# Battleship versus Aircraft carrier **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2012, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099 "2012-05-25T20:05:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Namkcalb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c89c15/32.png) [@Namkcalb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Namkcalb)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/81 "2012-05-30T09:12:18Z")
So we are putting a several decade old musuem piece against a top-of-the-line aircraft carrier and you complain it is biased against the Nimritz ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/82 "2012-05-30T09:31:29Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > This thread was light and amusing. Now it’s dark and mean. Its like two dopers facing off against each other, except one is decades old and the other isn’t allowed any cites. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/83 "2012-05-30T10:53:39Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Talking about lines at the liquor store? 😛 The dole queue. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/84 "2012-05-30T14:59:17Z")
> [@Namkcalb](#): > > So we are putting a several decade old musuem piece against a top-of-the-line aircraft carrier and you complain it is biased against the Nimritz Actually you are making an assumption not in the O.P. It stipulates merely an “Iowa class” battleship, and not necessarily an actual Iowa class that was actually built. It seems to leave room that a new Iowa class could be the ship that faces off against the Nimitz. Nor does it say when this challenge takes place–maybe it was 1961 when Iowas were under 20 years old. if it’s today’s museum pieces, they wouldn’t even be underway, so it’s a non-starter if the Iowa class is dead in the water. If she’s not sea/battleworthy, then of course Nimitz probably wins, or at least escapes destruction and it’s a tie. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/85 "2012-05-30T15:07:09Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > You clearly can’t read. […] This is simply beyond stupid and you are clearly debating in bad faith. Knock it off, **Dissonance** , or take it to the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/86 "2012-05-30T15:17:45Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Nor does it say when this challenge takes place–maybe it was 1961 when Iowas were under 20 years old. That would make the Nimitz a negative fourteen years old… it wouldn’t even be a gleam in the SecNav’s eye yet. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/87 "2012-05-30T15:33:34Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > That would make the Nimitz a negative fourteen years old… it wouldn’t even be a gleam in the SecNav’s eye yet. 🙂 My bad, I was thinking of Enterprise. Ok, 1975 then. ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/88 "2012-05-30T15:47:04Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > There have been various threads on battleships over the years, usually lamenting their demise, but by all accounts they were impressive beasts. Just for my idle curiosity I would be interested in hearing informed opinions on the following scenario. > > Two ships only, one Iowa class battleship against one Nimitz class aircraft carrier. No support ships of any type. The battleship starts ten miles away from the carrier and has one objective, search and destroy. > > The action takes place in the middle of waterworld, there is no land to run to. Also, the aircraft carrier does not have any aircraft on board. Its boat against boat. > > So, what happens next? > > Its seems obvious in this loaded scenario that the battleship wins, but what I am really interested in is the actual reality of this, how does it go down? What will the carrier look like after the initial pounding from the big guns? Absent aircraft, is there anything at all the carrier can do? How will the battle last? > > For extra credit, let the carrier have its planes back, who wins now? An “Aircraft” Carrier without aircraft? The purpose of an “Aircraft” Carrier is the air control. That is like saying Okay, Put the NE Patriots against the #1 run defense and lets see who wins. Oh and Brady cant pass the ball…:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/89 "2012-05-30T16:39:47Z")
> [@dngnb8](#): > > An “Aircraft” Carrier without aircraft? > > The purpose of an “Aircraft” Carrier is the air control. > > That is like saying > > Okay, Put the NE Patriots against the #1 run defense and lets see who wins. Oh and Brady cant pass the ball…:rolleyes: Your point is very insightful, has never been made before, and after reading it I have decided to re-evaluate my life. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/90 "2012-05-30T17:17:22Z")
