Almost Historical: Can Destroyers Withstand Battleships in the Open?

[HystericalAccuracy]

5 hours ago, bondone said:

Lets have a few PT and E boats in the game to !  Maybe a RU PT boat can sink a BB !  Might work . They are fast and a small hard target , and for good balance they could be made to take a lot of hits to !! ho ho   !

Like the puny Italian MAS15 did sink one of the biggest BB of the Austro-Hungarian navy. And afterwards managed to escape because irl you had no chance of hitting them.

 

https://xray-mag.com/content/demise-sms-szent-istván

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/A_Szent_István_csatahajó_pusztulása.ogv

 

ho ho !!

[Cambera_1]

26 minutes ago, drmajga said:

or just take five seconds and google it:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Also, 53 knots is pretty badass.

Yes the Soviets had very good coastal forces.

 

Please read what the actual armament is of these and compare with the Sarcasm of the post you quote. Does any vessel in game have manually controlled secondaries? 

There is alot of fantasy 'balancing' much of the Soviet tech tree.

If you read the post again it is a blend of history and sarcasm about current game balancing.

The emoji was supposed to have indicated this.

 

Sorry if you were offended, it was not a dig at any of the brave 'coastal' forces of both sides of WW2.

[kiowa]

And another example to support the dd's or torpedo boats:

Bulgarian torpedo boat Drazki and the Otoman Empire the Ottoman protected cruiser Hamidiye.

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

[HystericalAccuracy]

1 hour ago, Cambera_1 said:

If you read the post again it is a blend of history and sarcasm about current game balancing.

The emoji was supposed to have indicated this.

In that case i didn´t get the blend 

 

1 hour ago, Cambera_1 said:

Sorry if you were offended

not at all  no worries. I see this as a conversation.

[Degradable]

HMS Glowworm...

Though a Heavy Cruiser is not a battleship, I would not hesitate to state the outcome is not going to be disimilar

HMS Warspite encounter with Flotilla of German Destroyers in ideal conditions for destroyers.  Yet the Warspite  more than held her own.

 

That is just two examples which show the danger of Destroyers on own, attacking Battleships.  If we cared to mention Jutland we may see that at night the Destroyers had a better chance,  but losses are always going to be heavy.

One of the main problems is that frankly the secondary armament of a Battleship is better than most Destroyers of the time.  We can not match the directors first of all on a Battleship and the space for them,  which allows for greater protection and resilience.  Additionally the gun platform itself is vastly superior, as it is not as susceptible to sea conditions as a Destroyer.

Torpedo are also almost a secondary weapon with regards Battleships.  So you are engaging a vessel with vastly superior fire control, gun armament, armour with a weapon that is slower, arguably less reliable (Certainly the chain for a successful attack is more prone to being broken), and I would consider it to be a destroyers secondary weapon. 

 

[ATH67]

22 hours ago, Degradable said:

HMS Glowworm...

Though a Heavy Cruiser is not a battleship, I would not hesitate to state the outcome is not going to be disimilar

HMS Warspite encounter with Flotilla of German Destroyers in ideal conditions for destroyers.  Yet the Warspite  more than held her own.

 

That is just two examples which show the danger of Destroyers on own, attacking Battleships.  If we cared to mention Jutland we may see that at night the Destroyers had a better chance,  but losses are always going to be heavy.

One of the main problems is that frankly the secondary armament of a Battleship is better than most Destroyers of the time.  We can not match the directors first of all on a Battleship and the space for them,  which allows for greater protection and resilience.  Additionally the gun platform itself is vastly superior, as it is not as susceptible to sea conditions as a Destroyer.

Torpedo are also almost a secondary weapon with regards Battleships.  So you are engaging a vessel with vastly superior fire control, gun armament, armour with a weapon that is slower, arguably less reliable (Certainly the chain for a successful attack is more prone to being broken), and I would consider it to be a destroyers secondary weapon. 

 

The German Destroyers at Narvik were not at ideal conditions at all. They were caught by surprise in confined waters with refueling and rearmament issues. And Warspite was not alone. On the contrary Surigao and Samar showed that DDs were very hard to counter by BBs and that in fact DD torpedoes can totally stop a superior BB force in it tracks. In Samar six DDs and their torpedoes stopped in their tracks 4 BBs, 6 Heavy cruisers and twice their number of light cruisers and destroyers. The fundamental point is that BB main guns struggled to cripple fast moving DDs. I did not claim that DDs could solo it V BBs in open seas but the whole point is to acknowledge that WG's note is fundamentally correct: 18 inch shells are huge and can cause massive damage, even when over-penetrating; but mroe likely than not, big guns are ineffective weapons against DDs, and this was clearly recognised as far back as before the onset of WW1. You mention the experience of WW1. Well, in fact the very term "Destroyer" was meant to refer to a ship whose sole original purpose was to destroy fast and agile torpedo equipped ships which would otherwise attack BBs with near impunity.   

[Jamezold]

So, Wargaming just proved a multiply DD can do a crap....

