D Day 6th of June

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Haighus**

Grey Templar wrote:
Very true.

Though at this point, it is fair to say that anybody who is still listed as missing belongs among the dead. Which would make the numbers a bit higher than the official confirmed death counts.

Well, either dead or deserted. I suppose thatis probably why they leave those numbers, it is hard to tell which.

**queen_annes_revenge**

jhe90 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Lone Cat wrote:
Excommunicatus wrote:
Lone Cat wrote:
Even when The Allies already have The Mediterranean under their control by then ('Imperial' Italian Navy decimated to the point that it exists on papers and not as a real fleet, Sicily taken with Mafia boss recruited to Allies rank, Anzio/Antium and Via Appia became the next target.. etc.). There are other potential landing points Allies may exploit by the Med sea. (and even Monte Carlo, which also occupied by Axis). Why choose a beach that located next to Caen?

It was the shortest distance from England to Germany.

If you play Panzer General original before. if you (you can only play as Germany in the original game) playthrough route went to D-Day, if you won (hopefully Major Victory) you will go to Mediterranean side of France to defend it (and found out that this front was much more vulneralbe)

Shortest routes from Britain to Germany through Normandie = YES
Isn't there also a possibility that Francisco Franco will send his 'volunteers' to sting Allies war effort? so another reasons why Med France was not touched.

Operation Dragoon exists you know that right?
And yes whilest this is wikipedia, it should serve to explain that Franco wasn't really considered a threat due to the dependance of the franco regime for food aid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dragoon

Post revolution Spain was not ina strong state and not up for a large military campaign. Its why they only supplied a few volunteers and never actively declared war or direct actions vs allies.

Between damage done, recovery and such. Spain was not in a very strong position to really be a active Axis nation.

I also read somewhere that the axis involvement in the. Balkans ( a forced move by mussolini that Hitler didn't really want) contributed to Spains reluctance to join the axis.

**Kilkrazy**

Frazzled wrote:
queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I've just finished panzer leader, an excellent book by heinz guderian (the father of armoured manoeuvre warfare) and in his notes about d day, he explained that the German OKH refused to allow the panzer divisions to be pulled back to form mobile reserves able to perform counter thrusts, and forced them to remain as part of the initial defence. So this is another example of Hitler and the high commands lack of tactical acumen affecting the German war effort. They placed all their faith in the Atlantic Wall, and placed no emphasis on strong points or fortifications to fall back on.

Rommel was the one who didn't want a mobile reserve. Fire brigades were more effective in Eastern Europe because the Soviets weren't able to fly thousands of interdiction sorties daily. Once D Day started the Germans were effectively unable to move assets during the day. It took weeks to move one division that should have been able to move in hours.

There is an excellent two books of D Day from the German perspective. its actual eyewitness accounts. The ones not on the beach are filled with constant notations of allied planes attacking bunkers and anything that moved in absolute waves of aircraft.

Lets also remember Rommel was injured by aircraft during DDay. When you can't keep your field marshal from getting strafed how are you going to protect mile long columns of hanamogs and trucks trying to get to the coast?

Lets also remember that, when the Germans did throw fire brigades at the allies - particularly the American right hook coming around - that they were absolutely obliterated time after time.

This is is all true, The allies had massive airpower available and had worked out a good system of ground to air control of fighter-bombers to assist the troops. If they wanted to pound a German defensive position they could take 4-engine bombers off strategic targets and use them tactically.

**jhe90**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I've just finished panzer leader, an excellent book by heinz guderian (the father of armoured manoeuvre warfare) and in his notes about d day, he explained that the German OKH refused to allow the panzer divisions to be pulled back to form mobile reserves able to perform counter thrusts, and forced them to remain as part of the initial defence. So this is another example of Hitler and the high commands lack of tactical acumen affecting the German war effort. They placed all their faith in the Atlantic Wall, and placed no emphasis on strong points or fortifications to fall back on.

