• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bad ideas in war

Musashi was 'really' sunk by overwhelming forces and firepower.

There's always a bunch of fanatics that are convinced that their favourite Japanese or German battleship was si superior to anything the Americans or British gad it was impossible for them to be sunk by enemy action and something else has to explain it.

In reality neither Musashi or Bismarck were particularly well designed ships.
Yamato and Musashi were just big. Bismarck and Tirpitz weren't even particularly huge and had many flaws and inefficiencies.

Their biggest mistakes and problems were that they were always going to come up against superior American or RN forces and be destroyed.

It's all very well having a couple of big ships but the Allies haf several dozen.
 
Last edited:
catsmate said:
It's not true 'thermite', i.e. the Goldschmidt reaction, but barium nitrate and magnesium, plus some rubber. The Tirpitz also used such shells.
They were generally ineffective.
Click to expand...

Thanks, and is the "thermite" used by bomber command also similar or was that actually the classic thermite reaction?

Andy_Ross said:
Musashi was 'really' sunk by overwhelming forces and firepower.

There's always a bunch of fanatics that are convinced that their favourite Japanese or German battleship was si superior to anything the Americans or British gad it was impossible for them to be sunk by enemy action and something else has to explain it.

In reality neither Musashi or Bismarck were particularly well designed ships.
Yamato and Musashi were just big. Bismarck and Tirpitz weren't even particularly huge and had many flaws and inefficiencies.

Their biggest mistakes and problems were that they were always going to come up against superior American or RN forces and be destroyed.

It's all very well having a couple of big ships but the Allies haf several dozen.
Click to expand...


Yes, this video was more on the immediate cause. It's certainly consistent with your wider point. It's s almost certain that Lee was undercounting his hits from Washington. He claimed 9 hits. A Japanese officer counted 23 hits on it and at least one has been confirmed in the same place as he said and 14 hits have been counted on the rear of the wreck. The bow is lost, which convincingly is attributed to Washington's gunnery. And if the shells waiting for loading into the turrets can be ignited relatively easily by incoming shellfire that's not very good.

There are apparently reports from Washington of Musashi glowing red, which would be explained by a massive magnesium fire.

And loading up with so called thermite shells isn't very good if you're likely to face battleships
 
jimbob said:
Thanks, and is the "thermite" used by bomber command also similar or was that actually the classic thermite reaction?
Click to expand...
Generally the bombs were based on the German incendiaries developed during WW1 and used thermite (metallic aluminium and iron oxide powders mixed as pellets or homogeneously) inside a magnesium/aluminium alloy ('Elektron') casing. The metal casing was sometimes replaced by other materials when magnesium was scarce. Noses were generally steel or iron.
The USAAF used similar (often UK) designs.

If you're interested I have a UKGov document on the various designs stored somewhere.
 
catsmate said:
Generally the bombs were based on the German incendiaries developed during WW1 and used thermite (metallic aluminium and iron oxide powders mixed as pellets or homogeneously) inside a magnesium/aluminium alloy ('Elektron') casing. The metal casing was sometimes replaced by other materials when magnesium was scarce. Noses were generally steel or iron.
The USAAF used similar (often UK) designs.

If you're interested I have a UKGov document on the various designs stored somewhere.
Click to expand...
Thanks. You've answered my questions.
 
I think the whole thermite shells thing is bollox to be honest.
Propellant charges have far more energy and potential to do damage.
 
Andy_Ross said:
I think the whole thermite shells thing is bollox to be honest.
Propellant charges have far more energy and potential to do damage.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't they burn/explode far more quickly though?
 
jimbob said:
Thanks, and is the "thermite" used by bomber command also similar or was that actually the classic thermite reaction?




