FYI: Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues

Well may be you are right, but I have found only one mentioning of avgas tubes rupture – on Kaga. At the moment when avgas contributed to fire, she was already hit by 1x400kg and 3x250kg. Her main pump was already gone, her port and starboard fire mains wear out, planes and bombs wear exploding in the hangar. The main contributors to ship destruction wear the fueled planes, avgas fumes and refueling system not so much, but who knows what was really going on there…

In their defense all that I can say is that US got its early warning thanks to radar, they had much more time to drain tubes and to prepare. But Japs had fueled and armed planes stationed in the hangars… But then again, possibly they had no sufficient space on the deck, do not know.

 

From what I've read on Japanese carriers of that era (unlike U.S. carriers in the modern era) aircraft were fueled and armed in the hangar not on the flight deck.

Which makes it an error in the otherwise great movie "Midway" where one of the American dive bomber pilots exclaims over the radio:

"They've got bombs stacked all over the deck!"

 

An interesting note I read on a site that was about battleships.

It pointed out that in all the circumstances where battleships were sunk or severely damaged in World War Two, no other ship (including carriers) would've survived either.

It said that the real cause of the demise of the battleship was the Cold War. The Soviet Union as the principal sea going adversary to the U.S. after World War Two never built a fleet that would be dealt with by battleships. For the first 30 years of the Cold War, the Soviet Navy was still largely a submarine fleet. Only in the last 15 years or so of the Cold War did the Soviets have a surface warship fleet worthy of attention.

 

Akagi and Kaga, wear the dawn of carrier building. They are battleship hulls rebuilt into carriers (this led to many limitations). In the beginning of their career they had three decks. A plane landed on the upper and took ok from the lower. This could be done simultaneously. This shows that Japanese spent a lot of effort to speed up the launch cycle. This is probably why they want to rearm in a hangar, to speed up the process. Later on, the ships wear reconstructed into a conventional carriers. They received a long single deck, but the lower deck did not go anywhere, it received walls, and became a hangar. It is possible that these two ships could only rearm in the hangar (if the lifts from magazines could not reach the upper deck). But later versions of carriers wear quite conventional, with fuel draining better firefighting and I think there is no reason not to rearm a plane on the flight deck.

Don’t get it. If Yamato would be not the largest BB but a largest CV, it would launch fighters and two thirds of US bombers would not reach the force. Yamato already had a radar post.

Not true.
Yamato force was attacked with 386 aircrafts with loss of 10. Yamato and many other ships in its fleet went down with a loss of 10 airplanes and 14 aircrew lives From US side. It took two hours.
Musashi – Yamato sister ship was attacked and was sunk at a cost of 18 airplanes.

The carrier killed the BB not the absence of targets.

 

^I think it was talking about in terms of damage that any other warship would've been sunk just like the battleships were.

If Enterprise had been attacked by 386 aircraft it would've been sunk just as assuredly as Yamato was. It's air wing would've inflicted more losses than the Yamato did of course, but it would've still gone down.

 

I agree but you do understand that comparison in such a manner is childish.

It is safe to say that I can send a modern Nuclear Submarine to repairs for half a year with a single round from AK47. I can. Just shoot through a reactor core first level cooling pipe. But this does not mean, that sending a single solider with AK47, against a nuclear submarine is an operation with any chances of success.


Yamato task was “Attack on shipping”, near Okinawa. The group consisted of Yamato, light cruiser and 8 destroyers. That’s OK protection from a submarine.

CV uses “distance” in the same manner as BB uses “armor”. Enterprise would employ its airwing from maximum distance, and it would have targeting data from Okinawa. With luck, with a lot of luck, Enterprise could deal heavy damage and still return home. Without luck it would be sunk in the same manner, I agree.

 

Which just reinforces that tonnage spent on launchers and missiles is more economical than tonnage spent on armor.

 

I thought Yamato was on its way to ground itself and use its gun for fire support when it was sunk as it didn't have enough fuel to return anyway.

That said, its true comparisons between battleships and carriers are indeed difficult because of numerous factors. But its equally true to that the Pearl Harbor attack in no way meant the "end of the battleship". As any ship tied up to a dock is extremely vulnerable no matter how well armed and armored it is.