Rommel was the one who didn't want a mobile reserve. Fire brigades were more effective in Eastern Europe because the Soviets weren't able to fly thousands of interdiction sorties daily. Once D Day started the Germans were effectively unable to move assets during the day. It took weeks to move one division that should have been able to move in hours.

There is an excellent two books of D Day from the German perspective. its actual eyewitness accounts. The ones not on the beach are filled with constant notations of allied planes attacking bunkers and anything that moved in absolute waves of aircraft.

Lets also remember Rommel was injured by aircraft during DDay. When you can't keep your field marshal from getting strafed how are you going to protect mile long columns of hanamogs and trucks trying to get to the coast?

Lets also remember that, when the Germans did throw fire brigades at the allies - particularly the American right hook coming around - that they were absolutely obliterated time after time.

This is is all true, The allies had massive airpower available and had worked out a good system of ground to air control of fighter-bombers to assist the troops. If they wanted to pound a German defensive position they could take 4-engine bombers off strategic targets and use them tactically.

Lots of radio sets. It's how the Germans coordinated the blitzkrieg. Unlike the allies at times who where weaker on that, especially armoured units.

Later on, any American with a radio could call on the wrath of the entire allied army. Any tank could bring up heavy air and artially support. Lots of communication to there fire support, a single American was not alone if they had a radio.

**amanita**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I've just finished panzer leader, an excellent book by heinz guderian (the father of armoured manoeuvre warfare) and in his notes about d day, he explained that the German OKH refused to allow the panzer divisions to be pulled back to form mobile reserves able to perform counter thrusts, and forced them to remain as part of the initial defence. So this is another example of Hitler and the high commands lack of tactical acumen affecting the German war effort. They placed all their faith in the Atlantic Wall, and placed no emphasis on strong points or fortifications to fall back on.

Rommel was the one who didn't want a mobile reserve. Fire brigades were more effective in Eastern Europe because the Soviets weren't able to fly thousands of interdiction sorties daily. Once D Day started the Germans were effectively unable to move assets during the day. It took weeks to move one division that should have been able to move in hours.

There is an excellent two books of D Day from the German perspective. its actual eyewitness accounts. The ones not on the beach are filled with constant notations of allied planes attacking bunkers and anything that moved in absolute waves of aircraft.

Lets also remember Rommel was injured by aircraft during DDay. When you can't keep your field marshal from getting strafed how are you going to protect mile long columns of hanamogs and trucks trying to get to the coast?

Lets also remember that, when the Germans did throw fire brigades at the allies - particularly the American right hook coming around - that they were absolutely obliterated time after time.

This is is all true, The allies had massive airpower available and had worked out a good system of ground to air control of fighter-bombers to assist the troops. If they wanted to pound a German defensive position they could take 4-engine bombers off strategic targets and use them tactically.

Not really. The accuracy of heavy bombers was known even then to be lacking; they probably wouldn't permit 4-engine bombers to strike tactical targets. As far as I know the only attempt to do so was at Monte Cassino, with less than favorable results. In fact the allies became so afraid of friendly fire incidents, the 4-engine airstrikes set for Omaha beach were directed to release their payloads 20 miles inland to avoid friendly fire casualties! One wonders how many allied soldiers might have been saved if they'd bombed the beachfront area like they were originally supposed to.

**Frazzled**

amanita wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I've just finished panzer leader, an excellent book by heinz guderian (the father of armoured manoeuvre warfare) and in his notes about d day, he explained that the German OKH refused to allow the panzer divisions to be pulled back to form mobile reserves able to perform counter thrusts, and forced them to remain as part of the initial defence. So this is another example of Hitler and the high commands lack of tactical acumen affecting the German war effort. They placed all their faith in the Atlantic Wall, and placed no emphasis on strong points or fortifications to fall back on.

Rommel was the one who didn't want a mobile reserve. Fire brigades were more effective in Eastern Europe because the Soviets weren't able to fly thousands of interdiction sorties daily. Once D Day started the Germans were effectively unable to move assets during the day. It took weeks to move one division that should have been able to move in hours.

