# What if Battleships never lost favor in WWII? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 2, 2011, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-battleships-never-lost-favor-in-wwii/594915 "2011-09-02T03:05:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-battleships-never-lost-favor-in-wwii/594915/41 "2011-09-05T15:19:43Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > I think that’s a false bow on the deck. In poor visibility, it could conceivably confuse a bomber pilot. Yes, Zuiho’s paint scheme is an example of [dazzle camouflage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage). The main goal is to make it difficult to estimate the ship type, size and heading on initial contact. It also breaks up the ship’s silhouette, a single uniform block is easier to pick out of a background than a mess of shapes. Here’s another picture of two Japanese carriers under attack at Leyte Gulf (Zuikaku is on the left, and that’s probably Zuiho on the right). The patterns could be mistaken for superstructure, but they certainly don’t look like battleships. > > The effectiveness of dazzle camouflage compared to greys and blues is disputed, but it sure made for some funky looking ships. Back in the summer of 2001, I saw some USMCR F/A-18s with a greyscale dazzle pattern (and the Dallas Cowboys logos on the drop tanks). I am not sure if this was a standard paint scheme or just a “morale” scheme that they got away with pre-9/11. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-battleships-never-lost-favor-in-wwii/594915/42 "2011-09-05T15:42:13Z")
Note that 2 of the “carriers” were the Ise/Hyuga battleship/carrier hybrids, converted after Midway (tho neither carried any planes as it turned out), with their original turrets forward and new flight decks on the stern. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-battleships-never-lost-favor-in-wwii/594915/43 "2011-09-05T15:43:33Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Here’s another picture of two Japanese carriers under attack at Leyte Gulf (Zuikaku is on the left, and that’s probably Zuiho on the right). Sorry, lost my [link](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Zuikaku_at_Cape_Engano.jpg). ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-battleships-never-lost-favor-in-wwii/594915/44 "2011-09-05T16:31:10Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I appreciate your classy response. I apologize. I mistook your response as an attack, and responded in kind. I should have realized that you didn’t intend it as an attack. In my defense, I’m sometimes stupid that way, in misinterpreting short responses like yours. Nevertheless, an apology is owed, and I hereby give it. :smack: ---
**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:** [September 5, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-battleships-never-lost-favor-in-wwii/594915/45 "2011-09-05T16:41:47Z")
Thank you for a very gracious apology, and I am not being snide. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-battleships-never-lost-favor-in-wwii/594915/46 "2011-09-05T17:48:59Z")
Regarding WWII -one thing puzzles me about battlessip gunfire. At the end of WWII, USN 16" guns were capable of ranges \>20,000 yards. With a moving target, it would be very difficult to score hits. So were most battleship engagements at much closer ranges? ---
**Author:** ![kombatminipig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b5ac83/32.png) [@kombatminipig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kombatminipig)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-battleships-never-lost-favor-in-wwii/594915/47 "2011-09-05T18:20:18Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Regarding WWII -one thing puzzles me about battlessip gunfire. At the end of WWII, USN 16" guns were capable of ranges \>20,000 yards. With a moving target, it would be very difficult to score hits. > So were most battleship engagements at much closer ranges? Gunnery was assisted by artillery spotting using observers on the masts, spotter planes and at the end of the war radar guidance. Artillery spotting is a whole chapter in itself, and there are books devoted on the subject. I’m not sure how much speed mattered in the equation as ships would be weaving and changing course to avoid both artillery and air attack. Lastly, plenty of salvos would be fired on each side. It was simply a question of who managed to score a critical hit first. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-battleships-never-lost-favor-in-wwii/594915/48 "2011-09-05T19:23:47Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Regarding WWII -one thing puzzles me about battlessip gunfire. At the end of WWII, USN 16" guns were capable of ranges \>20,000 yards. With a moving target, it would be very difficult to score hits. > So were most battleship engagements at much closer ranges? Bismarck scored the fatal hit on Hood at a range estimated to be about 18,500 yards, and PoW hit Bismarck 3 times prior to this from greater range. Mathematical models, accounting for the dispersal patterns of the guns and the apparent size of the target, [predict](http://www.warship.org/new_page_2.htm) that battleships might score more than 10% hits at 20,000 yards, if their fire control systems are dialled in (as **kombatminipig** says, that’s a whole topic in itself). At 20,000 yards, the shells were in the air for about 30 seconds. Using Hood as an example, she had a maximum speed of 28 knots (47 feet per second) and a length of 860 feet. It takes her about 18 seconds to move through her own length. Large ships have a lot of momentum. Does anyone have any figures for how long it takes a battleship to execute an emergency turn, and how much speed it loses when doing so? That would be a good starting point for looking at the problem. Gentle turns would not prevent hits, as the shells are coming in on a fairly flat trajectory, but would present a challenge to the fire control team. If they mis-read the target’s course and speed, they are aiming at the wrong point. ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-battleships-never-lost-favor-in-wwii/594915/49 "2011-09-05T23:15:25Z")
dazzle camouflage is a WW1 innovation meant to forestall sighting a ship by another ship. the patterns painted on the sides are meant to mistake it for waves and clouds in the horizon. ozawa’s carriers had deck-painted battleship camouflage which was meant to fool recon planes and bombers. ding!ding! halsey thought they were gun ships. and why would he want to close within battleship range if he didn’t plan to use the new jersey and the missouri? [http://ww2db.com/ship\_spec.php?ship\_id=306](http://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=306) ---
**Author:** ![kombatminipig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b5ac83/32.png) [@kombatminipig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kombatminipig)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-battleships-never-lost-favor-in-wwii/594915/50 "2011-09-06T08:04:53Z")
> [@mac\_bolan00](#): > > dazzle camouflage is a WW1 innovation meant to forestall sighting a ship by another ship. the patterns painted on the sides are meant to mistake it for waves and clouds in the horizon. No, this is incorrect. There are plenty of other factors that make such camouflage attempts pointless, such as smoke from the stacks and, in the case of aerial spotting, wakes. Dazzle camouflage was partly meant to make identification difficult by adding thing such as false bows, superstructures and stacks, but mostly to make it difficult for a spotter to make out heading, speed and range. The odd patterns were designed to make use of optical range finders difficult, by making it hard to match up the two images in the scope. Later in WW2, the Japanese attempted to use this camouflage to confuse dive bombers, not to mask carriers as battleships. ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-battleships-never-lost-favor-in-wwii/594915/51 "2011-09-06T08:55:00Z")
point taken on dazzle but my point was ozawa’s carriers had a specific camo pattern which was to simulate battleships viewed from the air. ---
**Author:** ![kombatminipig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b5ac83/32.png) [@kombatminipig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kombatminipig)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-battleships-never-lost-favor-in-wwii/594915/52 "2011-09-06T09:28:13Z")
> [@mac\_bolan00](#): > > point taken on dazzle but my point was ozawa’s carriers had a specific camo pattern which was to simulate battleships viewed from the air. Some quick googling provides the 1944 camouflage patterns of the four IJN carriers present at Leyte Gulf: [The Zuikaku](http://www.gatorsmask.com/files/Fig_of_IJN_CV_Zuikaku_in_1944_1_.gif) [The Zuihō](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Japanese_Aircraft_Carrier_Zuiho.jpg) [The Chiyoda](http://www.1999.co.jp/itbig03/10036817t2.jpg) [The Chitose](http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/cv/ijn/chitose-700-db/chitose-01.jpg) Are you really suggesting that US reconnaissance aircraft would be fooled by those camouflage patterns that the above carriers were actually battleships, from the mere presence of a limited amount of parallel lines on deck? Compare the carriers to this aerial image of the [Yamato](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yamato_hit_by_bomb.jpg) lifted from the same article, is there even a comparison? As I said, the camouflage is to confuse dive bombers trying to align themselves for an attack run, not to hide identity. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-battleships-never-lost-favor-in-wwii/594915/53 "2011-09-06T11:05:47Z")
Interestingly, there was one instance of of a ship being disguised as a battleship. The disarmed WW1 battleship [HMS Centurion](http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/great_britain/battleships/centurion/01_hms_centurion.jpg) was fitted with a wooden superstructure, turrets and guns to pose as [HMS Anson](http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/great_britain/battleships/centurion/04_hms_centurion.jpg). As you can see, they did a pretty convincing job. They were very careful to duplicate Anson’s most prominent features, such as turret count, mast and funnel configuration. ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-battleships-never-lost-favor-in-wwii/594915/54 "2011-09-06T11:35:01Z")
a better-than-nothing attempt. as one US study on japanese carrier development mentioned, camo patterns on japanese carriers proved ineffective against aircraft detection. also, it cannot confuse an aircraft into believing it was a different ship type. it was slightly effective for anti-submarine. this was around 1943. then in 1944, another attempt was made, despite knowledge that a carrier can hardly escape detection and confrimation of type through camouflage schemes. the last attempt was (just before leyte gulf) was meant to break up the pattern of the flight deck and to give pilots the impression that gun turrets and other structures were on deck and therefore cause enough confusion. [http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=KP2Um0GZqtkC&pg=PT26&lpg=PT26&dq=battleship+camouflage+on+carriers&source=bl&ots=RTHACBYp1z&sig=Vza13y\_5jGrgNDru-w5VnLXflMM&hl=tl#v=onepage&q=battleship%20camouflage%20on%20carriers&f=false](http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=KP2Um0GZqtkC&pg=PT26&lpg=PT26&dq=battleship+camouflage+on+carriers&source=bl&ots=RTHACBYp1z&sig=Vza13y_5jGrgNDru-w5VnLXflMM&hl=tl#v=onepage&q=battleship%20camouflage%20on%20carriers&f=false) now all we need is enough halsey accounts as to what he thought ozawa’s ships were. the wiki says halsey thought it was the main carrier force and he turned the entire fleet north because he believed the japanese carriers were the main threat. however, his deployment of lee’s battleships mystified many. battleships to attack carriers? maybe if those carriers were the old type that can’t go faster than 22 knots and your battleships were all modern ones capable of 30 knots. but he knew kurita’s force had battleships so why would he leave san bernardino with no BB screen? some say he thought his planes had neutralized kurita. others said halsey didn’t like splitting his forces although lee said he could have left 4 of his fast battleships at san bernardino with no air support and let the two faster ones, missouri and new jersey, to join mitscher’s carriers in the northward dash. so let’s assume halsey didn’t think the northern force was composed of battleships, nor did ozawa’s camouflage fool him any. the question remains, were battleships crucial to the battle? they were. in fact they were the most crucial. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-battleships-never-lost-favor-in-wwii/594915/55 "2011-09-06T12:28:14Z")
There is no mystery here, from the wiki article: > [@](#): > > In his dispatch after the battle, Halsey justified the decision as follows: > > Searches by my carrier planes revealed the presence of the Northern carrier force on the afternoon of 24 October, which completed the picture of all enemy naval forces. As it seemed childish to me to guard statically San Bernardino Strait, I concentrated TF 38 during the night and steamed north to attack the Northern Force at dawn. > > I believed that the Center Force had been so heavily damaged in the Sibuyan Sea that it could no longer be considered a serious menace to Seventh Fleet. The wiki reference for this is to this [15 volume series of books](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_Naval_Operations_in_World_War_II), written by a naval historian, who had access to the primary sources. Halsey’s plan was to attack Ozawa with aircraft, then follow up this attack with his battleships. The battleships could catch and engage the two slow battleships of Ozawa’s force, and also mop up any damaged ships. Actually, TF34’s speed of 27 knots was sufficient to run down two of the converted carriers, which could only make 25 knots. Kurita’s attack disrupted this plan. > [@mac\_bolan00](#): > > the question remains, were battleships crucial to the battle? they were. in fact they were the most crucial. Crucial for who? For the Japanese, yes, because they no longer had an effective naval air wing. The US battleships played a very limited role. Here is what the actual commander of TF 34 had to say in his [action report](http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Leyte/TF-34-Leyte.html): > [@](#): > > No battle damage was incurred \*nor inflicted on the enemy \*by vessels while operating as Task Force Thirty-Four. Notice that I’ve linked to the primary source. It also has details of some of the sighting reports. > [@](#): > > At 1647 a message was received from an Essex search plane reporting a force east of northern LUZON in position 18° 25’ N., 125° 28’ E., on course 270, speed 15 knots, consisting of **3 carriers** , 2 light cruisers and 3 destroyers. At 1755 an amplifying despatch from Commander Task Force THIRTY-EIGHT reported this force as **3 carriers** , 4 - 6 heavy cruisers and 6 destroyers, one of the carriers being an Ise class; position 18° 10’ N., 125° 30’ E., course 210, speed 15 knots. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-battleships-never-lost-favor-in-wwii/594915.md?page=2)