Laurence Batchelor wrote:So that isn't a contributory weakness to why their long range shooting was poor in WW2?
FC system was the main problem for the poor performance of IJN gunnery in WWII. Other then the Kommandorski action very few main surface actions in the Pacific were taken in rough seas and the Kommandorski Battle was far from being of achieving anything. Rough seas makes shooting very poor for any ship regardless what kind of FC it haves or high/low freeboard
Laurence Batchelor wrote:Surely high freeboard helps to keep decks and thus turrets and barbettes dry?
Low freeboard of the ship gives less visual profile for your enemy to see you.
Laurence Batchelor wrote:In turn it also keeps it away from the directors mounted on superstructure.
Unless the ship is hit by 20 meter waves. IJN cruisers (or even battleships) tend to have very high superstructures therefore their main FC's are quite high.
"Build few and build fast,
Each one better than the last"
John Fisher
Easy question: how many kilometer farther is the optical horizon for every meter higher your fire control tower?
Who cares how high your rangefinder is, if your stable element, computer or doctrine is defective - look to the Komondorskis action.
Two newer Japanese CAs should have been able to slaughter Salt Lake City and four-piper cruiser Raleigh under conditions of high visibility. Instead, the Japs wore out their guns and caused severe panting in their hulls without really inflicting any significant damage on the enemy. The most serious damage was caused by a damage control error in Salt Lake City cross connecting water and fuel.
Imagine this same battle in 1944 or 1945 with 2 Baltimores coming into conact with Aoba and Jintsu. What would you the expect to be the outcome?
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
Werner wrote:Who cares how high your rangefinder is, if your stable element, computer or doctrine is defective - look to the Komondorskis action.
Weather and sea conditions played an important part in the outcome of the Kommandorski Battle....being the outcome almost next to nothing to both sides. Rough seas affect any kind of shooting...regardless of the quality. For the Japanese it was an add to the worse having such conditions: bad FC's + rough seas = nothing or little.
Werner wrote:Two newer Japanese CAs should have been able to slaughter Salt Lake City
Just to correct one thing....Nachi was as older as Salt Lake City.
Werner wrote:Imagine this same battle in 1944 or 1945 with 2 Baltimores coming into conact with Aoba and Jintsu. What would you the expect to be the outcome?
At least you could give the IJN some more recent ships in this case...you just had to choose two of the oldest ladies.
"Build few and build fast,
Each one better than the last"
John Fisher
And in 1943 what was the relationship between the ages and status of the two Nachis and the two of the oldest cruising ships in the USN. My point would still be valid if the 1944 enemies were the two Tones. You continue to dodge the point of the thread, which is their Japanese fire control and effective range was no better than a 1942 USN destroyer's.
The British would have made short work of the Japanese, then would have stopped for survivors in such weather, even at the risk of their ships.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
Isn't that what I said? Chuck just complained about my choice of Baltimores in an analogue of the Battle of the Komondorskis.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
Werner wrote:You continue to dodge the point of the thread, which is their Japanese fire control and effective range was no better than a 1942 USN destroyer's.
Filipe Ramires wrote:For the Japanese it was an add to the worse having such conditions: bad FC's + rough seas = nothing or little.
I think I was clear enough with this comment of mine. I am not dodging the already jacked thread. I take that the Japanese FC's were much of useless...my point was that in the Kommandorskis, regardless of them having a good or bad one FC, the weather and the rough seas did affect even more their shooting. I am not dodging...just putting some more misery into their case.
"Build few and build fast,
Each one better than the last"
John Fisher
There is a fair amount of literature on British F/C and I cannot remember ever reading it was used by any Axis powers directly.
I guess Friedman has unearthed some new finds, I just hope he reveals fully where it says these things and thus we can then attach our own validity of the sources in question.
One wonders though if a distinction needs to be made, perhaps they used the same system rather than specific British equipment?
Was any British F/C equipment captured or salvaged by Axis powers between 1939-41?
Or are we saying they were merely sharing technology post WWI?
One thing which I've always seen is when people suggest Britain and Japan were bosom buddies before 1920 I really don't see it like that.
The British Admiralty was mindful of this new young up and coming upstart but felt that calculated co-operation would be mutually benefitial.
Keep your future enemies close, know their mentality, their ships, perhaps their thinking, strategy, doctrine etc.
I think the real bosom buddies were the British Shipping Cartels who were making enormous money from foreign contracts including the Japanese through Armstrong's etc. rather than the Admiralty themselves.
Last edited by Laurence Batchelor on Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Filipe Ramires wrote:I think I was clear enough with this comment of mine. I am not dodging the already jacked thread. I take that the Japanese FC's were much of useless...my point was that in the Kommandorskis, regardless of them having a good or bad one FC, the weather and the rough seas did affect even more their shooting. I am not dodging...just putting some more misery into their case.
I will have to check, but I don' t think the weather was bad at all during the battle, rather calm by Arctic standards; low light angle and effective smoke may have been a factor, though.
Neither side can be proud of emptying their magazines in a battle over several hours with hit rates of 0.01% or less.
A night later the Americans showed the ineffectiveness of their radar system by having a second engagement with skipped echos of Soviet islands or perhaps weather inversions.
By comparison, at similar ranges Graf Spee and Hood would have escaped handily.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