Credit here for the “serious damage” is given to the destroyers. “Sprague now knew his small, outnumbered, and outgunned force was in dire straits, and he knew he had to quickly decide what to do. To the east of Taffy 3 was a rain squall that could provide Taffy 3 some temporary shelter. He also had to throw every weapon at his disposal at the oncoming Japanese ships. Sprague was not in an optimistic mood that his force would survive as he made some critically important decisions. With the Japanese ships just 15 miles away, Sprague immediately ordered Taffy 3 eastward toward the rain squall. He launched every aircraft he had to attack the Japanese with any weapon whether it be machine guns, bombs, or just fake attacks with no armament at all. Using the wind to their advantage, the destroyers poured smoke into the sky that blinded the Japanese lookouts from clearly seeing Taffy 3. Realizing that time was so precariously short, he called for help in plain English. Nevertheless, the Japanese rapidly closed the range and moved in for the kill. The rain squall and the destroyers’ smoke hid Taffy 3 for a short while and gave Sprague time to organize whatever defensive maneuvers he had left. With his aircraft attacking the onrushing Japanese from every direction and increasingly causing confusion among the Japanese senior commanders, Sprague ordered his destroyers to attack and turned Taffy 3 to the south and then in a southwesterly direction to place itself between the Japanese and the Leyte beaches. The destroyers Johnston, Hoel, and Heerman steamed through the carriers’ formation and attacked the oncoming Japanese ships with gunfire and torpedoes. The destroyer escorts Samuel B. Roberts, Raymond, Dennis, and John C. Butler joined the fray. Using tactics that could only lead to their destruction, the small ships fired everything they had and inflicted serious damage on the Japanese. The ferocity of their attacks made the Japanese believe they were being attacked by cruisers instead of destroyers. Since the Japanese had never seen escort carriers before, Kurita reasoned that the Americans would never sacrifice destroyers in such a desperate way unless the carriers were the cream of the American navy – the fast fleet carriers of the Third Fleet. The frantic, suicidal assaults also caused the Japanese formation to crumble. The heavy Cruiser Chikuma turned away from the attack and headed eastward. The battleships Yamato and Nagato turned northward away from the battle, and since Kurita was in Yamato, his flagship, taking Kurita with them. The Japanese commander had now been removed from the battle and lost command and control over his forces. Confused and becoming more disoriented, Kurita ordered his fleet to retreat. Sprague could not believe his eyes. His command had been saved. But, this was not without costs. The destroyers Hoel and Johnston and the destroyer-escort Samuel B. Roberts gallantly sank. Johnston’s commander, Commander Ernest Evans, went down with her and was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. The escort carrier Gambier Bay, full of holes and pummeled by relentless Japanese salvoes, sank.” PDF! [http://www.battle-of-leyte-gulf.com/Article/BLG\_Summary.pdf](http://www.battle-of-leyte-gulf.com/Article/BLG_Summary.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/91 "2012-05-30T17:47:50Z")
“Moderate” damage caused by both destroyers and Taffy planes. "While Nishimura steamed to defeat, Kurita pushed on to what should have been a glorious victory. Just before 7 a.m. the opposing forces sighted each other. Rear Admiral Clifton A. F. Spragues’s Taffy 3 had a meager force of six slow escort carriers and seven fast destroyers to battle 24 warships grouped around battleships. In an amazing morning-long action, Sprague’s force, assisted by the planes of Taffys 1 and 2, so bewildered and savaged Kurita that he withdrew, having inflicted moderate casualties. In the Battle off Samar, Center Force suffered five cruisers lost or severely damaged. Dazzled by the performance of the American ships, Kurita overestimated their size and feared Halsey would cut off his line of withdrawal. After steaming aimlessly off Samar for several hours, Kurita retreated. In a harrowing postlude to the surface ation the escort carriers endured the first series of kamikaze attacks." [http://www.stat.virginia.edu/leyte.html](http://www.stat.virginia.edu/leyte.html) ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/92 "2012-05-30T17:54:56Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I cited to Halsey’s article. Halsey says Oldendorf had reported he was low on ammunition. You say I have only cited wikipedia, then say I did not read the article, even though you dismiss the article when it says that Kurita turned around because he thought the Taffies were instead Halsey. An article written in 1954 by the very man responsible for allowing Kurita to reach the taffies by not leaving even a single destroyer to cover the northern approach to provide warning. You’ll also note that Oldendorf didn’t report he was low on ammunition, Sprague did. > [@](#): > > You don’t address my cites; why should I go on finding others when you don’t even appear to see them? OTHER BOOKS say the torpedoes Kurita faced were launched by the destroyers. Who should I believe, my lying eyes or your still unnamed OTHER BOOKS that you say you’ve read but are unable to cite? > [@](#): > > But not when you dismiss the other cites I give without discussion and without addressing why these sources contradict you. I’ve addressed all of your cites, even pointing out to you that they contradict you, not support you. > [@](#): > > Why did Halsey say that