Burke vs. WW2 Japanese carrier group

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[StevoJH]

A large Japanese group has enough fighters to drain the antiaircraft missiles from the Burke, Japanese cruisers with armour and 8-12*6 or 8 inch guns versus an American destroyer with a single 5 Inch gun and possibly some missiles which can't be launched out of my guns range unless they can keep me from blowing up their helicopter, i know which ship i'd rather be on.

How many 8 inch gun hits to demolish a Burke class?

Harpoon missiles weigh about 600kg, 221kg of which is the warhead, i can't find out how much an 8 inch shell weighs and how much explosives it has, but if i remember correctly, they generally designed ships to be able to withstand their own shells "theoretically".

 

[AegisFC]

A large Japanese group has enough fighters to drain the antiaircraft missiles from the Burke,

Assuming they can find the Burke, any scout plane will be shot down long before it can see the Burke (spotter planes would depend on seeing the smoke from stacks of the ships of that day, the Burke is smokeless) the rest are slow moving enough that the 5in 54 would be effective in clearing clearing at least some of them out.

Japanese cruisers with armour and 8-12*6 or 8 inch guns versus an American destroyer with a single 5 Inch gun and possibly some missiles which can't be launched out of my guns range unless they can keep me from blowing up their helicopter, i know which ship i'd rather be on.

The Burke will be able to pull more drastic evasive maneuvers to throw off the Japanese firing plans while staying on target herself, she can out maneuver, out accelerate and out brake the Japanese ships (gas turbines and CRP's are good for that). Plus do you think the Burkes CO will attack during the day, when he can attack with impunity and snipe off individual or small groups of ships at night? Heck just using the Harpoons the Burke can hit the hypothetical force from 4 different directions at once (Harpoons can fly and maneuver to more 3 waypoints before turning into to search for targets, the operator in CIC just needs to set the points and a bearing line of where the enemy is suspected of being).
Their is a reason why every navy in the world gave up on Armor after WW2, for one it was proven that good damage control could keep a ship afloat even with very serious damage (some destroyers in WW2 took more damage and stayed afloat while their were cruisers that were sunk with a similar level of damage, when you have battle damage armor can just be extra weight you don't need), missiles hit faster than a shell, they hit harder, they have left over fuel that just adds to the damage, they can hit where the armor belts do not cover or where it is the thinnest (WW2 armor was designed to counter gun fire and the belts are placed accordingly, a missile follows a different profile).
Besides all the Burke really needs to do is mission kill the hypothetical force and to do that would require a lot less effort than sinking them all.

How many 8 inch gun hits to demolish a Burke class?

You have a better chance of mission killing one, take out the optical sight and hit one of the SPY Arrays (which would probably explode in Radar-2) you'd loose most of your tech advantage, but the enemy in this case have no idea what they are facing or where to aim, but to be honest the US ship would probably be just as clueless, unless one of the crew just happened to have a "Janes Fighting Ships of WW2" in his rack they'd only have a rough idea of what they were facing.

Harpoon missiles weigh about 600kg, 221kg of which is the warhead, i can't find out how much an 8 inch shell weighs and how much explosives it has, but if i remember correctly, they generally designed ships to be able to withstand their own shells "theoretically".

For stuff like this Navweaps is a good place to look.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_8-50_3ns.htm

Overall weights of the ammunition types.

AP Type 91 - 277.4 lbs. (125.85 kg)
Common Type 91 HE - 277.4 lbs. (125.85 kg)
Common Type 0 HE - 277.4 lbs. (125.85 kg)
Common Type 3 IS - 277.4 lbs. (125.85 kg)

The amount of explosive (if I got "bursting charge" right, I may not, I was never a gun type).

AP Type 91 - 6.9 lbs. (3.11 kg)
Common Type 91 HE - 18.0 lbs. (8.2 kg)
Common Type 0 HE - 18.0 lbs. (8.2 kg)

 

[AegisFC]

The Mk46 is a primary anti-submarine torpedo btw. And the rather measly 98 lb warhead wouldn't be particularly useful against large surface ships.

The thing is modern torpedo's are not contact weapons, they explode under the target creating an air bubble that cracks the keel of the ship so a 98lb warhead should be sufficient. I just don't know if Mk-46's can be used against ships, in this day and age it would be pointless.

 

[StevoJH]

Assuming they can find the Burke, any scout plane will be shot down long before it can see the Burke (spotter planes would depend on seeing the smoke from stacks of the ships of that day, the Burke is smokeless) the rest are slow moving enough that the 5in 54 would be effective in clearing clearing at least some of them out.

Akagi could carry 91 planes, All Japanese heavy cruisers and a few of the light cruisers carried scout planes (2-3 on the heavy cruisers). How many SAM's would a burke reasonably have? If the Burke used its chopper as a scout it would risk it being shot down by the Japanese fighters or Scout planes. Basicly, a burke has 90 cells, how many of those would have SAM's? How many would have Harpoons? How many would have useless Tomahawks?

