# 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:** 6
**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, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/101 "2012-05-30T21:45:09Z")
There many, many, many logistical and strategic errors through out the war. On both sides. When Taffy 3 realized what they were facing, they began blowing smoke and proceeded to get outta Dodge. Cmdr. Evans was determined that the USS Johnson was not going to return to port with torpedo’s in it’s tubes. After creating a smoke screen (lack of IJN radar helped here), the Johnson proceeded back thru the smoke and directly at the line of IJN vessels. Dodging repeated salvos for more than 20 minutes before they were even within range to fire back, the Johnson finally released it’s torpedos and retreated. Taffy 3 aircraft began their attack and the Johnson was joined by the destroyers Hoel, Heermann, and destroyer escort Samuel B. Roberts. Why did the Japanese eventually break contact and retire from the conflict? Considering that one turret on the Yamato weight more than an entire destroyer, Taffy 3 was greatly outgunned. Yamamoto was under the impression that he was facing most of, if not the entire, U.S. Fleet. Why else would destroyers sacrifice themselves if they weren’t the tip of a much larger spear? Poor planning can somethimes be offset by brass balls. ---
**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, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/102 "2012-05-30T21:54:52Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Yamamoto was under the impression that he was facing most of, if not the entire, U.S. Fleet. Yamamoto, by this time, was dead. ---
**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, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/103 "2012-05-30T22:13:40Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > There many, many, many logistical and strategic errors through out the war. On both sides. > > When Taffy 3 realized what they were facing, they began blowing smoke and proceeded to get outta Dodge. Cmdr. Evans was determined that the USS Johnson was not going to return to port with torpedo’s in it’s tubes. After creating a smoke screen (lack of IJN radar helped here), the Johnson proceeded back thru the smoke and directly at the line of IJN vessels. Dodging repeated salvos for more than 20 minutes before they were even within range to fire back, the Johnson finally released it’s torpedos and retreated. Taffy 3 aircraft began their attack and the Johnson was joined by the destroyers Hoel, Heermann, and destroyer escort Samuel B. Roberts. > > Why did the Japanese eventually break contact and retire from the conflict? Considering that one turret on the Yamato weight more than an entire destroyer, Taffy 3 was greatly outgunned. Yamamoto was under the impression that he was facing most of, if not the entire, U.S. Fleet. Why else would destroyers sacrifice themselves if they weren’t the tip of a much larger spear? > > Poor planning can somethimes be offset by brass balls. Well Dissonance apparently thinks Taffy 3 _ **WAS** _ the 3rd fleet, the way he has them loaded for Yamato-bear. P.S. Admiral Kurita, on board the Yamato. ---
**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, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/104 "2012-05-30T22:35:36Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > 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. Ah, thank you, this is the type of thing I was mildly curious about, that initial pasting. So you have an Iowa battleship pounding away at a Nimitz carrier, what would that look like? (Rule 34). Are the shells exploding against the sides of the carrier, or do they puncture it? Or would I be right in assuming the Iowa would be trying to land the shells onto the flight deck? What is it that actually sinks the carrier, holes blown by the shells, or explosions inside the carrier caused by the shells hitting something explosive? ---
**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, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/105 "2012-05-30T22:47:23Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > 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." Then I said: [QUOTE=] The point here is that the destroyers are doing the damage, not the Taffy’s planes, like you insist . [/QUOTE] And you responded: > [@Dissonance](#): > > 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. > **[Battle of Leyte Gulf Web Site](http://www.battle-of-leyte-gulf.com/)** Pay very very careful attention: “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.” See? I have produced an authority about the type of ordnance the Taffies were carrying. Do you notice it wasn’t “Since they had a magazine full of torpedoes on their anti-ship mission?” They were lacking in proper ordnance. Meanwhile you make a big deal as to whether the Taffys’ planes had zero appropriate ordnance, or if account is given of a few torpedoes, which few then turn into some kind of capability to fly sortie after sortie with these magically appearing torpedoes from the +1 magazine of torpedo holding you must believe in. If you read a little further, very very carefully, you learn