There is an excellent two books of D Day from the German perspective. its actual eyewitness accounts. The ones not on the beach are filled with constant notations of allied planes attacking bunkers and anything that moved in absolute waves of aircraft.

Lets also remember Rommel was injured by aircraft during DDay. When you can't keep your field marshal from getting strafed how are you going to protect mile long columns of hanamogs and trucks trying to get to the coast?

Lets also remember that, when the Germans did throw fire brigades at the allies - particularly the American right hook coming around - that they were absolutely obliterated time after time.

This is is all true, The allies had massive airpower available and had worked out a good system of ground to air control of fighter-bombers to assist the troops. If they wanted to pound a German defensive position they could take 4-engine bombers off strategic targets and use them tactically.

Not really. The accuracy of heavy bombers was known even then to be lacking; they probably wouldn't permit 4-engine bombers to strike tactical targets. As far as I know the only attempt to do so was at Monte Cassino, with less than favorable results. In fact the allies became so afraid of friendly fire incidents, the 4-engine airstrikes set for Omaha beach were directed to release their payloads 20 miles inland to avoid friendly fire casualties! One wonders how many allied soldiers might have been saved if they'd bombed the beachfront area like they were originally supposed to.

You are correct. The Wallies did try at least two other times though.
D-Day actually used heavy bombers to hit targets on at least one beach. Unfortunately the bombers mostly hit behind the targets.
https://www.b24.net/D-day.htm

Operation Cobra. Very effective, led to the Falaise Cauldron.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/1944-us-bombers-blasted-nazi-troops%E2%80%8A%E2%80%94%E2%80%8A-accidentally-killed-17591

**Kilkrazy**

amanita wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I've just finished panzer leader, an excellent book by heinz guderian (the father of armoured manoeuvre warfare) and in his notes about d day, he explained that the German OKH refused to allow the panzer divisions to be pulled back to form mobile reserves able to perform counter thrusts, and forced them to remain as part of the initial defence. So this is another example of Hitler and the high commands lack of tactical acumen affecting the German war effort. They placed all their faith in the Atlantic Wall, and placed no emphasis on strong points or fortifications to fall back on.

Rommel was the one who didn't want a mobile reserve. Fire brigades were more effective in Eastern Europe because the Soviets weren't able to fly thousands of interdiction sorties daily. Once D Day started the Germans were effectively unable to move assets during the day. It took weeks to move one division that should have been able to move in hours.

There is an excellent two books of D Day from the German perspective. its actual eyewitness accounts. The ones not on the beach are filled with constant notations of allied planes attacking bunkers and anything that moved in absolute waves of aircraft.

Lets also remember Rommel was injured by aircraft during DDay. When you can't keep your field marshal from getting strafed how are you going to protect mile long columns of hanamogs and trucks trying to get to the coast?

Lets also remember that, when the Germans did throw fire brigades at the allies - particularly the American right hook coming around - that they were absolutely obliterated time after time.

This is is all true, The allies had massive airpower available and had worked out a good system of ground to air control of fighter-bombers to assist the troops. If they wanted to pound a German defensive position they could take 4-engine bombers off strategic targets and use them tactically.

Not really. The accuracy of heavy bombers was known even then to be lacking; they probably wouldn't permit 4-engine bombers to strike tactical targets. As far as I know the only attempt to do so was at Monte Cassino, with less than favorable results. In fact the allies became so afraid of friendly fire incidents, the 4-engine airstrikes set for Omaha beach were directed to release their payloads 20 miles inland to avoid friendly fire casualties! One wonders how many allied soldiers might have been saved if they'd bombed the beachfront area like they were originally supposed to.

They used a heavy bomber strike to help the breakout towards Caen. I don't remember the name of the ridge.but it was heavily defended and the Germans were pounded to bits. THe accuracy of heavy bombing as a lot better during daylight against undefended targets when the Allies had total air superiority.