The Burke will be able to pull more drastic evasive maneuvers to throw off the Japanese firing plans while staying on target herself, she can out maneuver, out accelerate and out brake the Japanese ships (gas turbines and CRP's are good for that). Plus do you think the Burkes CO will attack during the day, when he can attack with impunity and snipe off individual or small groups of ships at night? Heck just using the Harpoons the Burke can hit the hypothetical force from 4 different directions at once (Harpoons can fly and maneuver to more 3 waypoints before turning into to search for targets, the operator in CIC just needs to set the points and a bearing line of where the enemy is suspected of being).

I think you overestimate the Burke and underestimate the fire control on the Japanese ships.

Their is a reason why every navy in the world gave up on Armor after WW2, for one it was proven that good damage control could keep a ship afloat even with very serious damage (some destroyers in WW2 took more damage and stayed afloat while their were cruisers that were sunk with a similar level of damage, when you have battle damage armor can just be extra weight you don't need), missiles hit faster than a shell, they hit harder, they have left over fuel that just adds to the damage, they can hit where the armor belts do not cover or where it is the thinnest (WW2 armor was designed to counter gun fire and the belts are placed accordingly, a missile follows a different profile).

And here i was thinking that it was because ships became more expensive due to advances in technology and because of that, tended to be smaller (no more "true" cruisers, battleships or battlecruisers left) which basicly left less options for armour to be fitted. A ticonderoga is not a cruiser, its a destroyer that was called a cruiser due to having a better combat system, its only a couple of hundred tons heaver then a Burke.

You are thinking of World War One armour, World War Two armour retained the traditional side armour on the hull but added a lot more Deck armour, fire control had improved between the wars and "plunging fire" at long range was more of a danger, if HMS Hood had received its planned refit before facing the Bismark (it was postponed because of the war), then it might have been the Bismark on the bottom of the Ocean that day.

Oh, and if you compare the velocity and size of shells, you will find that they hit faster and harder then Missiles, you do have a point about the fuel, but that only helps if you get through the Armour belt.

Besides all the Burke really needs to do is mission kill the hypothetical force and to do that would require a lot less effort than sinking them all.

1. The Burke isnt capable of sinking them all.
2. Mission Killing a WWII ship would be a lot harder to do then Mission killing a Burke, one hit to the mast and a burke is pretty much useless, a WWII battleship still has local control for the turrets if the ship fire control is taken out, sure its less accurate, but when you have the numbers advantage, you have time on your side.

You have a better chance of mission killing one, take out the optical sight and hit one of the SPY Arrays (which would probably explode in Radar-2) you'd loose most of your tech advantage, but the enemy in this case have no idea what they are facing or where to aim, but to be honest the US ship would probably be just as clueless, unless one of the crew just happened to have a "Janes Fighting Ships of WW2" in his rack they'd only have a rough idea of what they were facing.



For stuff like this Navweaps is a good place to look.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_8-50_3ns.htm

Overall weights of the ammunition types.


The amount of explosive (if I got "bursting charge" right, I may not, I was never a gun type).

Remember that each salvo from each japanese ship will have 8-12 of these 8" shells. The light cruisers could fire 8-15 6" shells/broadside. Thats a lot of metal, and they would explode in the ship, not on contact.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The thing is modern torpedo's are not contact weapons, they explode under the target creating an air bubble that cracks the keel of the ship so a 98lb warhead should be sufficient. I just don't know if Mk-46's can be used against ships, in this day and age it would be pointless.

A Mk46 would still be useful against a skimmer. it's the bubble that counts. Another factor is that modern munitions (esp ERGM) mean that you can outrange your enemy (if necessary).

there was actually a series of books published on the concept of a modern warship that temporal rift'd back into the middle of a WW2 conflict. there has also been an australian book printed recently based on the same principle.


I suspect that this debate will end up like the painful thread (that was locked away in the end) on the viability of the battleship.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[kato]

Of course.

Anyone care to discuss the chances of a Nimitz without her CBG vs half the Japanese fleet?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[swerve]

... A ticonderoga is not a cruiser, its a destroyer that was called a cruiser due to having a better combat system, its only a couple of hundred tons heaver then a Burke.....

And a Burke is the size of a WW2 cruiser. Bigger than some light cruiser classes.

 

[Jezza]

The setting is the year 1980. Captain Matthew Yelland (Douglas), commanding officer of the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz, has been ordered to take on a civilian observer, Warren Lasky (Sheen) during a training mission in the Pacific Ocean. Lasky's boss, Mr. Tideman, watches Lasky's departure from inside a limousine, his face concealed from both the audience and Lasky, who has never actually met him face to face. Tideman helped design the Nimitz, and Lasky's assignment is to watch and make recommendations while the ship goes on exercises near Hawaii. When Air Wing Commander Owen (Farentino) mildly confronts him about disrupting the ship's operations that are working just fine, Lasky replies, "There are always alternatives, commander."