the main effect of the Taffys’ planes: “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” They have no more mention as to their effect. Which contradicts this major/severe/enough-to-stop-Kurita theory you refuse to budge from. Then you can read, again, being very very careful, you will find credit being given to torpedoes from the destroyers, doing “serious damage.” “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.” So, you see, this article fails to attribute anything more than confusion caused by the planes, and also attributes serious damage done by the destroyers. Which makes your claim WRONG. Now it’s round two. The destroyers are sunk; no more damage will be sustained because of them. Kurita still has four battleships, and if you like I’ll accept that ALL his cruisers were sunk, since quibbling over a cruiser or two seems so important to you. Hell I’ll spot you three battleships too and say Yamato alone survived this “serious” damage. Kurita is in disarray, and while he reorganizes his forces, Kinkaid orders his planes to reload, to which his junior officers respond with “We already used the few torpedoes we had.” And Kinkaid orders them up with even less ordnance than last time and NONE of it appropriate now. Well except for that +1 Magazine of torpedo holding. What happens? If Kurita only understood the situation instead of his confusion, he’d have sunk Sprague and gone on to do the same to the rest of the Taffies who do not manage to escape. ---
**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, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/106 "2012-05-30T22:56:09Z")
I saw Pappy Boyington take out the Yamamoto on Black Sheep Squadron. It was on TV, it must be true ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/107 "2012-05-31T00:24:48Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Yamamoto, by this time, was dead. > [@David42](#): > > P.S. Admiral Kurita, on board the Yamato. :smack: Thanks for keeping me honest. I have no idea why I said Yamamoto? Maybe because it sounded similar to Yamato? Or mabye becuase ym aneurysm is actttting up? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/108 "2012-05-31T01:01:49Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > Ah, thank you, this is the type of thing I was mildly curious about, that initial pasting. > > So you have an Iowa battleship pounding away at a Nimitz carrier, what would that look like? (Rule 34). Are the shells exploding against the sides of the carrier, or do they puncture it? Or would I be right in assuming the Iowa would be trying to land the shells onto the flight deck? > > What is it that actually sinks the carrier, holes blown by the shells, or explosions inside the carrier caused by the shells hitting something explosive? All ships sink when they take on more water than their pumps can expel. The Nimitz displaces 100,006 ton. That’s 100,006 tons of water. If the water is kept on the outside of the hull - nobody has to swim home. At 10 miles, the Iowa would be putting dozens of 16" armour piercing (AP) rounds thru the hull, thru the superstructure, thru the landing deck, thru the steering gear, thru the rudders, thru the aircraft, thru the aircraft fuel bunker(s), and even thru the mess making a mess. I’m not sure they could make a dent in the reactors armour??? (The reactor “does” have an extra layer of extra thick armour, doesn’t it?) If I knew the ballistic coefficient of the AP rounds, I might be able to guesstimate the angle of impact. The projectiles would be leaving the muzzle in excess of 2,500 fps. The rest is just math. The AP’s would carry enough high explosives (HE) to make the enterance hole much, much larger. Other damage could include blowing the bow off, starting fires on any deck, and ammunition could cookoff (exploding) creating even larger holes. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/109 "2012-05-31T01:19:49Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Well Dissonance apparently thinks Taffy 3 _ **WAS** _ the 3rd fleet, the way he has them loaded for Yamato-bear. It’d be nice if you didn’t make things up about what I think, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/110 "2012-05-31T01:25:23Z")
> [@dngnb8](#): > > I saw Pappy Boyington take out the Yamamoto on Black Sheep Squadron. > > It was on TV, it must be true Let me guess, he launched from a Taffy with a depth charge? ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/111 "2012-05-31T01:49:37Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Pay very very careful attention: > > “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.” > > See? I have produced an authority about the type of ordnance the Taffies were carrying. You’ve done no such thing, and this statement certainly doesn’t. That you think you have is belied by the fact that numerous TBM Avengers conducted torpedo runs against the Japanese heavy cruisers. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile you make a big deal as to whether the Taffys’ planes had zero appropriate ordnance, or if account is given of a few torpedoes, which few then turn into some kind of capability to fly sortie after sortie with these magically appearing torpedoes from the +1 magazine of torpedo holding you must believe in. Straw manning isn’t an effective form of debate. You have no need to invent what I must be thinking; I’ve stated my thoughts very clearly. You initially declared there were no torpedoes for the Avengers, and then grudgingly admitted to there being ‘one or two’. You have provided zero evidence to contradict that the _Chikuma_ alone was hit by no less than 5 Mark-13 torpedoes dropped by TBM Avengers from escort carriers. > [@](#): > > If you read a little further, very very carefully, you learn the main effect of the Taffys’ planes: > > “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” > > They have no more mention as to their effect. As I said, none of the sources you have provided make note one way or the other about what caused the loss of Japanese heavy cruisers. You are being entirely illogical to interpret this as meaning your sources prove the damage done by aircraft wasn’t done by aircraft. > [@](#): > > Which contradicts this major/severe/enough-to-stop-Kurita theory you refuse to budge from. Again, this is entirely straw. Please reread what I’ve actually written. > [@](#): > > So, you see, this article fails to attribute anything more than confusion caused by the planes, and also attributes serious damage done by the destroyers. Which makes your claim WRONG. No, it makes you incapable of logical reasoning. It does nothing to disprove the facts that I’ve already provided for you on the damage the tafffies planes did to the Japanese. > [@](#): > > Kurita is in disarray, and while he reorganizes his forces, Kinkaid orders his planes to reload, to which his junior officers respond with “We already used the few torpedoes we had.” And Kinkaid orders them up with even less ordnance than last time and NONE of it appropriate now. I assume your source for this is your opinion as well. > [@](#): > > What happens? If Kurita only understood the situation instead of his confusion, he’d have sunk Sprague and gone on to do the same to the rest of the Taffies who do not manage to escape. Again, this is belied by the actual facts of the fight where he managed to sink only one escort carrier while losing three of his heavy cruisers and having his force so badly disorganized that he broke off the engagement. These facts would not have changed if he had exact knowledge of what he was up against or not. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/112 "2012-05-31T02:49:16Z")
Ok please do say exactly what you mean in small pieces. For instance, it appears your claim is that Kurita would have been defeated by the Taffies if he had regrouped and attacked Taffy III a second time? If Yes is your answer: Do you then believe that because the Taffy group, including planes and destroyers, managed to sink three heavy cruisers, that the Taffy groups would have gone on to do increasing damage? If no is your answer: Then how would the Taffies defeat Kurita? If yes is your answer: Then, you are aware that sinking three Japanese cruisers cost Taffy III four destroyers and some destroyer escorts, correct, and that with the sinking of the destroyers, the destroyer attack of Taffy III ended? If Yes: Then, after surviving the destroyer and first sortie of aircraft, Kurita still has at least Yamato still battleworthy? If Yes: Then you are claiming that Kinkaid would order a second aircraft sortie if Kurita attacked again, after regrouping, and this sortie would continue to inflict serious damage? If Yes: Would this second sortie be armed also with “numerous” torpedoes? If No: What then would they be armed with? If Yes: Did Kinkaid order that all aircraft sortie the first time, armed with whatever was available, including depth charges, mere machine guns if need be, or nothing at all? If Yes: Then this alone implies that Kinkaid was short of the appropriate anti-armored ship ordnance, does it not? If No, why not? If Yes: Then how would Kinkaid have been able, on second and subsequent sorties to inflict additonal “serious” damage on Kurita, so that he could claim victory? Do you agree that the escort carriers were small in comparison to capital carriers? If Yes: Then you must also agree that their magazines were somewhat limited? If Yes: Do you agree that the Taffies mission was ground support and anti-submarine duties to successfully invade Leyte Island? If Yes: Do you agree that the Taffies had been flying such missions and expending ordnance for five days or more by Oct 25? If Yes: Do you agree that the Taffies would have been loaded at Ulithi mostly with ordnance appropriate for their ground support and anti-submarine mission, but also probably carried some lesser amount of anti-ship ordnance? If No: Then what were the Taffies using for ground support ordnance for five days? Were they torpedoing bunkers and stuff? I mean, maybe ones close to rivers? If Yes: Then, when it comes to major sea battles with large numbers of ships for extended periods, the Taffies were seriously underarmed for a battle against a modern, top of the line radar fire-control equipped capital battleship with 18.1" guns with a range of 42 km and some supporting lesser ships? If Yes: As the Taffies did not have any armor, they would have been easy to sink? If Yes: Then Kurita would have claimed victory over Taffy III and Clifton Sprague, if only he would have reorganized and attacked, or perhaps even Yamato alone without regrouping would have sunk, seriously damaged most if not all of the Taffy escort carriers? Now we are at a crossroads: Which do you prefer: A) Kinkaid then escapes with Taffy I and II and all their ships B) Kinkaid escapes with the carriers, continues to sortie, and sends the destroyers to engage Kurita C) Kinkaid meets Kurita head-on with no attempt to escape with all ships ---