Oldendorf reported being low on ammunition? He didn’t. He said Sprague reported it. > [@](#): > > And why is Morison in a better position than Halsey to know what Oldendorf thought? Because he wrote the US Navy’s History of Operations, and Oldendorf never thought he was unable to engage Kurita due to low ammunition. > [@](#): > > And why, after two days of shelling the beaches and then a fire fight with the southern force, wouldn’t Oldendorf think he might be getting low? Because shelling the beaches was only using up his HC rounds, not his AP rounds and you keep acting as if Surigao Straits was some major engagement. It wasn’t. The only major ships to make it past the gauntlet to be pummeled by Oldendorf were the battleship _Yamashiro_ and the heavy cruiser _Mogami_ which were both quickly dispatched. It was hardly a major drain on Oldendorf’s ammunition. > [@](#): > > And explain why Sprague sent the calls to Halsey for help instead of “No problem, we got this,” like you seem to want to claim. Why did the guy with 16 “anti-ship” carriers call on the guy with 12 carriers so desperately? Because he thought Task Force 34 was nearby? Why was Task Force 34 supposed to be nearby in Kinkaid’s thinking? Surely not to guard these 16 aircraft carriers so effective on an antiship mission; I mean, you have the guards being less powerful than the guarded, here. This is so full of straw it’s a fire hazard. Halsey was supposed to have left at least something, anything, a single destroyer to guard the northern approach. He left the impression that he had detached his fast battleships as he was supposed to have done to guard the northern approach, not taken them with him. Instead he left nothing behind to even provide early warning of Kurita’s approach. > [@](#): > > I will toelrate no further abuse here along the lines of “arguing in bad faith.” Address my points. I’ve addressed your points already, and you continue to repeat them as if they haven’t. What would you call that? ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/93 "2012-05-30T17:59:34Z")
“If he had kept on going, he would have had an excellent chance of destroying a large number of our vessels – people involved in the landing, and he should certainly have no problem whatever with the little Kaiser aircraft carriers (escort carriers intended primarily for antisubmarine escort duty and for transporting planes between theaters). He could have destroyed about a dozen of those. And he could have disrupted the whole operation.” Captain Joseph J. Rochefort, USN. [http://www.usncva.org/clog/leyte.shtml](http://www.usncva.org/clog/leyte.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/94 "2012-05-30T18:02:02Z")
So, are you saying Sprague made it up? Why would Sprague do so? ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/95 "2012-05-30T18:11:58Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Credit here for the “serious damage” is given to the destroyers. I note your sudden shift to ‘serious’ damage. Whatever happed to ‘some’? I don’t know what your trying to prove with this cite, care to expound? Are you trying to imply that the damage was done by destroyers and not aircraft? If so, this article falls woefully short of doing so; you’ll note it doesn’t address any of the losses of Japanese ships nor attribute the causes of damage. > [@David42](#): > > “Moderate” damage caused by both destroyers and Taffy planes. Well now it’s ‘moderate’ damage and caused by both destroyers and aircraft. Again, I don’t understand the point of this cite, it doesn’t identify any of the damage Kurita sustained much less what caused it. > [@David42](#): > > So, are you saying Sprague made it up? > > Why would Sprague do so? No, I’m saying it was erroneous information; the erroneous information that you are repeating. Oldendorf never said he was low on ammunition, Sprague did. Mind you Sprague was rather pissed off to be blindsided by both Kurita and Halsey. Halsey had left Sprague with the impression that the northern passage wasn’t being left wide open for Kurita to pass through unmolested and unreported to suddenly arrive in Sprague’s lap. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/96 "2012-05-30T18:40:37Z")
"One draw back at Leyte was the lack of training received by the escort carrier pilots. Although the CVE s carried some armor-piercing bombs and torpedoes, they were not adequately stocked nor were their pilots adequately trained in warship-attack tactics. Although the CVE’s were designated as aircraft carriers," the term is misleading. They were hardly a match in comparison with the larger light and heavy carriers of the fleet. One-third the size of the heavy carriers, they were cramp, unarmored, thin-hulled vessels, unable to launch and recover aircraft with the ease of the larger carriers." > **[U.S. Navy Task Group 77.4 - BOSAMAR.COM](https://www.bosamar.com/pages/tg774)** > > History of RADM C.A.F. Sprague's U.S. Seventh Fleet Task Unit 77.4.3, Taffy III, for action against VADM | Powered by liveSite @ https://www.camelback.net ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/97 "2012-05-30T18:57:25Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > I note your sudden shift to ‘serious’ damage. Whatever happed to ‘some’? I don’t know what your trying to prove with this cite, care to expound? Are you trying to imply that the damage was done by destroyers and not aircraft? If so, this article falls woefully short of doing so; you’ll note it doesn’t address any of the losses of Japanese ships nor attribute the causes of damage. The point here is that the destroyers are doing the damage, not the Taffy’s planes, like you insist. I long ago admitted slight to moderate damage, and pointed out conflicts amongst the sources. My points do not revolve around exactly how much damage was sustained by Kurita. My point does resolve around whether he would have contiued had he known for certain what his enemy was. he thought his enemy was Halsey with capital ships and he turned around because he thought could not complete his mission of destroying the landings if he first had to go through the 3rd fleet. It was not because he thought his damages were too great at that point, as you claim. He still had more than enough fire power to complete the mission. I would use the term “serious” to mean that he had little to no combat capability left. This was not the case. Because he lost (two some sources, three in others) two or three cruisers out of 10, with four battleships remaining, his unit was still capable of doing quite serious damage. That’s why I call the loss of even three cruisers “moderate.” > [@Dissonance](#): > > Well now it’s ‘moderate’ damage and caused by both destroyers and aircraft. Again, I don’t understand the point of this cite, it doesn’t identify any of the damage Kurita sustained much less what caused it. Of course, I have pointed out how the many different sources vary, but of course, for some inexplicable reason, you insist only one souyrce could possibly be correct. The point is that the historians differ on how effective the Taffys’ planes were. Some say it ws mostly destroyers doing the damage and the planes were little more than a distraction; Kurita didn’t know those planes (for the most part) did not have effective ordnance. So he had to take them seriously as though they did. > [@Dissonance](#): > > No, I’m saying it was erroneous information; the erroneous information that you are repeating. Oldendorf never said he was low on ammunition, Sprague did. Mind you Sprague was rather pissed off to be blindsided by both Kurita and Halsey. Halsey had left Sprague with the impression that the northern passage wasn’t being left wide open for Kurita to pass through unmolested and unreported to suddenly arrive in Sprague’s lap. I can concede it is erroneous information. The point is if it is Oldendorf’s error, the error might continue and therefore result in different commands from Oldendorf than he might have made if he thought he had sufficient information. What is the source of Sprague’s mistake, and how can you prove Oldendorf wasn’t the origin of the error? Counting the shells afterwards is not persuasive to me, nor is speculation on how one mistakenly misplaces thousand pound shells. War breeds confusion, and that is the lens you must view these questions through, and not the perspective of an armchair warrior who analyzes at his lesiure. ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/98 "2012-05-30T20:08:06Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > Your point is very insightful, has never been made before, and after reading it I have decided to re-evaluate my life. Get used to it. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/99 "2012-05-30T21:08:43Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > Two ships only, one Iowa class battleship against one Nimitz class aircraft carrier. No support ships of any type. The battleship starts ten miles away from the carrier and has one objective, search and destroy. > > The action takes place in the middle of waterworld, there is no land to run to. Also, the aircraft carrier does not have any aircraft on board. Its boat against boat. > > So, what happens next? > > Its seems obvious in this loaded scenario that the battleship wins, but what I am really interested in is the actual reality of this, how does it go down? What will the carrier look like after the initial pounding from the big guns? Absent aircraft, is there anything at all the carrier can do? How will the battle last? > > For extra credit, let the carrier have its planes back, who wins now? The Iowa could lob 1,900 to 2,700 pound, 16" projectiles 43,000 yards or 24 miles. That’s well within your 10 mile starting point. Turned broadside at the start of the conflict, the Iowa would have hammered the Nimitz with 9 rounds with every salvo. If the Nimitz hadn’t launched any aircraft by the time the first salvo arrived, it wasn’t going to launch anything except lifeboats. Extend the starting point to 40 miles or more (time enough for a first alert, battle stations, launch Harpoon anti-ship missiles and aircraft) and the Nimitz wins hands down. It would be the Iowa’s hands that went down - with the ship. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/100 "2012-05-30T21:19:09Z")
> [@David42](#): > > The point here is that the destroyers are doing the damage, not the Taffy’s planes, like you insist. It’s not something I’m insisting, it’s a fact. One I’ve cited for you, and a fact that none of your cites contradict. > [@](#): > > I long ago admitted slight to moderate damage, and pointed out conflicts amongst the sources. Care to point out where? You continued to say ‘some’ only noting that some sources said moderate. Now you provide a cite that calls it serious. > [@](#): > > It was not because he thought his damages were too great at that point, as you claim. He still had more than enough fire power to complete the mission. What mission? To suicide his force against the taffies and Oldendorfs battle line? If so then yes, he could have done that. I have never said it was only the damage he had taken that made him turn, read what I have written again. He turned because he was taking heavy losses **and his force had become badly disordered in the fight** , something you continue to ignore. His own flagship, the _Yamato_, upon which you pin so much had become separated from his other ships evading torpedoes. Kurita had lost tactical control of the fight. > [@](#): > > I would use the term “serious” to mean that he had little to no combat capability left. This was not the case. Because he lost (two some sources, three in others) two or three cruisers out of 10, with four battleships remaining, his unit was still capable of doing quite serious damage. That’s why I call the loss of even three cruisers “moderate.” This is just silly; you can’t even get simple facts straight. That three of his heavy cruisers had been sunk isn’t a fact in dispute; any source you find that says two is simply wrong. You’re also wrong on Kurita’s strength; he did not have ten cruisers. There’s an Order of Battle [here](http://www.navweaps.com/index_oob/OOB_WWII_Pacific/OOB_WWII_Samar.htm) with Kurita’s force as it existed during the battle off Samar, not as it existed before losing ships at Sibuyan Sea and to submarine attacks. You’ll note he only had 6 heavy cruisers at the start of the fight. Let’s take a look at what kind of shape his three heavy cruisers that weren’t sunk were in after the Battle of Samar: [Kumano:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Kumano) > [@](#): > > On 25 October 1944, Kumano was part of the Japanese Central Force in the Battle off Samar. She was hit by a Mk-15 torpedo fired by the destroyer USS Johnston, which literally blew off her bow. As Kumano was retiring towards the San Bernardino Strait, she came under aerial attack and suffered minor damage. [Haguro:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Haguro) > [@](#): > > and on October 23–25, 1944 she took light damage in the battle of Leyte Gulf. [Tone:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Tone_(1937)) > [@](#): > > In the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea the Center Force suffered eleven raids by planes from the carriers American Task Group 38.2, Musashi was sunk and Tone was hit by bombs. The following day, during the Battle off Samar Yamato, Nagato, Haruna and Myoko were damaged. Tone engaged American destroyer Heermann but was driven away by air attack. Look at that, how odd, Tone was driven away by air attacks. Take note that all three of his heavy cruisers still afloat had taken damage; the _Kumano_ had even lost her bow to a torpedo. It’s not just ships sunk that are part of Kurita’s losses. Kurita’s force had taken heavy losses and was badly disordered. If he continued on, his force would have remained in disarray and continued to take losses to the taffies. His ships would have run into Oldendorf’s battle line piece meal. Had he stopped to reorganize his force he would have remained under air attack from aircraft from the escort carriers, would have had to let the surface ships of the taffies break contact with him and would have to spend a good deal of time doing so; not a very smart thing to be wasting with his force in such danger. > [@](#): > > Of course, I have pointed out how the many different sources vary, but of course, for some inexplicable reason, you insist only one souyrce could possibly be correct. The point is that the historians differ on how effective the Taffys’ planes were. Some say it ws mostly destroyers doing the damage and the planes were little more than a distraction; Kurita didn’t know those planes (for the most part) did not have effective ordnance. So he had to take them seriously as though they did. This is again a fire hazard it’s so full of straw. You’re inventing facts by continuing to insist that the taffies planes didn’t have effective ordnance, even now weaseling by adding ‘for the most part’. You’re entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. It isn’t in dispute how effective the aircraft were. None of the sources you’ve given ascribe the source of damage to Kurita’s ships one way or the other. > [@](#): > > I can concede it is erroneous information. The point is if it is Oldendorf’s error, the error might continue and therefore result in different commands from Oldendorf than he might have made if he thought he had sufficient information. It wasn’t Oldendorf’s error. Oldendorf never said he didn’t have the ammunition to engage Kurita. I don’t know how many different ways I can say this for you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099.md?page=6)