Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Kongo vs B-65

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Kongo vs B-65 Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Kongo vs B-65 - 12/22/2009 2:03:42 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
Ok Kongo vs B-65 how do they compare for a similar tonnage. ANyone have stats on the proposed 9 × 310 mm /50 ?
Post #: 1
RE: Kongo vs B-65 - 12/22/2009 3:43:42 AM   
Shark7


Posts: 7889
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
Try looking right here:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_122-50.htm

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 2
RE: Kongo vs B-65 - 12/22/2009 9:05:35 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
It would have been the B-64 if you stick with the 31cm weapons. When they upgunned the design, it became B-65.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 3
RE: Kongo vs B-65 - 12/22/2009 9:13:43 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
As for the question, the B-64 is more modern, but less likely to fight well in a heavy engagement (her primary and secondary batteries are too light).

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 4
RE: Kongo vs B-65 - 12/22/2009 10:59:51 AM   
JuanG


Posts: 900
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
Actually, I'm pretty sure thats a misconception. Both designs were filed as B65, just different variants (Like all the Yamatos were A140).

As for how they compare, the B65 in my opinion is definately the better of the two ships;

Armour
While exact details on the protective scheme are sparse for the B65, the belt would have been of almost equal thickness and inclined at 20*, and likely better overall than Kongo's. The deck is generally quoted as 125mm, which is superior to what the Kongo's had, though there are no details if this is in a single deck or in layers. The former would make it vastly better than Kongos arrangement.

The ship is also likely to benefit from better subdivision than the older Kongos, though depending on when they get built, they may end up suffering from the declining quality of Japanese steel later in the war.

The twin turrets on Kongo weigh around 650tons, some sources put the B65 turrets at 1000tons. While this includes the extra weight to support the wider turret and extra gun, it also points to there likely being more armour on the turrets too compared to Kongo.

Weapons
The 31cm/50 is an interesting weapon, firing something of a Japanese 'superheavy' shell at 1265lbs. This is even heavier than the shell on the USN 12in/50, and almost as heavy as Kongos shell. Like all superheavy shell guns, it suffers from a loss in range and short range penetration, but will likely be vastly superior as a deck penetrator at 20k+ yards. Ill run these through NAaB and FaceHard later, I think they included projected data for this gun. The guns also had a reasonably higher maximum ROF than Kongo, but its debateable if this is of any use at longer ranges, or if the shell handling arrangements could have kept pace with it. In a night action this may have helped.

Unlike the Kongos they have a large uniform secondary battery of 10cm/65s, which means an overall better AA defence and likely superior against light ships like DDs. Kongos arrangement is however probably better against CA/CLs, as the small shell from the 10cm isnt going to go through much armour, whereas the 15cm secondaries on the Kongo despite also being HE only, probably will.

No idea why they put torpedo tubes on the thing. Maybe cause its a cruiser.


Other factors
At 34knots the B65 can keep up with all the CAs and CVs when needed, whereas the 30knot Kongos could not. The large machinery is going to be more expensive, at some 35,000 more SHP than Kongo it is even more powerful than that fitted in Shokaku, and this might be a real problem. Unless I'm off, it would be the most powerful set of engines in the entire IJN!

Apart from this, B65 would likely benefit from superior firecontrol than Kongo, both HA and LA, as she could be designed from the start to make use of all the advances instead of being modernized like the Kongos.

Thats about all I can think of for now...

< Message edited by JuanG -- 12/22/2009 11:02:32 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 5
RE: Kongo vs B-65 - 12/22/2009 11:29:07 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
According to Conway's, the 31cm ship was B-64 and the 36cm ship was B-65.