**jhe90**

Kilkrazy wrote:
amanita wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I've just finished panzer leader, an excellent book by heinz guderian (the father of armoured manoeuvre warfare) and in his notes about d day, he explained that the German OKH refused to allow the panzer divisions to be pulled back to form mobile reserves able to perform counter thrusts, and forced them to remain as part of the initial defence. So this is another example of Hitler and the high commands lack of tactical acumen affecting the German war effort. They placed all their faith in the Atlantic Wall, and placed no emphasis on strong points or fortifications to fall back on.

Rommel was the one who didn't want a mobile reserve. Fire brigades were more effective in Eastern Europe because the Soviets weren't able to fly thousands of interdiction sorties daily. Once D Day started the Germans were effectively unable to move assets during the day. It took weeks to move one division that should have been able to move in hours.

There is an excellent two books of D Day from the German perspective. its actual eyewitness accounts. The ones not on the beach are filled with constant notations of allied planes attacking bunkers and anything that moved in absolute waves of aircraft.

Lets also remember Rommel was injured by aircraft during DDay. When you can't keep your field marshal from getting strafed how are you going to protect mile long columns of hanamogs and trucks trying to get to the coast?

Lets also remember that, when the Germans did throw fire brigades at the allies - particularly the American right hook coming around - that they were absolutely obliterated time after time.

This is is all true, The allies had massive airpower available and had worked out a good system of ground to air control of fighter-bombers to assist the troops. If they wanted to pound a German defensive position they could take 4-engine bombers off strategic targets and use them tactically.

Not really. The accuracy of heavy bombers was known even then to be lacking; they probably wouldn't permit 4-engine bombers to strike tactical targets. As far as I know the only attempt to do so was at Monte Cassino, with less than favorable results. In fact the allies became so afraid of friendly fire incidents, the 4-engine airstrikes set for Omaha beach were directed to release their payloads 20 miles inland to avoid friendly fire casualties! One wonders how many allied soldiers might have been saved if they'd bombed the beachfront area like they were originally supposed to.

They used a heavy bomber strike to help the breakout towards Caen. I don't remember the name of the ridge.but it was heavily defended and the Germans were pounded to bits. THe accuracy of heavy bombing as a lot better during daylight against undefended targets when the Allies had total air superiority.

Americans had a excellent bomb sght, very good, pretty accurate for thr time and they had no real shortage of them.
If there was air supiority and low wrnough flak they could also operate lower and gain more accuracy too. The German heavy city defenses forced the formations to fly very high to survive.

However if you wanted real acurancy, a smaller tactical bomber like mosquito, the dive bombers and such would be required..

A heavy bomber with a good, well trained and experienced crew and grand slam or tall boy could nail or nail close to a large battleship, heavy bunker or rail bodge etc sozed target though.

**Frazzled**

While the use of heavy bombers was infrequent to rare, the use of fighter bombers bordered on extreme, especially during the early Normandy campaign. Again, eye witness reports from the Germans all discuss near constant air raids.

**jhe90**

Frazzled wrote:
While the use of heavy bombers was infrequent to rare, the use of fighter bombers bordered on extreme, especially during the early Normandy campaign. Again, eye witness reports from the Germans all discuss near constant air raids.

Depending on use, the allies had some heavy fighter bomber / medium bombers like the mosquito and others that provided a fairly wide range of duties.

Less up on Americans but sure thry still had some mediums and others in service between fighter bomber and heavy startagic bomber.

**Frazzled**

jhe90 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
While the use of heavy bombers was infrequent to rare, the use of fighter bombers bordered on extreme, especially during the early Normandy campaign. Again, eye witness reports from the Germans all discuss near constant air raids.

Depending on use, the allies had some heavy fighter bomber / medium bombers like the mosquito and others that provided a fairly wide range of duties.

Less up on Americans but sure thry still had some mediums and others in service between fighter bomber and heavy startagic bomber.

Indeed.
The US had excellent medium bombers, with British level badass names (no one names a warship like the British can! They make even the Klingons blush) like the Marauder and Havoc, I was thinking operationally in support of army formations. They used P47s and P51s primarily. Thats the big claim to fame for the P47 (the P51 eclipses in the bomber escot role, but P47s also did extremely well in the air superiority role). Our thunderbolt was like your Typhoon.