The Pearl Harbor attack spelled the "end of the battleship" only in that with the Pacific fleet battleship force heavily damaged and the Atlantic fleet unwilling to send any of their capital ships, the various cruisers, destroyers, submarines and of course the aircraft carriers of the Pacific fleet were "what's left" for the USN to fight with.

Had the three aircraft carriers been at Pearl Harbor and been sunk with little damage to the battleships, those battleships most certainly would've sortied out to fight Japanese units at some point. Don't know how well that would've worked out of course. The Japanese were still committed to the "all big gun battle" all the way up until Midway.

 

The order was “destroy shipping”. If impossible or no means to return - “run aground and provide fire support near Okinawa”. You can read this as “kill yourself so we will not have to surrender you to US”, no fuel to get back.

Do not believe so. Comparison is possible but you need to compare correct things. CV cant soak damage as BB does. I agree absolutely.
But comparison of armor of one ship versus armor of another is invalid, when one ship is built with armor and another uses absolutely different approach for protection and is built without armor INTENTIONALLY (to be lighter and faster).
You should compare damage resistance mechanisms of both concepts. One uses armor for resistance, another uses distance (speed, range, recon). Naturally they are both dead if anchored.

We know the answer to that question. If Japan would use BBs for an assault on Perl Harbor instead of CVs, and US would have CV stationed instead of BB:
Japan BBs would be found by air patrols within 200-100-50km from the island. And sunk.

We know the answer to that question. If the BB would leave the umbrella of a CV, it would be sunk by an enemy CV in the same manner as Japanese super BBs went down.
Please do note the losses in the air wing during an attack on a BB. It is around 3%. This means, that a single CV is capable of numerous attacks on BB. BB anti aircraft fire is incapable of delivering serious losses to the air wing. Single CV is capable of launching at least three full waves (The required 300 aircraft-attacks).

The end of the battleship.
Battleship lost its strategic supremacy. Before Perl, the strongest fleet was the one that had more battleships. After Perl, the strongest fleet, was the one that had more CVs.
From that point, after loosing strategic role, BB became a fire support ship. BB cost more than a CV. A fire support ship at a cost of a strategic ship is too expensive. And that’s it.

 

While we're on the subject of battleships, which country do you think in World War Two utilized their battleships best?

I tend to say the United States but I might be biased. The British at least killed the Bismarck (and some other German capital ships) but the Bismarck was effectively a nonfactor by the time the King George and Rodney got within firing range of it.

 

You know what is a “threat” in a game of chess? Normally, with a medium level opponent you play on “threats”. You position your individual figures in a manner, that they “lock” opponent figures, so that if he moves his figure, your “threat” become an “attack” without you making a “move”, this allowing you to gain tactical\strategicall superiority or win initiative. From a point of a side observer, such a game is absolutely featureless and not really logical.

In terms of marine warfare I am that observer . I am uneducated and I do not see the layers, and layers of reasons that led to one decision or another. (I am into aviation history of WW2 )

One of the very notable utilizations – Tirpitz. She held its post way North, quietly anchored for half of the war. This way Tirpitz was “threatening” the entire region. British had to hold a force doubling the cost of Tirpitz, to assure its guaranteed destruction in case it would sail. This way Tirpitz effectively took out a force doubling its cost for half of a war.

Other aspect, when Tirpitz sailed. British pulled forces from all over the region leaving one of convoys to Russia defenseless (PQ17). As a result 22 out of 35 defenseless supply ship wear sunk by subs and air. To estimate losses:
Lost 3350 cars and trucks, out of 4246
Lost 430 tanks, out of 594
Lost 210 airplanes, out of 297
Lost 99000 tons of cargo, out of 156000


Convoy defenses:
Close support: British Cruisers London and Northfolk, US cruisers Tuscaloosa and Wichita + 3 destroyers
Cruises Squadron: BB Duke of York and BB Washington, CV Victories, Cruisers Cumberland, Nigeria, + 12 destroyers.
Far cover: 5 Russian subs, 10 British and 1 French sub

Playing on “threats” Tirpitz served as the main reason for convoy destruction. But from a point of view of a side observer, Tirpitz newer met the convoy and stood helplessly in its pool for its entire life until finally sunk by British. So I dare not give a summary on all the sides and the entire war. I presume that US Navy is the best, but I am I not educated enough to give a firm answer.