As you say, either way they were considered super-heavy cruisers. It might have been interesting if one of them had replaced the Kirishima in the fight against Washington and South Dakota. As a cruiser, it would probably have trained better in night gunnery, and have scored better than the 1/118 hit ratio by the Kirishima.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 6
RE: Kongo vs B-65 - 12/22/2009 12:48:18 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
The fire rate of that gun is given as 3pm , in theory her broadside is significantly higher than the Kongo ( 1 gun more , 10% less shell weight , 50% higher rate of fire)  but with the exception of 2 US Super cruisers most US BBs would be immune to the guns!

Any data on the penetration of those guns ?

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 7
RE: Kongo vs B-65 - 12/22/2009 12:56:22 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Data is very sketchy, since not so much as a prototype was built.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 8
RE: Kongo vs B-65 - 12/22/2009 12:59:43 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

The fire rate of that gun is given as 3pm , in theory her broadside is significantly higher than the Kongo ( 1 gun more , 10% less shell weight , 50% higher rate of fire)  but with the exception of 2 US Super cruisers most US BBs would be immune to the guns!

Any data on the penetration of those guns ?


Don't discount the lighter gun. The South Dakota was only hit by one 36cm shell, but 17 20cm shells, which, while not mortal, knocked her out of the fight.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 9
RE: Kongo vs B-65 - 12/22/2009 5:06:50 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 900
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

The fire rate of that gun is given as 3pm , in theory her broadside is significantly higher than the Kongo ( 1 gun more , 10% less shell weight , 50% higher rate of fire)  but with the exception of 2 US Super cruisers most US BBs would be immune to the guns!

Any data on the penetration of those guns ?


Heres a quick run I did with NAaB;

Penetration in Inches,
Vertical vs US Class A
Horizontal vs US Class B

36cm/45 41st Year Type firing 1485lbs Type 91 APC @ 2526fps
31cm/50 Type 0 firing 1265lbs Type 91 APC @ 2402fps

Range - Penetration for 36cm (V/H) - Penetration for 31cm (V/H)
5,000 - (23.9 / 0.7) - (19.6 / 0.8)
10,000 - (19.7 / 1.5) - (16.2 / 1.6)
15,000 - (16.1 / 2.2) - (13.4 / 2.3)
20,000 - (13.3 / 2.7) - (11.2 / 2.8)
25,000 - (11.3 / 3.4) - (9.5 / 3.6)
30,000 - (9.7 / 4.9) - (8.2 / 5.4)
35,000 - (8.4 / 8.1) - (7.0 / 10.1)

As Terminus said, just cause its a 'lighter' weapon does not mean it isnt capable of mission killing most things afloat. Would not like to be the one shooting these at an Iowa/SoDak however, the IZ looks pretty nasty.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 12/22/2009 5:08:29 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 10
RE: Kongo vs B-65 - 12/22/2009 7:58:01 PM   
chesmart


Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline
Terminus regarding the fight between the IJN Kirishima and USS South Dakota did you take into consideration the updated data Tiornu ,Sander Kingsepp and rlundgren discovered. It looks very interesting here is the link :

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/9460/t/Kirishima.html


Kirishima according to there article hit South Dakota with a few more 14 inch shells more than is normally accredited.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 11
RE: Kongo vs B-65 - 12/22/2009 8:52:30 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
I didn't take that into account, because it's the first time I hear it... Thanks for the link; Kirishima's shooting still wasn't very good, given the knife-fight range.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to chesmart)
Post #: 12
RE: Kongo vs B-65 - 12/22/2009 10:36:15 PM   
chesmart


Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline
   Well the article changed my perspective regarding 2nd Guadalcanal and the damage Kirishima received.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 13
RE: Kongo vs B-65 - 12/22/2009 10:41:48 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
I think it's more interesting to look at what damage she managed to inflict, since she failed to survive the battle.