**Author:** ![Namkcalb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c89c15/32.png) [@Namkcalb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Namkcalb)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/113 "2012-05-31T07:21:47Z")
> [@David42](#): > > 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. I think it would be an battleship stomp if the “IOWA” was built from the bottom up with the advanced technology the aircraft carrier benefited from. Making it nuclear powered, using modern steel, cannons, anti-missile systems and modern targeting systems and it will tear a lone Nimritz to pieces. The problem is, this scenario is totally unrealistic, and fails to show how obselete a modern battleship would be against in modern combined armed warfare. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2012, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/114 "2012-05-31T15:21:05Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > Ah, thank you, this is the type of thing I was mildly curious about, that initial pasting. > > So you have an Iowa battleship pounding away at a Nimitz carrier, what would that look like? (Rule 34). Are the shells exploding against the sides of the carrier, or do they puncture it? Or would I be right in assuming the Iowa would be trying to land the shells onto the flight deck? > > What is it that actually sinks the carrier, holes blown by the shells, or explosions inside the carrier caused by the shells hitting something explosive? Depends. High explosive shells will explode at or very near the outer skin areas. Armor Piercing shells will explode deep with the structure. Here’s a link to penetration tables for the guns used on USN ships: [link](http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_United_States.htm) Looks like a 16" AP shell will penetrate roughly 19 to 20 inches of US steel. I think. If I’m reading that correctly. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2012, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/115 "2012-06-01T11:09:49Z")
So I was a bit bored this afternoon and I did a bit of reading. The more I read the more I am convinced that in the scenario presented in the OP the air craft carrier is dead meat. Assuming the carrier has 4 hornets spotted on the cats and ready to launch. Assume further the battleship is 10 miles away and broadside. Go. The Iowa not only fires a broadside of the main guns, at 10 miles the carrier is in range of the 5"/38 caliber secondary guns. Flight time for the main gun round is going to be about 20 seconds. The carrier might get 2-4 planes off before the shit hits the fan with 9 2700 lb. AP projectiles and another 6 5" rounds arrive on target. In less than 30 seconds the AC is out of the airplane launching business and is fighting for its life. Holes in the flight deck, airplanes on both the flight deck and hanger deck on fire, ordnance cooking off in the fire, you get the picture. But what about the hornets. Well I hope the have a land base nearby cause they ain’t gonna be using the AC to land on. But they have harpoon anti ship Missiles. Yup and the Iowa has 4 phalanx mounts to intercept incoming missiles. But let’s assume the phalanx doesn’t get them all. OK the harpoon is a sea skimmer. The warhead is 400+ lbs. of high explosive. The main armor belt on the Iowa is 12.1 inches thick Missile hits Boom Captain orders a damage control report DC central request some fresh paint to paint over where the missile burned rhe original paint off. Oh and by this time the AC is now well on its way to becoming the worlds largest submarine. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/116 "2012-07-18T18:05:34Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Sinking 1/4 of the IJNs entire heavy cruiser force in the war in an afternoon is hardly ‘some damage’. Kurita turned because he was taking heavy losses and his fleet had become badly disordered in the fight. You’re seriously downplaying how severe his losses were on his thinking, whether he thought he was about to run into something much worse or not. Nitpick: I thought the IJN had more than the 12 Heavy Cruisers you imply. [Wikipedia seems to agree](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy_of_World_War_II#Heavy_cruisers), listing 18 for the war. A minor quibble, perhaps. As regards the knock-down, drag-out fight over the Taffies vs Kurita, I have difficulty following exactly what the argument was about. I agree the aircraft were not armed _primarily_ for anti-ship missions, but they did have torpedoes available and used them to effect – I wonder if what we’re missing here is the time factor; perhaps initially the aircraft had no anti-ship loadouts and scrambled with what they had, but as the battle progressed, they were landed and turned around quickly with anti-ship ordnance, and scored their torpedo hist _later_, after the initial panic? Regardless, I can’t accept the idea that any American admiral would have balked at throwing his battleships against the Japanese, with or without armor-piercing shells, and even if low on ammunition (although Wikipedia says “In fact, the 7th Fleet’s battleships were not as short of ammunition as Kinkaid’s signal implied…”) ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/117 "2012-07-18T19:59:12Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Regardless, I can’t accept the idea that any American admiral would have balked at throwing his battleships against the Japanese, with or without armor-piercing shells, and even if low on ammunition (although Wikipedia says “In fact, the 7th Fleet’s battleships were not as short of ammunition as Kinkaid’s signal implied…”) Ug, this thread again. Easy to miss in the mess, but I addressed this in [post 66](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15111551&postcount=66) and several times afterwards: > [@](#): > > No, you’re repeating erroneous information. You may want to take a look at S. E. Morison’s volume on Leyte I linked to earlier; this is one of the things he went into some depth on. He includes a shell count broken down by AP and HC (High Capacity, HE) for each of Oldendorf’s battleships. Oldendorf had more than enough after Surigao Strait to engage Kurita’s force decisively. Oldendorf wasn’t low on ammunition and never said he was; Kinkaid included it in his ‘where the hell are you?’ message to Halsey when he was understandably pissed off to high hell at Halsey for leaving the northern route completely unguarded, something Kinkaid only became aware of when Kurita’s force suddenly showed up in his lap. Halsey was supposed to have detached his fast battleships to cover the northern approach when he ran off after the Japanese decoy force, and barring that had he left even a single destroyer as a picket Kinkaid would have been aware of Kurita’s approach by a means other than incoming shellfire. The shore bombardment had only used HC shells, and Surigao Strait was over so quickly that very little AP was used. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/118 "2012-07-18T20:24:12Z")
This was an awesome thread, other than the little side discussion (which I admit I completely ignored). > [@Rick](#): > > So I was a bit bored this afternoon and I did a bit of reading. > The more I read the more I am convinced that in the scenario presented in the OP the air craft carrier is dead meat. > Assuming the carrier has 4 hornets spotted on the cats and ready to launch. Assume further the battleship is 10 miles away and broadside. > Go. > The Iowa not only fires a broadside of the main guns, at 10 miles the carrier is in range of the 5"/38 caliber secondary guns. > Flight time for the main gun round is going to be about 20 seconds. > The carrier might get 2-4 planes off before the shit hits the fan with 9 2700 lb. AP projectiles and another 6 5" rounds arrive on target. > In less than 30 seconds the AC is out of the airplane launching business and is fighting for its life. Holes in the flight deck, airplanes on both the flight deck and hanger deck on fire, ordnance cooking off in the fire, you get the picture. > But what about the hornets. Well I hope the have a land base nearby cause they ain’t gonna be using the AC to land on. > But they have harpoon anti ship > Missiles. Yup and the Iowa has 4 phalanx mounts to intercept incoming missiles. > But let’s assume the phalanx doesn’t get them all. > OK the harpoon is a sea skimmer. The warhead is 400+ lbs. of high explosive. The main armor belt on the Iowa is 12.1 inches thick > Missile hits > Boom > Captain orders a damage control report > DC central request some fresh paint to paint over where the missile burned rhe original paint off. > Oh and by this time the AC is now well on its way to becoming the worlds largest submarine. And a very nice summation. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/119 "2012-07-19T04:13:26Z")
No respectable carrier commander can take the shame of losing, so here is what would happen. The carrier would race toward the battleship and as collision was imminent, the carrier’s captain would order the reactors to be forced into a critical state, which would blow both ships to smithereens. A draw! ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Slant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c57346/32.png) [@Mr.Slant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Slant)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2012, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099/120 "2012-07-19T13:31:48Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > SNIP, the carrier’s captain would order the reactors to be forced into a critical state SNIP Can the crew just kind of casually flip a “blow these reactors and carrier” switch, or would that take a little more work? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battleship-versus-aircraft-carrier/623099.md?page=7)