Movies vs Reality

No political or religious topics please. Otherwise, anything goes, as long as we treat each other with respect.
User avatar
kham
Always Remembered
Posts: 3653
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:52 pm
Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ont
Contact:

Movies vs Reality

Postby kham » Thu Aug 07, 2014 12:06 pm

This is sorta from what Chim and Reisen were saying in other posts; Hollywood tends to mix and mash historical events (In Harms Way) and not really comprehend the degree of firepower that capital warships, the sheer metal they throw at an enemy.

Best case in point is in the Guadalcanal Campaign, the Naval Battles of Guadalcanal Nov 13-15. The first action, still known and taught at the various service academies as ''The Bar Room Brawl'' was about as inelegant an action as anyone could have concieved. Nelson might have been right at home, but Nelson didn't have to fight 14'' guns, advanced wakeless torpedoes, and automatic 5'' guns combined with radar and night optics. 'Course at point-blank range visibility is less an issue, and illumination from starshell and searchlight aided by burning wrecks make for nice lighting. There are few if any pictures of the action, magnifying how intense things were; no one had time, even the dedicated combat camera guys. You've probably seen shots of ships I've taken in rivers; now picture them as warships, meeting like that but in the dark, travelling at 2-3 times the velocity, and shooting at each other. With everything. From 14'' down to Tommy Guns and Colt 1911s :shock:
IJN Hiei was literally cut to shreds, with her pagoda tower mast collapsing in on itself from passthroughs and internal explosions. That the admiral aboard was not only wounded but a near-gibbering wreck for a while is understandable. She took a bit more killing, staggering off to the North of Savo Island, but Naval and Marine Air finally finished her late in the day. This is the action that also lost all the Sullivan brothers, on board USS Juneau, which had been crippled by a Type 93 torpedo that broke her keel, and was torpedoed and literally blown to pieces by a Japanese submarine while limping away. That is a separate book and a very sad story

The 2nd battle was slightly more orderly, mostly because you had a gunnery expert in the form of Willis Lee in command. Who also was familiar with and understood how radar worked. And believed training, training, training, was the way to prepare for battle. That there was no reason you shouldn't be able to fire 16''/45cal rifles less accurately than a .30-06 :twisted: Like most night actions, there was always some confusion; CIC was a new concept and not really executed well yet; data sharing not even close, and the TBS tended to devolve into shouting matches on the channel. And like most of the actions, the light forces were roughly handled again. Worst part was USS South Dakota, while exchanging fire with the enemy suffered several hits which should have been trivial at best; however, due to her ChEng violating procedures and locking down one circuit breaker, resulted in a total electrical failure. No radar. No TBS. No w/t. No internal lighting. No remote firing for the guns. This, a notta good. A further series of mistakes resulted in her turning the wrong way, becoming backlit by the burning US destroyers and a perfect target for every Japanese ship in the area. She suffered roughly 25 medium-calibre and 1 major-calibre hits, most of which did not explode, but did enough further damage to cause her to break off the action. Meanwhile...Washington was unaware SD had broken contact. She continued to close within 9,000 yards, tracking a large contact but holding fire since they were unsure of its identity. Then the target illuminated South Dakota and fired on her, ending any doubts as to who was who. She immediately opened fire with both main and secondary batteries.
Note the elevation, or lack of , on her mains; wiki being wiki....they never get the memo, but to say that Kirishima was brutalized would be putting it mildly. Shell flight time would have been under 10 seconds, and Washington's gunnery officer was using both radar and optics to track the hits. For all this, Washington was still unspotted by the Japanese. She steered NW to lead the Japanese away from the presumably damaged SD, and was finally spotted. They launched several torpedo attacks but all were evaded. This was the only surface engagement between battleships outside of the one-sided massacre at Suriago in 1944

Kirishima Damage Analysis

Either would be good as movie subjects, for both historical fans and those liking lots of 'splosions :P It is sad that subjects like this, and plenty others left untouched to the point that almost none of the actual participants are left around.

Wiki Naval Battles of Guadalcanal
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

water_bug_62208
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:21 pm

Re: Movies vs Reality

Postby water_bug_62208 » Thu Aug 07, 2014 5:23 pm

Ah, thanks for sharing!