I saw an interesting what-if the other day. What if the IJN battlecruiser that night had been the Amagi? Far heavier armament, marginally better armour, would have been better trained for night-time gunfights...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to chesmart)
Post #: 14
RE: Kongo vs B-65 - 12/22/2009 11:16:05 PM   
chesmart


Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline
Well According to that article Kirishima did react very fast and was successful in hitting South Dakota with more 14inch shells than accredited by normally by historians, but in the end Washington would have still taken out Amagi. Why don't you put a what if in the main forum Tiornu could expand more on the article, as he posts here as well. It could turn out in an interesting discussion.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 15
RE: Kongo vs B-65 - 12/22/2009 11:26:28 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
If the Amagi had been there, the broadside weight would have been heavier, and the South Dakota might not have survived. I agree that the end result for the Japs would probably still have been the loss of the big unit.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to chesmart)
Post #: 16
RE: Kongo vs B-65 - 12/23/2009 11:16:08 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
Im quite impressed by the Kongos they were very old ships and 20-23 16" hits is pretty nasty. Im even surprised the side protection system stopped some of these shells and she sunk from under water hits for which she had no armour (and the rudder hit didnt help ) .. not sure this wasnt addressed in her refits with bulges.

If Amagi type ships with 16" rounds and night trained crews were there it could be very different South Dakota would have been in deep trouble. Who gets the lucky hit ?

quote:

fact she scored at least 6 main battery hits under these conditions is remarkable


"Japanese gunnery during this engagement was certainly reasonable. Kirishima hit South Dakota on her first salvo with both main and secondary weapons at 11,000 yards. These are hits 13,14,and 15 in the BuShip report. Due to the target angle she could only fire her rear turrets. She fired from 0052-0054 and then checked fire to turn to a new course of 130 degrees.

At 0100 Atago illuminated South Dakota and Kirishima re-opened fire by 0101. She scored two 14-inch HC rounds hits number 2 and 11 in the BuShips report. Hit 23 that raked across her stack was more likely a 14-inch type 3 shell. Hit 21 a near miss by a 14-inch AP shell. Hit 26 by a 14-inch AP shell. during the action she was able to pump out 117 rounds despite her punishment. Then there are multiple 6-inch rounds coming from a forward position which are more than likely from Kirishima. Overall she scored about 50% of South Dakota's damage.

Now when you consider that she lost both forward turrets and two hydraulic pump rooms operating her aft turrets and she only presented her starboard side to Washington from 0100-0105 and Washington stopped firing for 1.5 minutes during this time Kirishima is taking multiple hits in groups of 3,4,5 simultaneously. Turret 4 will remain in action the longest. Her main rangefinder is taken out and visability is down to 6,000 yards so South Dakota is on the edge of what they can see. She is being blown apart but she maintains her fire on South Dakota longer than Washington will shoot at her. Considering the number of shells in her salvo's being quickly reduced from 8 to 6 and then 4 to 2 the fact she scored at least 6 main battery hits under these conditions is remarkable. Overall I feel her crew fought with extreme discipline and did far better than did Bismarck in her last action. She did this without the aid of radar, at night, with lousy visability, while taking massive damage, and had to overcome being blinded by her own fires, and the paint scheme of South Dakota which confused the Japanese as to her heading which they initially could not determine. Had she been prepared for a surface action South Dakota would have taken far more serious damage especially if the HC shells had been AP shells. Hit two would have ripped through sick bay on its way to the forward turrets barbette. Hit 11 would have tested the main belt on its way to her machinery. Kirishima's damage to Radar plot effectively silenced a modern US battleship so she was ineffective in response. She was fortunate Washington was ready when she was.

Washington's radar could not spot the fall of shot on Kirishima. Shell splashes had to be counted optically. Lee estimated 8 hits. Some of the hits are extremely close together and probably occurred at the same time. The shells that struck below the waterline would be counted as misses. If the shells that landed close together were counted as single hits you would have counted 8 hits. The lone interview that the nine hits/40 secondary hits came from was consistent with Lee's observation. Other Japanese reports sited at least 6 hits and I believe they were refering to the 6 hits below the waterline because these actually caused the damage which would lead to her sinking. She would have survived but would be badly damaged if none of these took place.