 

Example 1, Hiei - NIGHT BATTLE!!! (does it count as OPEN? - nope). DD's had heavy cruiser support..... Hiei has been  sank by airplanes (B-17).

Don't forget killing USS Admiral Daniel J. Callaghan. USS San Francisco (not DD!) managed to disable Hiei steering.

Example 2..... spot and run, entire DD squadron ran from battle - THEY KNEW BETTER!

 

I would give better examples :P..... not my Job xD

 

[The_Listener]

On ‎3‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 11:02 PM, DariusJacek said:

It about the same effect in real life as thermonuclear HE from Conqueror has in a game. To be honest hey can't go for too much for real life mechanics, as no one would even bother to play smaller ships then BBs (of course CVs from middle tiers up would really crap over everyone including BBs). I do not understand why WG tries to excuse themselves with cherry-picked real-life stories for balancing of the computer game. Probably it says more about average players then WG.

I totally agree with you Darius and how much I laughed when I read this article. I thought they said that this game isn't a naval battle simulator? Then why compare the game to real-life events. Real life has nothing to do with WG BALANS-ing so stop proving your points of fantasies WG. YOUR game is just game and it will always be its not real-life.

[The_Listener]

[Degradable]

2 hours ago, ATH67 said:

The German Destroyers at Narvik were not at ideal conditions at all. They were caught by surprise in confined waters with refueling and rearmament issues. And Warspite was not alone. On the contrary Surigao and Samar showed that DDs were very hard to counter by BBs and that in fact DD torpedoes can totally stop a superior BB force in it tracks. In Samar six DDs and their torpedoes stopped in their tracks 4 BBs, 6 Heavy cruisers and twice their number of light cruisers and destroyers. The fundamental point is that BB main guns struggled to cripple fast moving DDs. I did not claim that DDs could solo it V BBs in open seas but the whole point is to acknowledge that WG's note is fundamentally correct: 18 inch shells are huge and can cause massive damage, even when over-penetrating; but mroe likely than not, big guns are ineffective weapons against DDs, and this was clearly recognised as far back as before the onset of WW1. You mention the experience of WW1. Well, in fact the very term "Destroyer" was meant to refer to a ship whose sole original purpose was to destroy fast and agile torpedo equipped ships which would otherwise attack BBs with near impunity.   

Many points you make I totally agree with,  especially the original role of the destroyer.

But using Jutland as an argument to debate the other battles you mention.  It comes down to command.  Many openly criticised Jellicoe for the "Turn Away"  at Jutland.  Ignoring all else,  an amount of logic can be seen in the arguments.  If he had stayed on course and chased down the High Seas fleet we may have seen a totally different outcome.  (Please lets not actually debate that point).  The thing was though, they were concerned that a number of vessels may be sunk by torpedo and so he DID turn the fleet away.

But this was based on a secondary weapon causing more harm than it ever actually did...   It could be argued that only Marlborough was damaged out of a fairly significant number of torpedo fired.  (recall the ships Torpedo defences were not great).  German Torpedo were easier to spot than UK torpedo,  so I am saying the Destroyers maybe had more psychological than actual value.  This is obviously still a value,  but they are severely limited when engaging a prepared force.  Again I make the point  that seems to be lost,  Battleship secondary is every bit as good (With same or superior range) to the Destroyers primary.  

As with all these debates it comes down to the men on the spot and the conditions, weapons status, morale etc etc  

 

Also failed to mention that in initial contact at Narvik the first German Destroyers were sighted I believe by the Warspites plane.  Not aircraft carrier squadrons,  again a benefit of the Battleships,  it has a multitude of tools to "accomplish the task..." 

 

[Varian_Dorn]

On ‎3‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 9:40 AM, ATH67 said:

There is no BS on this. Other than when DDs were caught by surprise at point blank range (second battle of Narvik and cape Matapan) DDs have ALWAYS survived for a long period when engaging Battleships and Heavy Cruisers, none sinking or being disabled from one hit. BB AP shots can cause massive holes but will overpenetrate and US DD designs (e.g. Fletchers) had boiler rooms and machinery spaced out such that no single hit by any size shell could disable the ship. That is why Off Samar the combined force of Yamato, Nagato, Kongo, Haruna, six heavy cruisers, two light cruisers and 11 destroyers could only sink three US DDs after scoring dozens and dozens of hits on them and not just "one hit" as you claim. For example, Johnston was hit by three massive shells from a main gun salvo from Yamato and continued the fight against Japanese cruisers and battleships for another hour and a half, scoring huge damage, before been taken down mostly by gun fire having been surrounded by cruisers and DDs. Hoel and Samuel B Roberts had a similar experience in the same battle.    

So, this accounts for some of the american destroyers. Can you say the same for other nations' ships? And it's not just me who "claims" this, I strongly recommend you watch the Video I linked in at the quoted passage. And I dare say "dozens and dozens of hits" is an overstatement as well. Unless of course IJN decided to shoot cotton balls that day. For I REALLY, really doubt that even if a DD doesn't sink it propbably isn't much of a combat worthy ship anymore if it gets hit by heavy artillery that often.

Ignoring of course such minor factors like, I don't know, ship internal support lines, fires and... ya know… CREW.