The ship encounters a strange storm vortex, which disappears after they pass through. Then they find that all the usual communication with shore has been cut off. There is only static, even from the White House, except for World War II broadcasts, and a very old Jack Benny radio skit. One of the crewmen overhears the senior staff's bewilderment before Yelland dismisses him, and he panics as he tells a disbelieving buddy that World War III has begun.

Yelland dispatches an F-8 Crusader to Pearl Harbor, and two F-14A Tomcats to patrol locally. The Tomcat pilots are surprised to encounter two "mint condition" Japanese A6M Zeros, as are the Zero pilots to see jet aircraft. They also fly over a pleasure craft, which has fictional Senator Samuel S. Chapman (Charles Durning), his secretary Laurel Scott (Katharine Ross), her dog, Charlie, and Chapman's friend, Harvey, on board. They marvel at the speed of these "rocket planes," and Chapman wonders about the American insignia. His position in the Senate keeps him informed of all military hardware, but he's naturally never heard of anything like the Tomcats.

The Zeros strafe the boat to kill the passengers, so that they cannot warn Pearl Harbor of foreign aircraft. Chapman, Laurel, Harvey and Laurel's dog manage to dive off before the Zeros make another pass, which hits the ship's fuel tank causing it to explode. When the Zeros turn for another run, Chapman and Laurel remove their life vests so they can duck underneath the water's surface. They escape, but Harvey does not. Unwilling to remove his life vest, he shouts "I can't swim" a few seconds before being shot to death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Countdown_(film)

 

[Salty Dog]

Anyone remembers the final countdown starring Kirk Douglas and Martin sheen? g*d, I feel ancient.

You're not so ancient mate. I remember the movie too on the big screen

If a DDG-51 went back in time, it would be interesting to see how the combat systems will work without GPS input. Navigational data entered by celestial fixes and dead reckoning will have to work. Now I wonder how many remember that far back too?

 

[gf0012-aust]

The other book(s) based on a Japanese Carrier transporting from WW2 to a nuclear war affected current time is "The Seventh Carrier" and "Super Carrier" series by Peter Albano

 

[AegisFC]

Akagi could carry 91 planes, All Japanese heavy cruisers and a few of the light cruisers carried scout planes (2-3 on the heavy cruisers). How many SAM's would a burke reasonably have? If the Burke used its chopper as a scout it would risk it being shot down by the Japanese fighters or Scout planes. Basicly, a burke has 90 cells, how many of those would have SAM's? How many would have Harpoons? How many would have useless Tomahawks?

The 5"/54 is also an effective AA weapons, especially against slow prop driven aircraft. Harpoons are not carried in the VLS cells on a Flight I the have their own launchers. The most Tomahawks I've ever personally seen carried was about 30 (3 deployments with a different load each time) with usually 2 ASROC's.

I think you overestimate the Burke and underestimate the fire control on the Japanese ships.

I'm not overestimating anything. I worked as a Fire Control tech on 2 different Burkes for 7 years. The Japanese's only chance is to find the Burke and force a fight during the day, if they can't they are dead, WW2 Fire Control was not that good and at night was even wore.

And here i was thinking that it was because ships became more expensive due to advances in technology and because of that, tended to be smaller (no more "true" cruisers, battleships or battlecruisers left) which basicly left less options for armour to be fitted. A ticonderoga is not a cruiser, its a destroyer that was called a cruiser due to having a better combat system, its only a couple of hundred tons heaver then a Burke.

Look at the history of the Destroyer, each generation got bigger and more powerful, the same thing happens to all ship classes with each generation, most modern Frigates are bigger than WW2 era destroyers. Realistically the Burkes are a light cruiser, it is almost as long as a WW2 era Juneau class, and it weighs more. The Tico's were renamed due to political reasons not because they had Aegis, but it does a cruisers job, it has a cruisers weight, it has the space and extra gear for an embarked command staff, it does all the jobs of a cruiser. The old saying of steel is cheap but electronics are expensive is true and if a couple extra tons of armor would be effective than you'd still see armor today. The Burkes do have armor, their are Kevlar plates around the vital spaces.

You are thinking of World War One armour, World War Two armour retained the traditional side armour on the hull but added a lot more Deck armour, fire control had improved between the wars and "plunging fire" at long range was more of a danger, if HMS Hood had received its planned refit before facing the Bismark (it was postponed because of the war), then it might have been the Bismark on the bottom of the Ocean that day.

Deck armor was usually thinner than the other armor belts. I doubt the Hood with better armor would of been much more effective, but that is for another debate (with someone who cares more than I do).

