WW2 Ships vs Modern Task Force

[Scootaloo23]

Now, I know this may sound dumb, but hear me out.

 

What if a group of ships from WW2, across several nations, (KM, RN, USN, IJN), were dropped in at 1/2 a mile from a modern Navy task group, and had to fight it out? Say, 1 Iowa, 1 Yamato, 1 KGV,  1 Bismark, 1 Alaska, 2 Baltimores, 1 Mogamis, 1 Hipper, 2 Town class cruisers and a Pair of DDs from each nation.

 

Versus 2 Fleet CVs, 3 Missile cruisers and 8 DDGs.

 

What do these old workhorses have against these mighty modern machines?

 

A lot, me thinks. Modern ships may have obscene fire control, but this engagement will take place so close neither side could possibly miss. At this point it would be a question of which side could win the ensuing furrball. What do you think, would the sturdier construction of the older vessels win out, or would our modern glass cannons beat the snot out of them?

 

Enjoy!

[Appollosnos]

1/2 a mile I say if the ww2 guys got shots off first it would pretty much be a waste. If Jets get in the air its over.

[Carrier_Enterprise]

Within half a mile, the WW2 team would win without even lifting a finger.

 

If it was hundreds of miles away with Nuclear Carriers in the mix, we won't even need to talk about it.

[Crag_r]

What about the submarines attached to modern battle-groups? I can see modern Torpedoes(both sub and Destroyer launched) causing havoc among these old ships. that have no way to avoid them.

[Carrier_Enterprise]

Crag_r, on 23 February 2013 - 02:34 AM, said:

What about the submarines attached to modern battle-groups? I can see modern Torpedoes(both sub and Destroyer launched) causing havoc among these old ships. that have no way to avoid them.

aaannnd here comes the subs and their wire guided torpedoes.

How effective would MK48 do againts Yamato I wonder, it's a pretty big ship ya know...

[Scootaloo23]

Crag_r, on 23 February 2013 - 02:34 AM, said:

What about the submarines attached to modern battle-groups? I can see modern Torpedoes(both sub and Destroyer launched) causing havoc among these old ships. that have no way to avoid them.

Submarines? Sorry, I am thinking WoWS here.

[Crag_r]

drybone12, on 23 February 2013 - 02:37 AM, said:

aaannnd here comes the subs and their wire guided torpedoes.

How effective would MK48 do againts Yamato I wonder, it's a pretty big ship ya know...

Well thats a good point, they and other modern torpedoes have been shown to destroy cruisers and destroyers with a single weapon. I would guess it would only take a only a few to at least put a Yamato out of action.

Scootaloo23, on 23 February 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:

Submarines? Sorry, I am thinking WoWS here.

Well when you said modern task group i assumed you would include the 2 attack subs that usually lurk around it.

[Scootaloo23]

Crag_r, on 23 February 2013 - 02:45 AM, said:

Well thats a good point, they and other modern torpedoes have been shown to destroy cruisers and destroyers with a single weapon. I would guess it would only take a only a few to at least put a Yamato out of action.



Well when you said modern task group i assumed you would include the 2 attack subs that usually lurk around it.

I purged my mind of submarine though when I came here. Yeah, those subs always have to crash the party :Smile_amazed:

[ramp4ge]

Yamato took something like 21 torpedoes and 6 heavy bomb hits. And it wasn't even those that sunk her. It was a fire from one of those bomb hits that reached a magazine. Had she not exploded, she probably would've taken significantly more damage.

 

Musashi took 17 torpedo hits and 19 bomb hits before sinking.

 

Another thing you have to look at in the sinking of both of these ships is that Japanese damage control was terrible. I mean absolutely awful. A perfect example was the loss of Kongo. After she was hit by 2 torpedoes, virtually no damage control operations were carried out and the ship maintained 16 knots, even after the complete flooding of two boiler rooms. When she slowed to 11 knots because of spreading damage, her damage control officer, instead of leading the fight to save the ship, committed ritual suicide. The ship sank soon after..