On the Pacific side the USMC / USN tended to use the Corsair for similar roles.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Meh. Let's stop messing around with bombers here and go for some real firepower.

Naval broadsides is where the action was. I remember reading about Tiger tanks at Normandy, and how they were picked up and flung around as though they were toys, after getting the 18 inch gun treatment.
That's the way to take out a Tiger.

**jhe90**

Frazzled wrote:
jhe90 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
While the use of heavy bombers was infrequent to rare, the use of fighter bombers bordered on extreme, especially during the early Normandy campaign. Again, eye witness reports from the Germans all discuss near constant air raids.

Depending on use, the allies had some heavy fighter bomber / medium bombers like the mosquito and others that provided a fairly wide range of duties.

Less up on Americans but sure thry still had some mediums and others in service between fighter bomber and heavy startagic bomber.

Indeed.
The US had excellent medium bombers, with British level badass names (no one names a warship like the British can! They make even the Klingons blush) like the Marauder and Havoc, I was thinking operationally in support of army formations. They used P47s and P51s primarily. Thats the big claim to fame for the P47 (the P51 eclipses in the bomber escot role, but P47s also did extremely well in the air superiority role). Our thunderbolt was like your Typhoon.

On the Pacific side the USMC / USN tended to use the Corsair for similar roles.

Yeah, ships like Furious, Warspite, Dreadnought, Victor,y, Warrior, Dragon, Coragous, even Unicorn... Lol. Yes that was real.

Thanks, I know my British alot better. We had alot of types in use, and some bad ass names. Like sea fire, tempest and such. Mosquito was a not such a intimidating name but very effective in battle, and fast. Twin merlins can move.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Meh. Let's stop messing around with bombers here and go for some real firepower.

Naval broadsides is where the action was. I remember reading about Tiger tanks at Normandy, and how they were picked up and flung around as though they were toys, after getting the 18 inch gun treatment.
That's the way to take out a Tiger.

True the big old girls could really make the Tigers hurt.

A late war heavy cruiser could throw out a potential 10-20+ tons of rounds a minute out at max rate.

Battleships exceeded that on main battery alone!

**simonr1978**

Only the Yamatos had 18 inch guns, the Allied battleships had 14 to 16 inch main batteries, still very potent but not quite that powerful.

**jhe90**

simonr1978 wrote:
Only the Yamatos had 18 inch guns, the Allied battleships had 14 to 16 inch main batteries, still very potent but not quite that powerful.

Not know of 18 inch. UK had the slightly eccentric ships.

15 inch battleship guns on ships smaller than some cruisers.

A little out dated, but no one argument a with 15 inch guns.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts-class_monitor

1 very rare 18 inch Royal Navy Monitor. Using guns from HMS Furious. Most ships where built between 14-16inches though. KgV class, 14, warspite and her sisters 15, vanguard and Rodney 16, battle cruiser Hood was 16

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_General_Wolfe_(1915)

**Vulcan**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
.... after getting the 18 inch gun treatment....

Ah... the Furious had long since lost her 18" gun when she was converted to a full carrier in the 1920s. The largest guns serving in Allied navies in 1944 were all 16".

**AlmightyWalrus**

jhe90 wrote:
simonr1978 wrote:
Only the Yamatos had 18 inch guns, the Allied battleships had 14 to 16 inch main batteries, still very potent but not quite that powerful.

Not know of 18 inch. UK had the slightly eccentric ships.

15 inch battleship guns on ships smaller than some cruisers.

A little out dated, but no one argument a with 15 inch guns.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts-class_monitor

1 very rare 18 inch Royal Navy Monitor. Using guns from HMS Furious. Most ships where built between 14-16inches though. KgV class, 14, warspite and her sisters 15, vanguard and Rodney 16, battle cruiser Hood was 16

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_General_Wolfe_(1915)

HMS Hood had the same BL 15" Mk. I guns as the Queen Elizabeth, Revenge, Renown and Vanguard-class battleships and battlecruisers. HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney were the only Royal Navy battleships with 16" guns.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Thanks for the replies, but I think people are missing the point here.