I recall reading the account of USS Washington coming to the rescue, if you will, of USS South Dakota. And, yes, one of only two surface engagements between U.S. and enemy battleships in World War II. The other was indeed the Battle of Surigao Strait where five ghosts from Pearl Harbor (USS West Virginia, USS Maryland, USS Tennessee, USS California, and USS Pennsylvania) along with USS Mississippi ambushed the Japanese Southern Force with its two battleships and support vessels.

The only other battleship versus battleship (and battlecruiser) engagements that I recall in World War II were between the German battleship Bismark and (in the first battle) the battlecruiser HMS Hood and battleship HMS Prince of Wales, and between Bismark (with her damaged steering) and (in the final battle) the battleships HMS King George V, HMS Rodney, and support vessels.

There was the movie, Sink the Bismark, which I thought was well done and fairly accurate when it came to the actual surface engagements. I felt the models used in the movie were pretty accurate to the actual combatants. I do believe they even had the model of Prince of Wales correctly represented with her quad-mounted main batteries fore and aft.

User avatar
kham
Always Remembered
Posts: 3653
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:52 pm
Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ont
Contact:

Re: Movies vs Reality

Postby kham » Thu Aug 07, 2014 6:31 pm

Sink the Bismark was not bad, although they did take some dramatic liberties here and there :)

The thing that got me was they kept swapping which sides the guns were pointing in Denmark Strait, which no big deal if you just watching things go boom, but annoying as shit if you happen to be a naval historian and know what the tactical plot actually looked like :P

One other battle that at least involved battleships in surface action was the Battle of Cape Matapan in the Med. Not sporting at all, battleship guns at 3,000 yards?? Just look down the barrel and fire :D

User avatar
Chimerix
Posts: 904
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:44 am
Contact:

Re: Movies vs Reality

Postby Chimerix » Thu Aug 07, 2014 10:27 pm

That's what I'm talking about!
The difference between theory and reality is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality.

Lomax
Posts: 438
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 5:07 pm
Location: Skating the edge of sanity, never knowing which way I'm facing.

Re: Movies vs Reality

Postby Lomax » Fri Aug 08, 2014 9:11 am

kham wrote:Sink the Bismark was not bad, although they did take some dramatic liberties here and there.


Not least in portraying Guenther Luetjens as a dyed-in-the-wool Nazi when he was nothing of the kind. He was one of the very few German officers to protest in writing about Kristallnacht (Karl Doenitz was another, curiously), and when Hitler visited the Bismarck he pointedly gave him a standard military salute rather than the Nazi one.
In order to make an apple pie from scratch you first have to create the universe.

water_bug_62208
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:21 pm

Re: Movies vs Reality

Postby water_bug_62208 » Fri Aug 08, 2014 7:13 pm

kham wrote:Sink the Bismark was not bad, although they did take some dramatic liberties here and there :)

Ah, yes, very true.

kham wrote:The thing that got me was they kept swapping which sides the guns were pointing in Denmark Strait, which no big deal if you just watching things go boom, but annoying as shit if you happen to be a naval historian and know what the tactical plot actually looked like :P

I know what you mean. I read a book about the true account of Bismark's sortie and engagements... I believe it was titled, Sink the Bismark... I recall reading the book and visualizing the surface engagements based on the author's description... and, when I saw the movie, yeah, I kept wondering why the directions the guns were pointing didn't make sense. One item in the book that stuck with me was how Bismark and Prinz Eugen put into port somewhere while enroute to hunt merchantmen. Prinz Eugen apparently took advantage of the stop to top off her tanks with fuel while Bismark did not, which would later haunt her after an engagement (with Hood and Prince of Wales?) ruptured her fuel tanks, thus causing her to lose what little precious fuel she had. Thus, I learned from that particular account to never pass up a refueling opportunity when driving along, seeing a gas station, seeing the fuel gauge is nearing the halfway mark, and making the decision to pull in and top off.

kham wrote:One other battle that at least involved battleships in surface action was the Battle of Cape Matapan in the Med. Not sporting at all, battleship guns at 3,000 yards?? Just look down the barrel and fire :D

Ah, thank you for pointing that one out! Good read!