2. Mission Killing a WWII ship would be a lot harder to do then Mission killing a Burke, one hit to the mast and a burke is pretty much useless, a WWII battleship still has local control for the turrets if the ship fire control is taken out, sure its less accurate, but when you have the numbers advantage, you have time on your side.

Their is nothing on the mast that will mission kill a Burke, you have the 67 radar, some comms antennas and IFF, all either useless or not mission critical in this scenario. It would be extremely difficult to mission kill a modern destroyer let alone a Burke.

Remember that each salvo from each japanese ship will have 8-12 of these 8" shells. The light cruisers could fire 8-15 6" shells/broadside. Thats a lot of metal, and they would explode in the ship, not on contact.

If they hit, WW2 Fire Control was not that good, especially against a wildly maneuvering target. You are also assuming the Burke skipper would be stupid to get in close during the day time.

 

[AegisFC]

A Mk46 would still be useful against a skimmer. it's the bubble that counts. Another factor is that modern munitions (esp ERGM) mean that you can outrange your enemy (if necessary).

Gotcha, I just didn't know if the 46 could be used against surface ships, it just isn't practical these days (or for the last 30 years).

there was actually a series of books published on the concept of a modern warship that temporal rift'd back into the middle of a WW2 conflict. there has also been an australian book printed recently based on the same principle.

A series of books, an anime, at least 1 movie... Putting modern military units back in time against huge odds is a sci-fi cliche to be honest.

Without her CBG, Nimitz will have to run 24/7 sonar patrols as it doesn't have an inbuilt sonar. In storm conditions restricting helo ops, enemy subs will be a risk.

If it is rough enough to restrict helo ops on something as big and inherently stable as a CVN I'd hate to think about what that little sub would be going through, I doubt they'd be in any shape to really fight.

If a DDG-51 went back in time, it would be interesting to see how the combat systems will work without GPS input. Navigational data entered by celestial fixes and dead reckoning will have to work. Now I wonder how many remember that far back too?

It wouldn't affect the system that much. The operator would have to set the system clock manually (the system only cares that everything is running off the same time, not what time it really is) and enter the navigation data manually but again it isn't that hard.

 

[Sea Toby]

The range of a Mk. 46 torpedo is officially "8,000 yards." Reportedly the range is 11,400 - 12,000 yd. at 45 kt. 12,000 yards equal 36,000 feet, or divide by 5280 feet (a mile) equals 6.18 miles. On the other hand a 127-mm gun's range, Mk 45 5"54 is more than 13 nautical miles. I would only use the torpedo to finish off another surface ship. The minimum depth is 20 yards or 60 feet, whereas a Nimitz class carrier draught is 12 meters, or about 37 feet. I would think a Mk 46 torpedo could damage a carrier significantly. As I said before, the key would be to damage the flight deck enough to keep the aircraft grounded by shooting harpoons at the carrier from a range further than over the horizon. Of course the Burke would have to close enough without being sited by the Japanese aircraft with much longer range than a harpoon. But without a proper surface search radar, the Japanese would have to search and discover a Burke first. And since helicopters didn't exist during WWII, no Japanese carrier would have any.

Information from Wiki. Keep in mind the Japanese failure to find two of the three US carriers at Midway.

 

[Salty Dog]

I have not seen where the Mk-46, Mk-50 or any other light-weight torpedo is anti-surface capable.

The Mk-46 has a 98 lbs explosive warhead while the Mk-48 heavy-weight torpedo has 650 lbs. The Mk-48 does form the under hull keel breaking bubble. Even if the Mk-46 is anti-surface capable, it would probably, at best, put a hole in the hull.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I have not seen where the Mk-46, Mk-50 or any other light-weight torpedo is anti-surface capable.

The Mk-46 has a 98 lbs explosive warhead while the Mk-48 heavy-weight torpedo has 650 lbs. The Mk-48 does form the under hull keel breaking bubble. Even if the Mk-46 is anti-surface capable, it would probably, at best, put a hole in the hull.

I had a chat to some people at a UDT conf in Hawai'i a few years back. The session discussion centred around whether Mk 46 and Mk 50 could be used as an anti-skimmer solution. The Raytheon people seemed to think it was achievable.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Sea Toby]

Last I heard, a Mk-46 had a minimum 20 yard depth setting.

And so does the Mk 48 torpedo. I am willing to admit that the explosive charge is four times greater with a Mk 48 over a Mk 46. Torpedoes are self-propelled guided projectiles that operate underwater and are designed to detonate on contact or in proximity to a target.

This video shows the impact of a Mk 48 torpedo which ignited under a frigate. Imagine what damage a Mk 46 torpedo would do with a fourth of the explosive charge.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBSixrh4G_4"]YouTube - Sinking of HMAS Torrens[/ame]