If you're a Tiger tank commander, who has somehow survived a naval bombardment, and you're standing next to your burned out Tiger, assuming you can get past the deep crater holes...

Are you really going to say, it's not so bad, it was only a 16 inch gun, not an 18 inch gun. I mean, c'mon.

**LordofHats**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Are you really going to say, it's not so bad, it was only a 16 inch gun, not an 18 inch gun.

To be fair, this sounds like something that would be perfect for some kind of WWII comedy about a German soldier bumbling his way from 1939 to 1945 Forest Gump style

**Haighus**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Thanks for the replies, but I think people are missing the point here.

If you're a Tiger tank commander, who has somehow survived a naval bombardment, and you're standing next to your burned out Tiger, assuming you can get past the deep crater holes...

Are you really going to say, it's not so bad, it was only a 16 inch gun, not an 18 inch gun. I mean, c'mon.

It may not make a difference to a Tiger tank, but it might to a coastal emplacement.

There is evidence from inspecting the wreck that the 14" shells of HMS King George V failed to penetrate the armour of the Bismarck throughout most of her final battle, but the 16" shells of HMS Rodney smashed right through and caused the lion's share of the damage. A mere 2" extra diametre equates to a noticeably bigger shell, therefore a bigger explosive charge and/or greater armour-piercing capability.

**Grey Templar**

Oh yeah. Big difference by adding a mere 2".

If you increase the diameter of a circle from 14" to 16", the surface area, and mass, goes up by nearly 1/3. If both shells were only 3' in length(and were perfect cylinders), the increase in volume would be nearly 1700 cubic inches of additional space. Which is again roughly 1/3 increase in volume and therefore mass.

One reason why those planned 20" guns on some WW2 warships that were never built would have been so scary.

**AlmightyWalrus**

20" would arguably have been a downgrade from 18" because as the volume of the shell increases so does the size of the machinery needed to reload and aim the guns. Yamato already had 3000-tonne turrets (more than same-era Destroyers!), and 20" guns would have been even heavier. 9 18" guns, like the Yamato, would probably have been far more effective than the 6 20" guns of the A-150 "Super Yamato" the Japanses were working on. 18" guns would already punch through pretty much any contemporary armour; having 50% more rounds per broadside would have been far more effective than overkilling your opponent.

**jhe90**

Bear in mind during testing it was found the well made American super heavy shells and 16 inch guns of the Iowa class where equal or exceeded there practical ability to penetrate and had advantages of firing faster. Radar guidenece and excellent reliability and crew training.

The Yamato and likely a 20 inch super had optical systems that would be less effective at night and smoke to track misses. Also acurate to a long range, that Japan while could fire further never turwly had acurate fire at far end.

The Iowa and the Montana, likely with there advanced support systems would have been more than a match even with there "small lol" 16 inch main guns.

**Frazzled**

jhe90 wrote:
Bear in mind during testing it was found the well made American super heavy shells and 16 inch guns of the Iowa class where equal or exceeded there practical ability to penetrate and had advantages of firing faster. Radar guidenece and excellent reliability and crew training.

The Yamato and likely a 20 inch super had optical systems that would be less effective at night and smoke to track misses. Also acurate to a long range, that Japan while could fire further never turwly had acurate fire at far end.

The Iowa and the Montana, likely with there advanced support systems would have been more than a match even with there "small lol" 16 inch main guns.

Of course in reality it was the 200 torpedo bombers coming at her that would undue her...

**Omega-soul**

Intresting topic, but anwer is not so.
If it wasn't D day, it would be E-Day, F-Day G-Day and so on.
1944 was not a breaking point. More like - "Hurry up guys or soviets get all the fun."
Northern shoreline is too stretched to hold it effectively.