We were lucky to find this information out because most of her records were burned up when Toyko was bombed in 1945. "



"Iwabuchi wants Nagara to tow his ship to shore so he can bombard the island until he is out of ammunition. The captain of Nagara refuses. " [:-)]

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 17
RE: Kongo vs B-65 - 12/23/2009 11:22:06 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
Kongo protection


You asked about Kirishima's vertical protection during WWII. The first thing to understand is that when the Kongo class was built and modernized the Japanese used an exact 40 lbs equals 1-inch by 1 foot square plate so instead of an inch equalling 25.4 mm this inch equaled 24.9 mm. Most original blueprints list the armor in either lbs or inches which most present day authors convert to the standard inch of 25.4 mm. Thus most books have her armor slightly off. Her main belt is 199 mm not 203 mm thick. This post will only deal with her vertical protection if you want to know her horizontal protection the best way to show it is with drawings. I sent an e-mail to Tony and I can easily modify the internal layout drawings to a armor profile for both vertical and horizontal and we can add them to that file if Tony wishes.
Her decks for her hull begin with the Forecastle deck, Upper deck, Main deck, Middle deck, Platform deck and last the Hold deck. Frame 48 is the very front of turret one. Frame 108 is the center of her pagoda superstructure and the beginning of her boiler rooms. Frame 189 is the end of her boiler rooms and the back edge of her turret three magazines. Frame 269 is where the main belt ends. Frame 276 is the beginning of her aft steering machinery. Frame 295 is where her aft belt ends and the armor stops. VC stands for Vickers Cemented, HT is High Tensil Steel, NS is Nickle steel, and DS is Ducol steel which represent the armor used for vertical protection. Any VC plates need a backing plate to attach to the hull. By WWII only VC would be considered armor grade steel but in WWI, HT and NS were widely used as armor.
So from frame 1 to frame 48 protecting the main and middle decks is a 74.7 mm VC plate on a backing plate of 16 mm NS steel. The waterline is about half way between the width of the plate.
From frame 48 to frame 212 or basically from turret one to slightly aft of turret three protecting between the forecastle deck and the upper deck along with the casemate mounts you have a 149 mm VC plate backed by a 12 mm NS plate.
Frome frame 48 to frame 212 protecting between the upper deck and the main deck you have a 149 mm VC plate backed by 50 mm teak wood and two 12 mm NS plates.
The Main belt protecting between the main deck to the middle deck from frame 48 to frame 269 is 199 mm VC backed by 50 mm teak wood on a single 16 mm NS plate.
Below the main belt also from frame 48 to frame 269 is a 74.7 mm VC plate backed by a 16 mm NS plate.
Between frame 269 and 295 protecting her stern between the main deck and middle deck is a 74.7mm VC plate on 16 mm NS plate.
All of the above plates are the same as she was built with in 1914.
The Japanese added protection below the waterline for the following areas.
Frame 48 to frame 106 protecting from the lower 74.7 mm belt below the main belt to the hold deck they added four 24.9 mm HT plates onto the original outer hull of 16 mm NS steel and then the torpedo bulge covered this area. Total thickness was 115.6 mm. The use of laminated plates however reduces the overall effectiveness but I am sure made it eaiser to install. This protected her main and secondary magazines forward from shells hitting below the waterline or from fragments from near miss bombs.
From frame 106 to 189 well within the torpedo protective system they installed two 24.9 mm plates of either DS or HT plates. The most detailed source I have says it was DS. However other sources list it as HT. This bulkhead is really designed to stop fragments produced by a torpedo from penetrating the holding bulkhead. DS steel is far more ductile than HT and would elastically bend before it broke asorbing a shock better. This protected her boiler rooms again starting where the lower 3-inch VC belt ended to the hold deck.
From frame 189 to frame 269 again starting where the lower 3-inch VC belt ended to the hold deck and protecting her aft magazines for turrets three and four along with her engine rooms they added four 24.9 mm HT plates backed by one 19 mm NS plate and one 12 mm NS plate for a total thickness of 130 mm.
Kongo and Haruna after Hiei and Kirishima were lost recieved two feet of cement between frames 276 and 295 below the aft 3-inch belt to assist in preventing flooding of the aft steering compartments. This ran down to the hold deck.
Above the forecastle deck barbette armor was 224.1 mm VC. Turret side and rear plates were 228.6 mm VC and the face plate was 249 mm VC. The turret roof plates were changed to 149.4 mm VC. (I am not totally convinced the roof armor was VC or Non-Cemented armor) The latest Japanese sources say it was VC but in photos the turret roofs have many things attached to them either bolted or welded. Even the ladders on the front and sides do not touch the front or side plates but attach to the roof and the rear of the bottom flat area of the rotating structure above the barbette. The technical mission to Japan lists the armor as NC or non-cemented. However on the Ise class she had two turrets that had an armored plug punched out by a general purpose bomb which her 6-inch roof plate should have easily resisted. The bolts near the sight hoods made a weak spot in the armor which would be even weaker if they used a face-hardened armor.
Turrets three and four recieved 124.5 mm VC plate over the original 74.7 mm VC plate on the barbettes below the forecastle deck. The forward turrets did not recieve this and below the forecastle deck the barbettes remained 74.7 mm VC.
The forward transverse bulkhead at frame 48 was 149 mm VC, I don't have the backing plate but again it would be similar to the other areas.
The conning tower forward sides, front, and rear were 249 mm VC thick. I am not sure about the backing plate but it would be similar to the thickness given for the others. The rear conning tower when first built was removed during re-construction.
If you want me to go into horizontal protection it is much more complicated changing from deck to deck and frame to frame. It is very inconsistent which Kongo through Nagato were plagued with and none of these classes by 1936 had an effective armor scheme against US BB caliber shells. The Japanese focused on protecting the magazines and turrets but their engine rooms and machinery were basically wide open to attack. Their deck protection would be better against general purpose bombs than AP shells or AP bombs with a sufficient delay fuze. 



(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 18
RE: Kongo vs B-65 - 12/24/2009 6:46:35 PM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 296
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline
As you say what if the IJN had been firing AP not HE!! I believe that at that range belt penetration (bearing in mind the relatively weak belt of the South Dakota) would have occurred. One point often overlooked in this calculation of the number of heavy hits on Kirishima is the characteristics of the USN 'heavy' shell. It had been considered by both the RN and KM but their experiences at Jutland convinced them that since the chance of hitting was small then each must inflict maximum damage. The price of a heavy shell (an utterly obvious design process) was to reduce, in the USN case dramatically, the size of the burster. It seems that the explosive mpact of these shells was so small that the documenters forward on the Kirishima did not even realise that hits had been made at the stern.

Of course one will never know whether the heavy shell was a good solution. Its sole function was to increase the chance of deck penetration at long ranges - it is highly questionable whether this is a viable aim since battle experience quickly demonstrated that maintaining range was a very dicey assumption. I always thought that the French were right - having forward turrets only obviously worked for closing and were also best when being chased. The Renown found this out in Norway - she had a theoretical edge in the chase but in practise the German BC yawed once per 40 seconds to throw-off aim and broadside fired on each yaw. But off the point!

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 19
RE: Kongo vs B-65 - 12/25/2009 12:33:14 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

bearing in mind the relatively weak belt of the South Dakota


I dont think they could have penetrate the belt ( its not weak) even with AP so HE was maybe a good option.

Interesting on the super heavies , 2 points worth noting

- The Japanese went heavy with their proposed 320 mm gun ( maybe to penetrate BB armour)
- Deck armour was getting thicker quick due to aircraft protection.

Agree in BB vs BB max range is quite useless but not so for cruisers.

< Message edited by bklooste -- 12/25/2009 12:52:50 AM >


_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 20
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Kongo vs B-65 Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.164