 

As for modern task force vs WWII task force, air power alone would win the fight for the modern task force. Remove air power, and it's a more even fight. With air power, it's not even worth discussing.

 

Another example of WWII-era and earlier ships taking ridiculous amounts of damage is New York.

 

After surviving both nuclear bomb explosions with minimal damage, she was towed out to be sunk as a target, where she took untold amounts of gunfire and 41 bomb hits before rolling over and sinking.

 

This was a ship commissioned in 1914, in a non-watertight status, with no crew aboard to carry out damage control, and she still took an absolutely enormous pounding..

[thegreenbaron]

Scootaloo23, on 23 February 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:

Now, I know this may sound dumb, but hear me out.

What if a group of ships from WW2, across several nations, (KM, RN, USN, IJN), were dropped in at 1/2 a mile from a modern Navy task group, and had to fight it out? Say, 1 Iowa, 1 Yamato, 1 KGV,  1 Bismark, 1 Alaska, 2 Baltimores, 1 Mogamis, 1 Hipper, 2 Town class cruisers and a Pair of DDs from each nation.

Versus 2 Fleet CVs, 3 Missile cruisers and 8 DDGs.

What do these old workhorses have against these mighty modern machines?

A lot, me thinks. Modern ships may have obscene fire control, but this engagement will take place so close neither side could possibly miss. At this point it would be a question of which side could win the ensuing furrball. What do you think, would the sturdier construction of the older vessels win out, or would our modern glass cannons beat the snot out of them?

Enjoy!

Given those numbers and that range, it's a walk over for the WW2 ships.  Assuming that the shooting starts on arrival, in the first three min, you're looking at everything but Crags two subs and the two fleet carriers at the very least mission killed.  This is assuming the fleet carriers have their armored doors closed.  If those are open, those are also mission kill.  If closed, then both carriers are likely taking on water and fighting fires.

In the same space of time, the WW2 fleet is likely either lost two destroyers or has a battleship dealing with damage from torp his from the subs.  Assuming they're the type that still use torps and are not all ASM.

If shooting waits five min, you're looking at a much more mixed bag.  Hipper, Baltimore, and Alaska go down, but likely drag two DDGs or Cruiser each with them.  ASM are less effective against the Yamato and Iowa classes, They probably kill a fleet carrier, maybe two, before the subs and planes can do sufficient damage to them.  Most of the destroyers are probably gone, either from ASM or from deck guns, though it's possible at that range they drag a cruiser with them.  Most likely they do kill the remaining DDGs though.

It's the same result, but with more casualties on the WW2 side.  Modern warships suck massive balls at close range, and ASM are actually fairly ineffective against battleships, outside the occasional lucky hit.  Further, at those ranges, you'll see any of the ships carrying VLS struggle, as the missile has to double back, something they're normally programmed not to do.

[Lemelisk1]

if the modern ships do not scramble fighters in time the ww2 ships would probably win

 

pretty much the modern fleet has to have it's fighters in the air already when they come to stand a chance

[NGTM_1R]

drybone12, on 23 February 2013 - 02:37 AM, said:

How effective would MK48 do againts Yamato I wonder, it's a pretty big ship ya know...

Devastating. Torpedo bulges are not useful against modern submarine torpedoes which are capable of impacting against the bottom of the hull or detonating beneath the keel to break it. You can also place the hit, so really you can drive one into the bottom of his magazine or engine room and call it a day.

[Windhover118]

Lemelisk1, on 23 February 2013 - 03:39 AM, said:

if the modern ships do not scramble fighters in time the ww2 ships would probably win

pretty much the modern fleet has to have it's fighters in the air already when they come to stand a chance

The question isnt really how fast they can launch their planes but how quickly they can be armed for anti ship action. Assuming the WWII fleet just pops out of nowhere, we can probably assume that neither fleet is really prepared for battle but the range at which they meet would seem to point at the WWII ships having the advantage. I suppose if the carriers do get their aircraft off they could do what Taffy 3 did and just harrase the WWII ships, maybe even blind fire their Air to Air missiles into the WWII ships.

[Crag_r]

NGTM_1R, on 23 February 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

Devastating. Torpedo bulges are not useful against modern submarine torpedoes which are capable of impacting against the bottom of the hull or detonating beneath the keel to break it. You can also place the hit, so really you can drive one into the bottom of his magazine or engine room and call it a day.

Which makes this battle rather 1 sided if you take into account the 50-75 of these torpedoes depending on what Class of attack subs you have lurking about assuming you only have 2 of them. Then add the nuance of more Tomahawk or Harpoon missiles they carry.

[Wunderwaffen1945]

Within 1/2 mile............hah, old glory

[NGTM_1R]

The missiles aren't going to be as ineffective as people think, most of them will probably go into the unarmored superstructures, and with most of their fuel still aboard at such a short range start horrendous fires. A warship is a collection of related systems that need to talk to each other and be manned attentively, and the missile hits can break that. I'd expect gunfire accuracy and efficiency to drop away sharply after the first hit lands and go down with each successive one, and probably cease once the first large jet-fuel-powered fire breaks out from a Harpoon or Exocet impact. A good launch of ASuW ordnance will win the battle for the more modern ships as they force the older ones to concentrate on managing fires they can't actually put out, only contain, or at least force a draw...and a draw is a loss as the modern force turns away and exploits their range advantages.

[Carrier_Enterprise]

NGTM_1R, on 23 February 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

The missiles aren't going to be as ineffective as people think, most of them will probably go into the unarmored superstructures, and with most of their fuel still aboard at such a short range start horrendous fires. A warship is a collection of related systems that need to talk to each other and be manned attentively, and the missile hits can break that. I'd expect gunfire accuracy and efficiency to drop away sharply after the first hit lands and go down with each successive one, and probably cease once the first large jet-fuel-powered fire breaks out from a Harpoon or Exocet impact. A good launch of ASuW ordnance will win the battle for the more modern ships as they force the older ones to concentrate on managing fires they can't actually put out, only contain, or at least force a draw...and a draw is a loss as the modern force turns away and exploits their range advantages.

True enough I guess, both sides have enough firepower to blow each other to the moon, By the time the DDGs get a few missles out, I do think the battleships wold have hit some of them.

[Dunewarrior]

I think the WW2 ships will be able to sink all the modern ships, but the WW2 ships will also be all sunk due to the modern subs.

[thegreenbaron]

NGTM_1R, on 23 February 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

The missiles aren't going to be as ineffective as people think, most of them will probably go into the unarmored superstructures, and with most of their fuel still aboard at such a short range start horrendous fires. A warship is a collection of related systems that need to talk to each other and be manned attentively, and the missile hits can break that. I'd expect gunfire accuracy and efficiency to drop away sharply after the first hit lands and go down with each successive one, and probably cease once the first large jet-fuel-powered fire breaks out from a Harpoon or Exocet impact. A good launch of ASuW ordnance will win the battle for the more modern ships as they force the older ones to concentrate on managing fires they can't actually put out, only contain, or at least force a draw...and a draw is a loss as the modern force turns away and exploits their range advantages.

NGTM, that's a nice scenario.  Too bad 'unarmored' superstrucures went out of style when they launched Dreadnought and didn't come back in until post WW2.  Even Destroyers of the period have better armor than a modern cruiser.

You're also totally ignoring that your underlaying premise, that a warship requires continuous communication to function in battle, goes out the window to a degree with WW2 era ships as they depended more on men and less on automation.  There are a few key systems you can cripple, but compared to the modern equivalents, they take more killing.

It is however, very true with modern warships.  One can only imagine what would happen to a modern cruiser hosed down by a Fletcher's five inch guns and torps at a half mile range.

I can't deny that fires would definitely break out, but they're not going to be the all consuming issues that you fondly imagine.  Unless it's a back breaking shot, even modern ships can survive an ASM hit, and their steel construction makes them harder to kill with fires.  Even jet fuel ones.

[Scootaloo23]

thegreenbaron, on 23 February 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

NGTM, that's a nice scenario.  Too bad 'unarmored' superstrucures went out of style when they launched Dreadnought and didn't come back in until post WW2.  Even Destroyers of the period have better armor than a modern cruiser.

You're also totally ignoring that your underlaying premise, that a warship requires continuous communication to function in battle, goes out the window to a degree with WW2 era ships as they depended more on men and less on automation.  There are a few key systems you can cripple, but compared to the modern equivalents, they take more killing.

It is however, very true with modern warships.  One can only imagine what would happen to a modern cruiser hosed down by a Fletcher's five inch guns and torps at a half mile range.

I can't deny that fires would definitely break out, but they're not going to be the all consuming issues that you fondly imagine.  Unless it's a back breaking shot, even modern ships can survive an ASM hit, and their steel construction makes them harder to kill with fires.  Even jet fuel ones.

Last time I checked all warships were made of steel. I mean, yes, in the 70s they tried aluminum, but I thought they ditched that.

[MM2ss]

The modern surface force is mission killed at a minimum, most likely sunk, the nuke attack subs then pick off the WWII vessels one by one.

 

As for people wondering about the effectiveness of modern torpedoes vs WWII ships.  The answer of "Devastating" is right on the mark.  The mark 48 adcap carries a 1200 pounds equivalent tnt warhead.  For comparison, the mark 14 carried 507 pounds of tnt (old submarine torpedo), and the mark 13 aircraft torpedo had a warhead of 603 pounds tnt.  The Mark 48 ADCAP has double or more the explosive power of the old torpedoes, longer range, greater accuracy, is more reliable, and detonates under the keel of the target.

 

Now, let's look at what ships we'd be firing at, and my estimate on the number of torpedoes required.

 

1 Iowa- two torpedoes.

1 Yamato- Tricky question.  I'd likely giver her three adcaps, just to be sure she goes down.

1 KGV- Two torpedoes, mission kill is one hit, sinking is two.

1 Bismark- I'll go with two torpedoes, breaking the keel with one mission kills Bismark, but it was stoutly constructed, and I want it sunk.

1 Alaska- one or two torpedoes (I'd have to check on the compartmentalization of the Alaska's, they had essentially no underwater protection, but good compartmentalization might let her survive a torpedo).

2 Baltimores- one or two torpedoes (I think one).

1 Mogami- single torpedo.

1 Hipper- one, maybe two torpedoes (I think one).

2 Town class cruisers- each killed by single torpedo.

a Pair of DDs from each nation- each killed by a single torpedo(8 total, UK, US, KM, IJN).

 

So, up to 28 torpedoes required, that can be launched from down deep, by a platform that I believe a WWII DD would have a hard time finding.  If the SSN's are 688 or 688i's, they carry more than enough torpedoes to do the job, but only 8 tubes between them.  If the WWII vessels essentially do a convoy scatter, then some may actually escape, namely the DD's and Cruisers.  The Iowa might escape...if the submarines do not primary it and the Yamato.  The 28 shots with 8 tubes could be launched in roughly 45 minutes to an hour (assuming a good dual reload team on both SSNs).

 

The kicker is even if a ship can get away from the torpedoes, they could still get nailed with Harpoon and Tomahawk from the VLS.

[LightningStriker911]

Crag_r, on 23 February 2013 - 02:34 AM, said:

What about the submarines attached to modern battle-groups? I can see modern Torpedoes(both sub and Destroyer launched) causing havoc among these old ships. that have no way to avoid them.

*Sigh* I wish WG puts the Sub's in game. Sad that they won't

[Crag_r]

LightningStriker911, on 23 February 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

*Sigh* I wish WG puts the Sub's in game. Sad that they won't

Hardly, take a look at the sub topic, basically you have to buff them well past the point of unrealism to be in game. And when you do they lose all resemblance to what or how you could imagine a sub of the time to function.

[ramp4ge]

Submarines would ruin the game.

 

It'd be like NF2. You'd have submerged submarines running down battleships that're at flank speed and jamming 30k damage torps into them at half a ship length away, giving no time to dodge or react.

 

Submarines are the one mechanic about that game I absolutely cannot stand. It's even more poorly thought out then it was in the original NF..

[thegreenbaron]

MM2ss, on 23 February 2013 - 06:32 PM, said:

The modern surface force is mission killed at a minimum, most likely sunk, the nuke attack subs then pick off the WWII vessels one by one.

As for people wondering about the effectiveness of modern torpedoes vs WWII ships.  The answer of "Devastating" is right on the mark.  The mark 48 adcap carries a 1200 pounds equivalent tnt warhead.  For comparison, the mark 14 carried 507 pounds of tnt (old submarine torpedo), and the mark 13 aircraft torpedo had a warhead of 603 pounds tnt.  The Mark 48 ADCAP has double or more the explosive power of the old torpedoes, longer range, greater accuracy, is more reliable, and detonates under the keel of the target.

Now, let's look at what ships we'd be firing at, and my estimate on the number of torpedoes required.

1 Iowa- two torpedoes.
1 Yamato- Tricky question.  I'd likely giver her three adcaps, just to be sure she goes down.
1 KGV- Two torpedoes, mission kill is one hit, sinking is two.
1 Bismark- I'll go with two torpedoes, breaking the keel with one mission kills Bismark, but it was stoutly constructed, and I want it sunk.
1 Alaska- one or two torpedoes (I'd have to check on the compartmentalization of the Alaska's, they had essentially no underwater protection, but good compartmentalization might let her survive a torpedo).
2 Baltimores- one or two torpedoes (I think one).
1 Mogami- single torpedo.
1 Hipper- one, maybe two torpedoes (I think one).
2 Town class cruisers- each killed by single torpedo.
a Pair of DDs from each nation- each killed by a single torpedo(8 total, UK, US, KM, IJN).

So, up to 28 torpedoes required, that can be launched from down deep, by a platform that I believe a WWII DD would have a hard time finding.  If the SSN's are 688 or 688i's, they carry more than enough torpedoes to do the job, but only 8 tubes between them.  If the WWII vessels essentially do a convoy scatter, then some may actually escape, namely the DD's and Cruisers.  The Iowa might escape...if the submarines do not primary it and the Yamato.  The 28 shots with 8 tubes could be launched in roughly 45 minutes to an hour (assuming a good dual reload team on both SSNs).

The kicker is even if a ship can get away from the torpedoes, they could still get nailed with Harpoon and Tomahawk from the VLS.

This is true in deep water.  If we're fighting in a littoral or another shallow location though, the subs will either have to beat feet or get depth charged.  Further, remember that detonating depth charges screw up adcaps, so figure a 10% failure rate as the destroyers run their pattern.


Of course, there's always too the 'blind luck' factor when that many destroyers start dropping depth charges.  You're forgetting there were more fleets involved than that (how about Italy and France?)  With two per nation (assuming he means two per nation that fielded a Navy that had such a thing during the war and deployed them for either the allies or Axis powers) You're looking at north of 30 destroyers dropping depth charges.

If the commanders of the subs are equally as overconfident (after seeing the fleet wiped, most would return to port) you might actually see a SSN lost as well.  Germany had developed seeking torps by 1943, which the US based it's later torpedoes such as adcaps off of following the war,  Not the the ADCAP isn't vastly superior, but believe me, against the thin skin of a tin can like a sub, they would do the job.