User avatar
kham
Always Remembered
Posts: 3653
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:52 pm
Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ont
Contact:

Re: Movies vs Reality

Postby kham » Fri Aug 08, 2014 8:10 pm

They had planned a stop in Bergen, Norway as part of the operaton. Bismark did not fuel there because that was not part of her operational orders. On the face of it, that is pretty dumb. Perhaps the lack of institutional experience is why. Since the Royal Navy, going back decades, made it standard practice on returning to port to top up all bunkers to maximum, and ammunition/restock stores. This when done allowed them to be able to put back to sea immediately, if necessary. The USN had a similar procedure, although the fleet train concept made RAS much more common. And, perhaps, a bit of a fetish regarding fueling with regards to amounts remaining.

The Battle of the Denmark Strait is available in e-book format, and while very dry as well as the occasional error, it does have the proper layout of the tactical plot and the salvo breakdowns for both sides

water_bug_62208
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:21 pm

Re: Movies vs Reality

Postby water_bug_62208 » Fri Aug 08, 2014 8:20 pm

Very cool! Thanks for sharing that!

User avatar
nachtjaeger
Posts: 2373
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 5:45 am
Location: upstate NY USA
Contact:

Re: Movies vs Reality

Postby nachtjaeger » Sat Aug 09, 2014 12:25 am

Don't forget, Bismarck wasn't alone- it was the Cruiser Prinz Eugen that drew first blood on both Hood and Prince of Wales.

I wonder how history would have been different if the Germans had just kept cranking out Deutschland class "pocket battleships" as fast as resources would allow? The Admiral Hipper class cruisers (of which Prinz Eugen was one) only had 8" guns, and the Scharnhorst class "battleships" (really super-heavy cruisers) were barely seaworthy. Not worth the money for more armor and a third turret. Two pocket battleships would have 25% more firepower. And IMHO Bismarck and Tirpitz were each a huge waste of scarce resources.

In my alternate universe, Bismarck and Tirpitz's hulls were completed as aircraft carriers, supported by a large fleet of pocket battleships and destroyers. The carriers were armed with FW-190 fighters (perfect for a naval aircraft) and Ju-87 Stuka dive bombers modified to carry torpedoes as well as AP bombs. (FYI in this alternate universe, Ernst Rohm struck first and killed Hitler, and shipped all Europe's Jews to Palestine instead of the Death Camps.)

water_bug_62208 wrote:Ah, thanks for sharing!

I recall reading the account of USS Washington coming to the rescue, if you will, of USS South Dakota. And, yes, one of only two surface engagements between U.S. and enemy battleships in World War II. The other was indeed the Battle of Surigao Strait where five ghosts from Pearl Harbor (USS West Virginia, USS Maryland, USS Tennessee, USS California, and USS Pennsylvania) along with USS Mississippi ambushed the Japanese Southern Force with its two battleships and support vessels.

The only other battleship versus battleship (and battlecruiser) engagements that I recall in World War II were between the German battleship Bismark and (in the first battle) the battlecruiser HMS Hood and battleship HMS Prince of Wales, and between Bismark (with her damaged steering) and (in the final battle) the battleships HMS King George V, HMS Rodney, and support vessels.

There was the movie, Sink the Bismark, which I thought was well done and fairly accurate when it came to the actual surface engagements. I felt the models used in the movie were pretty accurate to the actual combatants. I do believe they even had the model of Prince of Wales correctly represented with her quad-mounted main batteries fore and aft.
This space for rent- advertise your product or service here!

User avatar
kham
Always Remembered
Posts: 3653
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:52 pm
Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ont
Contact:

Re: Movies vs Reality

Postby kham » Sat Aug 09, 2014 12:45 am

The class was nothing more than armoured cruisers, with significant design flaws. The main armament was sufficient to deal with merchantmen but 6 guns is barely enough for a proper gunnery ladder against warship targets. The diesel engines allowed for long range, but the sole purification plant was an single-point failure of the design. Indeed, Graf Spee had hers destroyed in the action with Ajax and Achilles, so no matter what happened next, they were never making it home. The Scharnhorsts were true battleships, no matter what anyone else claims. Heavily armoured, it should be remembered that the original plan was to replace the main armament with 38cm guns (15") which would also have replaced the entire fo'csle to A turret greatly improving sea-keeping abilities.

The harsh reality was that the KM was no match for the Royal Navy; even allowing for generally more modern technology, the RN was also building new capital ships; further, they were hopelessly outclassed in light forces. The KM never suffered from the psychological handicap of the High Seas Fleet, but the RN was still the RN. They didn't train to lose. Ever


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests