Interesting ship loss statistics compiled by U.S. navy

[DEADTIME]

 

Credit for this go's to Chuck Hill's CG Blog.

Over a long period, I’ve made an informal study of this subject. The primary source I used was the US Navy Report of War Damage series. The same index also includes reports of individual ship damage and reports of damage to British warships. I would also recommend the “Destroyer Report: Gunfire, Bomb and Kamikaze Damage, 17Oct41-15Aug45” which includes annotated damage control plates. The amount of damage these little ships took and in some cases survived is truly amazing.

The US Navy Report of War Damage series briefly outlines all incidents of damage to US Navy Battleships, Carriers, Cruisers, Destroyers, and Destroyer Escorts as they were known at the time the document was published and includes diagrams of the location of hits.

The forth and final volume includes a summary table of what caused the sinking of 92 ships ships lost during WWII (page 4). The ships sunk at Pearl Harbor but subsequently raised were considered “damaged” rather than “lost.” These 92 sinkings included 2 Battleships (BB), 4 Fleet carriers (CV), 1 Light Carrier (CVL), 6 Escort Carriers (CVE), 7 Heavy Cruisers (CA), 3 Light or Light Anti-Aircraft Crusiers (CL or CLAA), 60 Destroyers (DD), and 9 Destroyer Escorts (DE).

Causes for sinkings were listed as follows (three were listed as disappeared, but I have corrected the figures based on information that was not available at the time of the printing):

• 38 by torpedoes alone (41.3%)
• 16 by suicide planes (17.4%)
• 12 Bombs alone (13%)
• 11 by gunfire alone (12%)
• 6 by torpedoes and gunfire (6.5%)
• 5 by mines (5.4%)
• 4 by torpedoes and bombs (4.3%)
• 1 by bombs finished off by gunfire (1.1%)

As can be seen, torpedoes were involved in 48 of the 92 sinking (52%).

As the ships get larger it becomes harder to sink them by gunfire alone. If we consider only the 23 larger major warships (Battleships, Carriers, Cruisers) lost, torpedoes were involved in sinking 17 (74%) including 100% of the battleships and fleet carriers. It is not reflected in the table but torpedoes were also involved in the sinking of all six battleships at Pearl Harbor.

• 10 by torpedo alone (43.5%)
• 4 by torpedo and gunfire (17.4%)
• 3 by bombs and torpedoes (13%)
• 3 by suicide plane (13%)
• 2 by gunfire alone (8.7%)
• 1 by bombs alone (4.3%)

The two large ships sunk by gunfire alone both engaged heavy cruisers and/or battleships. USS Astoria (CA34) was sunk at the Battle of Savo Is., 8/9/42. She was hit at least 65 times by 8″ and 5″ projectiles. Five 5″ hits below water line. In spite of uncontrolled fires she did not sink until a magazine exploded nine hours after the action. The opposing force was 5 CA, 2 CL, 1 DD. USS Gambier Bay (CVE73), was sunk at the battle of Samar, 10/25/44. She was hit over 26 times. Two projectiles penetrated shell plating below waterline and detonated in forward engineroom and after engineroom, respectively. Hits included battleship caliber rounds, possibly including hits by Yamato’s 18.1″ guns. The opposing force was 4 BB, 6 CA, 2 CL, 11 DD. Notice in both cases, shells penetrated below the waterline. (As a point of reference typical shell weights are: 57 mm projectiles weigh about six pounds, a 76 mm 12-14#, a destroyer’s 5″ 55#, a light cruiser’s 6″ (152 mm) 110#, a heavy cruisers 8″ (205 mm) 260#, an smaller battleship’s 14″, the Yamato’s 18.1″ 3219#)

Only one ship appears to have definitely been destroyed by gunfire from weapons 5″ or less, the Longshaw (DD559) hit six times while aground off Okinawa, resulting in a magazine explosion that blew off the bow. No ship larger 3,000 tons full load was sunk by gunfire from weapons 5″ or smaller.

Consider that all these ships, including the aircraft carriers and battleships, were smaller than merchant ships that are now common. The largest was the carrier Lexington (CV2), 43,055 tons (fl), 888 ft (oa), 105’5″ beam, 33’4″ draft (270.66 x 32.12 x 10.15 m) (She was destroyed as a result of the accumulation of gasoline vapors after two torpedo and two bomb hits. The direct result of the hits were relatively minor, it was the gasoline vapor explosion that destroyed the ship). Lexington was a big ship, but no longer remarkable.

 

[Togashi_Yuuta]

so basicly the lexington did a taihou *historical joke for the win*

[ArmouredCarriers]

Interesting stuff.

 

It is also telling to note that RN naval archited of the war era David Brown notes in his book Nelson to Vanguard that fire was only rarely a cause for concern during World War II (at least for the RN I suppose).

 

He also points out that fire was only really an issue in the Falklands due to the fuel carried by the missiles - a similar effect to that of the Kamikaze, it would seem.

 

So, indications are, the whole fire thing in this game is somewhat artificial (unless we get kamikazes!).

 

 

As for Lexington and Taiho: 
Warships need to be built to survive damage.

Ammunition was heavily protected in magazines because it was realised even a small bomb or shell could explode a ship.

Surely they knew fuel was volatile? Should that not have been designed for? And trained for?

I guess Lexington was of similar vintage to Hood, so she could be excused.

But Taiho...