The only good defense Germans could have is offence - aircraft, navy, artillery not bunkers, trenches and MGs.
But by that time Reich resources were depleted.

Intresting what-ifs could be raised during Mediterranean operations in 1943. And even then it was far from "gamble"

**jhe90**

Frazzled wrote:
jhe90 wrote:
Bear in mind during testing it was found the well made American super heavy shells and 16 inch guns of the Iowa class where equal or exceeded there practical ability to penetrate and had advantages of firing faster. Radar guidenece and excellent reliability and crew training.

The Yamato and likely a 20 inch super had optical systems that would be less effective at night and smoke to track misses. Also acurate to a long range, that Japan while could fire further never turwly had acurate fire at far end.

The Iowa and the Montana, likely with there advanced support systems would have been more than a match even with there "small lol" 16 inch main guns.

Of course in reality it was the 200 torpedo bombers coming at her that would undue her...

Yes however in a real duel if they ever met, the more acurate, computer guided guns of the Iowa class would have really turned the tables on her bigger foe.

They had some advanced super heavy shells bolstered by american supply of materials to produce very high grade steel etc Japan did not.

But what really matters is being able to land a acurate hit. For all the big 18 inch guns had, they lacked the Acuracy and radar guidenexe to support. In a close up duel matter less but at range, or low visibility the Iowa guns can even target her near blind.

The late war fire control could keep a American warship small as a fletcher class firing at a fair combat speed, acirately, while manooverinf near blinded by smoke. And thr battleship can mount far larger and much higher radar mounts.

**Vulcan**

It's worth noting that during the Battle off Samar, the destroyers and escorts of Taffy 3 used rain squalls and smoke to great effect while maintaining counterfire with their own radar-aimed guns... in what Drachinifel called a 'terrible abuse of the real-world cover rules...'

**jhe90**

Vulcan wrote:
It's worth noting that during the Battle off Samar, the destroyers and escorts of Taffy 3 used rain squalls and smoke to great effect while maintaining counterfire with their own radar-aimed guns... in what Drachinifel called a 'terrible abuse of the real-world cover rules...'

Yeah. Japan had mostly optical sights, very good but they rekised on optics and each ship had colour codes dyes to plot there shots etc.

All rather outdated compared to the US Navy, and its also excellent damage control teams and navel design keeping ships fighting that took insane damage.

That and near suicidal bravery. I think it was that battle a Japanese captain even saluted one ship, for the fight they put up against near impossible odds.

**Vulcan**

It probably helped that the Japanese mis-identified the escort carriers as full fleet carriers, and by size comparison identified the destroyers and escorts as cruisers and battleships, so they kept firing AP shells that would go straight through the unarmored ships of Taffy 3 without exploding

Which takes nothing away from the, as you say, near-suicidal bravery of the sailors on those ships. It just made that near-suicidal defense more successful than it had any right to be.

**jhe90**

Vulcan wrote:
It probably helped that the Japanese mis-identified the escort carriers as full fleet carriers, and by size comparison identified the destroyers and escorts as cruisers and battleships, so they kept firing AP shells that would go straight through the unarmored ships of Taffy 3 without exploding

Which takes nothing away from the, as you say, near-suicidal bravery of the sailors on those ships. It just made that near-suicidal defense more successful than it had any right to be.

They they had to close to insane ranges too, under 5 miles because of the US torpodoes being pretty primitive vs the Japanese vqrients. They could reach out a fair bit further and faster, against ships that where Yamamoto alone weighing more than the entire trask force. There main guns where smaller than some of the other ships secondaries with armour belts immune to those rounds. Still they turned round what was a battle that's almost impossible to belive.

They got so close they where unloading there bofors guns, and one pistol into the Japanese for good messure.

One shot from thr battleships could have sunk them if in a critical compartment. Still they sank 2 heavy cruisers, damaged 2 more and one destroyer. Ships Japan could not replace easily unlike the US.

Every loss or damaged ship was a blow they could not absorb like the US Navy.