing with the United States Navy, a Naval service that has used long range marksmanship at sea as a key part of battle doctrine since the 1790s. And a key part of the Battle E (USN award for battle efficiency) for surface combatants has always been how accurate the ship's gunfire is.

Well, the USN cruisers were not all that accurate in 1942, although the Brooklyns somewhat skewed this as they were attempting to get hits ASAP, without regard to accuracy or expenditure. However, the 8-inch cruisers were not terribly accurate either.

But, then again, no one's cruisers shot very accurately during the war.

Cruisers were always seen as preparation for battleship command. Your assertion is similar to criticizing a high school freshman for not being able to write a collegiate thesis.

[Takao]

Cruisers were always seen as preparation for battleship command. Your assertion is similar to criticizing a high school freshman for not being able to write a collegiate thesis.

If your high school freshman cannot throw strikes at a high school level, he is not going to be throwing strikes in college, the minor leagues, or the big leagues...You need to know how to get the ball over the plate, before you can move to the next level.

Or will you now have a new mantra...The United States Navy, a Naval service that has used long range marksmanship at sea as a key part of battle doctrine since the 1790s, except in the case of cruisers.

[Paul Lakowski]

Hitting a stationary battleship in a port @ 27km [30,000 yards] is not the same as fighting and hitting a maneuvering warship shooting back @ 26,000 yards.

That's why no one treats it as the same claim.....ditto on splinter damage on a DD @ 35.5km [39,000 yards].

Never thought I'd hear Americans making excuses for their poor military performance....sounds like everyone else excuses.

[Takao]

Hitting a stationary battleship in a port @ 27km [30,000 yards] is not the same as fighting and hitting a maneuvering warship shooting back @ 26,000 yards.

Who said anything about hitting a stationary battleship in port @ 27km?

[Plain Old Dave]

Cruisers were always seen as preparation for battleship command. Your assertion is similar to criticizing a high school freshman for not being able to write a collegiate thesis.

If your high school freshman cannot throw strikes at a high school level, he is not going to be throwing strikes in college, the minor leagues, or the big leagues...You need to know how to get the ball over the plate, before you can move to the next level.

That was the whole point of cruiser command. In that era, cruisers were used for the same thing large draft supply ships are now: to train commanding officers in large ship shiphandling. Then as now, the thought was you didn't just want to turn an officer loose with the largest ship in the Fleet, so you train them on something a bit smaller but with comparable handling characteristics. Battleship captains almost invariably came from cruisers, as now Carrier captains invariably come from large-draft supply ships.

[Polar bear]

hi,

Math is in order.

yes, indeed, but sea experience, too.
Perfect visual conditions are an excemption at sea, especially in the Arctic Winter

She'll be in the range of MASSACHUSSETTS' heavier and more accurate shells for about three minutes or more before she's even at MAXIMUM range for her visual fire control. And the 16"/45 could shoot twice a minute per barrel.

Shooting at max. effective range is pure theory. !
And to compare the KM's shooting with the USN's .. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ba ... charnhorst
Scharnhorst, with comparable equipment to Tirpitz', achieved one of the longest-range and documented hits in naval history, hitting a fast-moving target at 26,400 yds.

But for surface combatants, a KM/USN battle would be shooting fish in a barrel that would make the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot look like plinking at tin cans in the back yard.

As we have no proof of that, it is pure conjecture ...
Remember King James' Bible, Book of Proverbs, 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

greetings, the pb

[Paul Lakowski]

Hitting a stationary battleship in a port @ 27km [30,000 yards] is not the same as fighting and hitting a maneuvering warship shooting back @ 26,000 yards.

Who said anything about hitting a stationary battleship in port @ 27km?

OK sorry I thought you were referencing the Jean Bart hit?

However DD cant even reach 30,000 yards so 'USN battleship Massachusetts' was not under fire which I'm told takes the pressure off ..