 

 

It is often said that the battleship died because it was vulnerable: this cannot be correct since the new capital ship, the carrier, was far more vulnerable. The battleship died because it had very little capability for damaging the enemy.

— Brown, D. K: Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development

[StoptheViolins]

That's world war II stats where carriers were the new capitol ships.  The interesting stats would be from world war 1.  Also the stats fail to break down where the torpedoes were launched - DDs or TBDs?

[Guest]

Very interesting, thank you for sharing this information with us +1. 

[SailingCrab]

In WWI gunfire kills a lot more ships, though torps are still important.

 

Many of the WWII torpedo kills are air launched, which the game may be doing a decent job at.

 

In WWI you have the RN BC losses to explosions, but you also have the Brit losses at Coronel to gunfire, German losses at Helgoland and Dogger Bank to gunfire, German losses at the Falklands to gunfire, and many of the sinkings at Jutland were to gunfire even when the ship did not explode.

 

Over all the OP is correct, fire is hugely overrated in this game, and torps and shells are underrated.  Overall this makes the game less fun, because being on fire is not fun.  If you disagree, set yourself on fire at home, and write a post about how much fun it was. 

[BlazerSparta]

so basicly the lexington did a taihou *historical joke for the win*

 

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the Taiho pulled a Lexington?

[Togashi_Yuuta]

 

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the Taiho pulled a Lexington?

 

perhaps, but, they both were unlucky.

[SilverforceX]

It's interesting reading about USS Gambier Bay at Samar, definitely she was hit by large BB rounds, possibly from the Yamato and at the range in that engagement, would have made for the longest known hit & kill from a BB ever.

 

It would have been awesome if Operation Ten-Go, if the US CV admiral did not pre-empt the fleet admiral and launch all this planes, because the fleet admiral was preparing a BB showdown, that would have been EPIC.

[SpenzOT]

 

perhaps, but, they both were unlucky.

 

I would say Taiho's demise had less to do with luck and more to do with incompetence.  I would rank the sinking of the Taiho at just under the Shinano for levels of sheer stupidity involved.

[Togashi_Yuuta]

 

I would say Taiho's demise had less to do with luck and more to do with incompetence.  I would rank the sinking of the Taiho at just under the Shinano for levels of sheer stupidity involved.

well considering that she was assigned a terrible co, that is a form of bad luck. 

[MagusGerhardt]

so basicly the lexington did a taihou *historical joke for the win*

 

It's more accurate to say that Taiho "pulled a Lex".

[ArmouredCarriers]

The Gambia Bay / Yamato thing is based on a throwaway comment from a single flight deck crewman.

There is no evidence to support it whatsoever.

That being said, nobody knows for sure where the shells came from but the general consensus is that most were 8in.

 

Taiho was lost as her crew had no suitable damage control training, and poor design allowed the fuel and vapors to gather below water level inside the lift wells.

Taiho's crew actually plated these over as part of their damage control efforts - making matters even worse.

Suffice to say, her crew was very young and inexperienced.

 

Lexington was a bit more complicated, but it appears to me that the full extent of damage to the fragile fuel system was not immediately appreciated.

Damage control efforts were excellent, just not entirely appropriate or sutably prioritized.

But that is the "fog of war".

 

[MagusGerhardt]

It would have been awesome if Operation Ten-Go, if the US CV admiral did not pre-empt the fleet admiral and launch all this planes, because the fleet admiral was preparing a BB showdown, that would have been EPIC.

 

No, it would have been a terribly unnecessary loss of life.  The crew of the Yamato was already doomed; their orders did not involve ever returning safely to port.  Upon reaching Okinawa the Yamato was to beach herself and serve as a shore battery until utterly destroyed, which would have been a certainty delivered by air attack.  Any surviving crew doubtless would have been handed a week's worth of rations and a rifle and told to go ashore and join the defense of the island.

 

The engagement of Yamato's task force by US battleships indeed would have been a battle for the history books, but I think the lives of the men who would have been lost in such a battle is too high a price to pay just to read about the lopsided battle (that Yamato still would have lost eventually) in the ocean south of Japan.

[SilverforceX]

 

No, it would have been a terribly unnecessary loss of life.  The crew of the Yamato was already doomed; their orders did not involve ever returning safely to port.  Upon reaching Okinawa the Yamato was to beach herself and serve as a shore battery until utterly destroyed, which would have been a certainty delivered by air attack.  Any surviving crew doubtless would have been handed a week's worth of rations and a rifle and told to go ashore and join the defense of the island.

 

The engagement of Yamato's task force by US battleships indeed would have been a battle for the history books, but I think the lives of the men who would have been lost in such a battle is too high a price to pay just to read about the lopsided battle (that Yamato still would have lost eventually) in the ocean south of Japan.

 

Those USN BB and her task force wanted a fight against the Yamato. From my reading, they were very annoyed they were held back once the planes were launched (without informing the Fleet Admiral either!!).

 

Basically the CV Vice Admiral Mitscher wanted the glory of sinking the greatest BB in history and went for the "Kill-Steal".. 

[Cragger]

It is absolutely vital however when reading these statistic you have to keep several things in mind.

 

1. They do not tell you how many torpedoes, bombs, and shells had to be deployed to achieve these hits.

2. Many of the weapon systems are one use only such as torpedoes. A gun you can load and fire over and over. Even the lauded IJN underway reloading of torpedoes was neither perfect nor provided for more then 1 combat reload.