The Naval War

AMC

In the case of the Rawalpindi the errors started when she was deployed in such a forward position. In that situation at a time when the only detection system was still the Mk1 eyeball even a real cruiser would have been in trouble. Rawalpindi tried to make a run for and only attempted slug it out when this failed. As to whether Rawalpindi's captain should have been damned I think you could argue that for a long time. His only other option would have been surrender. If anything he clung to the RN traditions of not surrendering his ship without a fight had he done so he would have saved his crew but at the possible price of damaging fleet moral and standing. It is worth noting that the two German battleships only avoided interception by Brtish heavies by a whisker.

On the subject of AMC's has convoy escorts it is worth noting that the heaviest losses in the North Atlantic were suffered by ships sailing independently. Even a feeble escort like a AMC hoovered up ships into a convoy. If you consider the U boat to be the main enemy the presence of an AMC does cut down on its options. A U boat is not going to surface anywhere near something that can shoot back. So that means its best speed drops to below 5 knots making it impossible for a U boat to stay within striking range of even a slow convoy. Where the AMC idea went pear shaped is when they took on real warships. However it is worth noting that no single type of escort was good against all comers. Corvets and frigates are good again subs but just as useless as an AMC against a surface raider. Destroyers are the best all rounders but still going to struggle against a surface raider. Cruisers or battleships should scare off a surface raider but are useless against subs.

Bottom line AMC's were better than nothing, just not much better.

 

Re: AMC

An excellent post, Ebar! I'd have to agree with your assessment.

 

Has anyone read about the Battle of Balikpapan? A quartet of American "four-piper" destroyers made a daring and successful torpedo and gun attack on the Japanese invasion fleet, sinking four confirmed ships and damaging several other with no loss to the Americans. The attack, however, did not stop the Japanese offensive in the region, despite the gallantry and skill of the US Navy sailors. There is one point of controversy: many of the American sailors felt that the Japanese deliberately understated their losses, because when the four-pipers left, the Japanese were busily firing into one another at point blank range, apparently with great enthusiasm. Anyone have any thoughts about that?

 

There will always be variant eyewitness reports. I hadn't heard about any disputes on Balikpapan, but the Sunda Strait events are well known.

 

Would Sunda Strait be the action where HOUSTON and PERTH were sunk?

 

Yep, Houston and Perth and some Japanese transports struck by Long Lances.

 

I've noticed in reading about the Pacific War that the Japanese, while they had the best torpedoes of the entire war, were quite often lousy shots with them. Had their aim been better, HOUSTON and PERTH would have been sunk a lot more quickly. Of course, when their marksmanship was up to snuff, the results were catastrophic for their targets, like at Tassafaronga. One American cruiser sunk and three others damaged, all for the loss of one destroyer; that's good shooting in anyone's book.

 

In the other naval topic I started, we were, for a time, discussing the Battle of Midway. Shall we continue that thread?

 

I have a book on the last sortie of the Japanese battleship YAMATO to Okinawa. The author states that because YAMATO and MUSASHI could only do 27 knots flat out, they were not sent down The Slot in the Solomons in November 1942; HIEI and KIRISHIMA were sent instead, to their doom. But would the outcome of the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal have been any different if it had been the two superbattleships that ran into the task forces of Admirals Callaghan and Lee? Or would they have been sunk just like the other two were?

 

remember tha both battleships, or superbattleships, were sunk by air attacks, the age of the battleship was over!!! :cry:

 

Fuel economy

From what I've been told the Kongo class battlecruisers were used rather than the Ise, Nagato or Yamato class battleships as the Kongos were more fuel efficient - a factor even then for the Japanese planning - and the Japanese holding the battleships back for the 'decisive battle' - if Tiornu's around he may have the fuel usage figures (they were on Bob Henneman's Battlecruisers site but its dropped off - I know its there because I asked the same question there a while back).

 

Re: Fuel economy

Another reason for using Kongos rather than "real" battleships was the fact that they weren't real battleships--they were more exendable. They were the oldest, smallest, and weakest capital ships in the IJN.

 

Anything running around with battleship caliber guns is still worthy of a high degree of respect and like everything else using old battleships was a matter of using them within their capabilities. One of the Kongos did manage to chew up one a American battleship before being taken out. But really no warship would really be expected to be able to go toe to toe with a contempory that was over twenty years younger.

The British got some use out of the old Royal Sovereign class as convoy scarecrows. The presence of Ramillies was enough to make the two Scharhorst class battleships back off.

 

Yes, but that was due to Hitler's stupid "no risks" order.

What I'm asking here is do y'all think YAMATO and MUSASHI would have fared any better in the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal than the two KNOGO-class ships did? Or would they have suffered the same fate as HIEI and KIRISHIMA?

 

Probably - but the American force would have taken a more severe battering.

 

The risk for Yamatos is getting hit by air attack on the way in and the way out. Yamato would not have been crippled by 8in shells.

 

Given the size of the Cactus Air Force at the time, I think she might have escaped being sunk by air attack. As for not being cripples by 8-inch shells, would her superstructure have taken a pounding any better than HIEI's did?

 

I agree!

 

Was it over or just very much modified?
Modified in the sense of having a Carrier with them, at all times?

 

Hiei was not defeated by shells hitting her superstructure. She was defeated when shells caused flooding around her steering gear and in her machinery spaces.