[Dauntless71879]

A Little off Topic but what About the Battle of the Barents Sea

4 Destroyers Against The Hipper and Deutschland

[bondone]

4 hours ago, Dauntless71879 said:

A Little off Topic but what About the Battle of the Barents Sea

4 Destroyers Against The Hipper and Deutschland

WELL WHO  SANK !

[ATH67]

On ‎3‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 3:53 PM, Varian_Dorn said:

So, this accounts for some of the american destroyers. Can you say the same for other nations' ships? And it's not just me who "claims" this, I strongly recommend you watch the Video I linked in at the quoted passage. And I dare say "dozens and dozens of hits" is an overstatement as well. Unless of course IJN decided to shoot cotton balls that day. For I REALLY, really doubt that even if a DD doesn't sink it propbably isn't much of a combat worthy ship anymore if it gets hit by heavy artillery that often.

Ignoring of course such minor factors like, I don't know, ship internal support lines, fires and... ya know… CREW.

I so not know where to start here, so many errors in your comment. Your comment about the US DDs getting so many hits meaning that it is not a combat worthy ships is at the very least ignorant. Those DDs deliberately put themselves in harms way in what is globally regarded as the most heroic action in the history of naval warfare and in doing so, saved the entire Leyte Gulf landing force, and dozens of ships since they were all that was standing in the way of the entire Japanese main force and the landing zones. Far from being combat ineffective, those DDs fought, by far and away, the most effective ships in the history of any navy anywhere. Three of them were sunk, but they did what they set out to achieve, save form certain destruction dozens of ships (including 18 defenceless escort CVs in the area) and thousands of sailors and marines from certain death. The US DDs were successful partly BECAUSE the Yamato big guns were not able to disable them, CONTRARY to what you so very wrongly assert.   

There is no case of a German or Japanese DD engaging enemy battleships for the simple reason that UK or US Battleships never ventured solo within range of enemy DDs. However there are plenty of examples of UK DDs circling German capital ships (Bismarck, Scharnhorst and as Dauntless very correctly says, BOTH the Hipper and the Deutschland) and in all cases ONLY one heavy shell hit a DD and that did minor damage.

I watched the video you mention and of course real life shows it is a mistake: the Yamato, in the only battle in which it fired its main guns against surface targets and which lasted three hours totally failed to demolish ANY of the six DDs it faced with a single shell or a single salvo (contrary to what you say or what the video, obviously wrongly says). WG made an obvious huge unhistorical mistake in their video, why is that relevant to your point?

By the way, Yamato's big guns were also totally ineffective against the 6 unarmoured Cvs it was shooting against scoring a number of harmless over-penetrations.

There is no overstatement in me saying "dozens and dozens": the American DDs were being shelled for over two hours by over 20 ships and suffered multiple hits. IJN did not shoot cotton balls, but they did shoot too much AP, partly because they mistook the DDs for CAs. SAme with them shooting for three hours against 6 Bogue-class slow moving (18 knots) escort carriers) and achieving one kill only, Yamato's AP shots causing many harmless over-penetrations. Here is the point: 4 Battleships and  SIX heavy cruisers were shooting for three hours six slow carriers and six DDs and all they achieved was one CV (the US DDs were killed by the Japanese DDs). The one CV was sunk mostly as a result of hits from the Chikuma, a CA and I think the Kongo, but there is no evidence of the Yamato materially contributing (though it did get a main gun hit on one DD which kept on fighting). The Battle OFF Samar shows clearly what a useless ship the Yamato was. Incidentally, there is evidence that the Yamato's guns may have been very bad in terms of dispersion and for a long time after the ship was put in service the IJN tried to rectify the issue. In any case Yamato's guns were directed by good optics but had no radar direction. The Battle of Surigao Straight (a few hours earlier), where the old WW1 US battleships scored hits on their first or second salvos showed that radar directed fire and well trained crews was far more powerful than Yamato's ridiculous and ineffective guns.     

[ATH67]

 

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 1:02 AM, Dauntless71879 said:

A Little off Topic but what About the Battle of the Barents Sea

4 Destroyers Against The Hipper and Deutschland

 

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 5:20 AM, bondone said:

WELL WHO  SANK !

Dauntless is spot on: No one sank, the Hipper and the Deutschland were outfought by 4 DDs and ran away like chicken, one more example of large calibre guns being ineffective against DDs.  

[ApocalypseMeeow]

On 3/15/2019 at 3:08 PM, ATH67 said:

 

 

Dauntless is spot on: No one sank, the Hipper and the Deutschland were outfought by 4 DDs and ran away like chicken, one more example of large calibre guns being ineffective against DDs.  

The bias is strong in this post...

 

While this battle was IMHO one of the finest hours in the history of the RN in WWII and a prime example of DD's fending off superior forces, your one sentence miss two important points

1. Hipper sunk HMS Achates (A-class DD) [and Z16 was also destroyed by HMS Sheffield]

2. The german cruisers retreated after two cruisers entered battle and damaged Hipper - following the standing rulea of engagement for heavy KM units.