Yes, this video was more on the immediate cause. It's certainly consistent with your wider point. It's s almost certain that Lee was undercounting his hits from Washington. He claimed 9 hits. A Japanese officer counted 23 hits on it and at least one has been confirmed in the same place as he said and 14 hits have been counted on the rear of the wreck. The bow is lost, which convincingly is attributed to Washington's gunnery. And if the shells waiting for loading into the turrets can be ignited relatively easily by incoming shellfire that's not very good.

There are apparently reports from Washington of Musashi glowing red, which would be explained by a massive magnesium fire.

And loading up with so called thermite shells isn't very good if you're likely to face battleships
Click to expand...
You appear to be thinking of Kirishima, not Musashi. Musashi was sunk by air attack only.
Perhaps the biggest contribution of the Type 3 shells to the loss of Kirishima was that her guns were loaded with them instead of AP when she encountered the American ships.

ETA: Posted before I started the video, which does indeed start by talking about Kirishima. So the confusion is understandable. And I now see you made my second point for me!

ETAA: Did Ryan just mistitle that whole video? Only a few minutes in....
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
I think the whole thermite shells thing is bollox to be honest.
Propellant charges have far more energy and potential to do damage.
Click to expand...
For AA or general bombardment? Yeah, they're specialised ordnance.
 
catsmate said:
For AA or general bombardment? Yeah, they're specialised ordnance.
Click to expand...
For messing up your own ship.

I'd guess that they do it differently [ETA propellent charges probably would do their damage almost instantly, and the ship would do a Hood. Not sit on the surface for hours, crippled and reportedly glowing red until sinking]


Trebuchet said:
Did Ryan just mistitle that whole video? Only a few minutes in....
Click to expand...
Ah, that would make more sense
 
Last edited:
Drachinifel covers the loss of the Kirishima and her sister ship the Hiei and the reason for their mistaken use of general purpose shells in his videos on the Guadalcanal battles.



Video on the Kongo class

 
By coincidence Drach answers a question on the San-shiki shells in this week's Q&A video at 45 minutes(timestamps in video description)

 
jimbob said:
The Trump class seems ideally suited to this thread
Click to expand...
ETA: not sure whats wrong with the format I put the yt video in. But clicking on it works. Anyways, its the always entertaining LazerPigs take on it.


Edited by jimbob: 

Yt tag isn't needed anymore, just paste the link




The bottom line is, its way way too expensive to justify like an extra 30% VLS tubes over an Arleigh Burke. The rail gun *might* eventually be a good idea, but really it needs a nuclear propulsion plant to make that work. Theres also the problem that its likely the only shipyard that can build them is Newport News, and that means giving up building a carrier.

Its a dumb vanity project that will never get built. We needed the FFG(X).[/Edit]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lobosrul5 said:
ETA: not sure whats wrong with the format I put the yt video in. But clicking on it works. Anyways, its the always entertaining LazerPigs take on it.


Edited by jimbob: 

Yt tag isn't needed anymore, just paste the link




The bottom line is, its way way too expensive to justify like an extra 30% VLS tubes over an Arleigh Burke. The rail gun *might* eventually be a good idea, but really it needs a nuclear propulsion plant to make that work. Theres also the problem that its likely the only shipyard that can build them is Newport News, and that means giving up building a carrier.

Its a dumb vanity project that will never get built. We needed the FFG(X).[/Edit]
Click to expand...
Yup. And perun, with his professional defence procurement head pointed those out as well as the opportunity cost for not building probably 3 Arleigh Burkes for the same displacement and probably less cost. Or even two DDG(X) for less displacement. And about 25 years further down the design path.

As well as the actual mission. A couple of unproven technologies for weapon systems, but which would inherently have both high power and high energy requirements and both of which are fairly short range - lasers restricted to line of sight and railguns to maybe 100 miles if you are lucky, along with a weapon with planned global reach. Is it a long range sniper, or a close-in brawler?

Still, I guess that it's an achievement to make the worst part of the program not the reliance on 2-3 independently-unproven technologies in the same vessel, but its impact on the rest of the navy, and what it's actually for.


Video below

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom