Topic: The loss of the USS Wasp, CV-7

[IndyShark]

I have always been interested in WWII carriers and the loss of the Wasp was very painful for the US Navy. The Lexington and Yorktown were sunk and the Enterprise and Saratoga were damaged. This only left the Wasp and the Hornet. The Wasp was hit by two torpedoes and she has the worst torpedo protection of any USN carrier. The hit wrecked her firefighting equipment and the fires got out of control.

I have an interesting question. If the torpedoes had hit a Yorktown or Lexington class carrier, would they have survived? The Yorktowns were tough ships and the Saratoga got torpedoed several times during the war. I'd think The Hornet would have survived with heavy damage. What do you think?

[Electric Eye]

Lady Lex lies at the bottom, questioned answered?

[Electric Eye]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lexington_(CV-2)

The Longe Lance torpedo spoke.

I too am a big fan of WW2 Navy stuff (I was a navy brat), but one of my heroes was Admiral Isokuru Yamamoto, who was politely killed during the "regime change."

http://home.earthlink.net/~divideandconquer/Battles/coral_sea/coral_sea.htm

I beg to differ with the author on the Shokaku being absent at Midway as a factor, the mistake at Midway was the Japanese fascination with "Little fleets." Had the force been combined as one, they would have won the day, 3 American CVs or not.

[IndyShark]

The Lex didn't succumb to torpedoes, she went down as a result of fires and explosions. Plus the Saratoga took a lot of torpedo hits and survived. The Wasp was a product of the Washington Naval treaty and much smaller than the Yorktowns. To get the displacement down, she had weak torpedo defenses. Ironically, she would need them the most.

The Shokaku and Zuikaku couldn't help at Midway. The Shokaku was badly damaged at Coral Sea and almost sank. The Zuikaku lost most of her planes. She needed to go back to Japan to replace her losses. No one thought the Japanese would lose all four of their fleet carriers at Midway and they wanted the Zuikaku ready for the next battle.

[Just plain old Punisher]

As with anything, it always depends on where the hits are =)

[Electric Eye]

As with anything, it always depends on where the hits are =)

Agreed Pun, when a ship gets hit in the gasoline and magazine areas, well, it means trouble. As for the Wasp being weak, I beg to differ, she took quite a number of torps from the Japanese and the Americans and still was afloat.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv07-wasp/cv07-wasp.html

I think any CV would be lucky to survive 5 torp hits, especially with 2 being critical hits.

[IndyShark]

She didn't take 5 hits, she took two.

[Electric Eye]

3 launched from American destroyer makes 5. 

She got hit by the first two where it counted, maybe luck, maybe not, go ask the Brits about the Hood. 

BTW Ark Royal got sunk with one single torpedo. Talk about luck. She was a monster CV for her time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ark_Royal_(91)

4.5" belt armor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_%28CV-7%29

3.5" belt armor

So... I don't get it, Ark Royal went down on one torp, yet Wasp took 5? Sounds like a quality ship to me.

[Electric Eye]

Hmmmm, I stand corrected, 6 torps, not 5!

About 14:20, the carrier turned into the wind to launch eight fighters and 18 SBD-3s and to recover eight F4F-3s and three SBDs that had been airborne since before noon. The ship rapidly completed the recovery of the 11 planes, she then turned easily to starboard, the ship heeling slightly as the course change was made. The air department at flight quarters, as they had done in earlier operations, worked coolly at refueling and respotting the ship's planes for the afternoon mission. Suddenly, at 14:44, a lookout called out, "three torpedoes ... three points forward of the starboard beam!"

A spread of six torpedoes, fired from the tubes of the B1 Type Japanese submarine I-19, churned inexorably closer. Wasp put over her rudder hard-a-starboard, but it was too late. Three torpedoes smashed home in quick succession. In an odd occurrence, one torpedo actually broached, left the water, and struck the ship slightly above the waterline. All hit in the vicinity of gasoline tanks and magazines. The rest of the spread of torpedoes passed ahead.

 
The USS Wasp on fire shortly after being torpedoedIn quick succession, fiery blasts ripped through the forward part of the ship. Aircraft on the flight and hangar decks were thrown about and dropped on the deck with such force that landing gears snapped. Planes triced up in the hangar overheads fell and landed upon those on the hangar deck; fires broke out almost simultaneously in the hangar and below decks. Soon, the heat of the intense gasoline fires detonated the ready ammunition at the forward antiaircraft guns on the starboard side, and fragments showered the forward part of the ship. The number two 1.1 inch mount was blown overboard and the corpse of the gun captain was thrown onto the bridge where it landed next to Capt. Sherman.

Water mains in the forward part of the ship proved useless, since they had been broken by the force of the explosions. There was no water available to fight the conflagration forward; and the fires continued to set off ammunition, bombs, and gasoline. As the ship listed to starboard between 10 and 15 degrees, oil and gasoline, released from the tanks by the torpedo hit, caught fire on the water.

Don't forget Indy, Wasp was readying and launching planes when she got hit, the Japanese at Midway learned that is not the best time to have planes and fuel and unstored ordinance laying around umprotected on a ship. 

I can see Scotty telling the Wasp's C.O. "Main energizers out captain, and damage control is screwed."

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

I too am a big fan of WW2 Navy stuff (I was a navy brat), but one of my heroes was Admiral Isokuru Yamamoto, who was politely killed during the "regime change."

Um... 'regime change'?

I thought he went down in a hail of .50 cal rounds from P-38's....

[The Postman]

I too am a big fan of WW2 Navy stuff (I was a navy brat), but one of my heroes was Admiral Isokuru Yamamoto, who was politely killed during the "regime change."

Um... 'regime change'?

I thought he went down in a hail of .50 cal rounds from P-38's....

That was  my thought as well........

[Hexx]

Well... one supposes he didn't say who engineered the regime change..

[IndyShark]

EE, that's a good point on the Wasp launching planes. The timing could not have been worse. I am sure that contributed to her loss, but I am not sure if it mattered.  Those torpedoes badly damaged the North Carolina which had "good" underwater protection.

The American torpedoes expedited the process. Look at the Hornet. She took an incredible amount of damage from both sides and still took her time going down.

The Ark Royal had a major design defect that lead to her loss. When she started to list, she lost power due to a ventilatin duct allowing water into her engineering spaces. She "should" not hve sunk with one torpedoe, but that's theory and reality. Look at the IJN Kongo. Who would have thought one torp would sink her? (I have seen references to multiple hits, so it's hard to say for sure.)

[Panzergranate]

One thing about the Pacific war that interests me is that if the biggest carrier ever bult at the time, the Japanese super carrier Shiano hadn't been accidentally encountered and sunk months before commisioning by the US submarine USS Archerfish, how would have the Naval campaign have changed??

The Shiano could land and launch twin engined medium bombers and the Japanese were experimenting with this whilst the Shiano was bien moved away from Tokyo to safer waters for pre-commisioning shake down. This is when the Archerfish accidentally came across it. Despite 6 torpedo hits the Shinao still took a day to sink and was still able to launch aircraft to search for its attacker.

The Shiano was the size of a modern US carrier. Up until then the Allies had no idea it even existed.

 

[Brush Wolf]

One thing about the Pacific war that interests me is that if the biggest carrier ever bult at the time, the Japanese super carrier Shiano hadn't been accidentally encountered and sunk months before commisioning by the US submarine USS Archerfish, how would have the Naval campaign have changed??

The Shiano could land and launch twin engined medium bombers and the Japanese were experimenting with this whilst the Shiano was bien moved away from Tokyo to safer waters for pre-commisioning shake down. This is when the Archerfish accidentally came across it. Despite 6 torpedo hits the Shinao still took a day to sink and was still able to launch aircraft to search for its attacker.

The Shiano was the size of a modern US carrier. Up until then the Allies had no idea it even existed.

 

I don't think the Shinano would have had much real effect on the war. By the time of her launching the Japanese had lost almost all of the highly trained pre-war pilots, the most precious resource that they had, and the replacements were generally easy meat to the American pilots.

[IndyShark]

I agree. She would have been unstoppable in 1942, but in 1945 she was a very nice target. She probably would have gone to Bikini Atoll for a "test".

[Hexx]

The fact is The Shinano or any otehr ship wouldn't have had any real effect.

America was going to steamroll Japan pretty much no matter what.

In order for Japan to force the US to the bargaining table, let alone win there would have had to be a huge number of changes in Japanese policy and administration /industril production right from the start of the war.

[Electric Eye]

Agreed Hexx, by the time the Shinano would have been combat ready the U.S. already had her outmatched with the construction of the Essex carrier class and many were fully operational.

That is why I admire Yamamoto (Besides being of a genuine Samurai family), he warned against the Manchurian invasion, and against the Chinese campaign, and against war with the U.S., he also knew that the CV would decide the battles of yet to come. He was also against the Yamato and Musashi being built, because they were a real waste of needed resources (Like having more CVs?).


This also leads to the battle of Coral Sea, many historians say that was pivotal as the Shokaku and Zuikaku would be sorely missed for Midway, maybe, but IMHO when you are launching full strikes and then change ordinance cause you spotted American CVs, the result would have been the same for them, IMHO. Ordinary bomb hits turned the 4 CVs into blazing infernos. Normally they would have shrugged it off and been fully operational.

[Just plain old Punisher]

The Shiano was the size of a modern US carrier. Up until then the Allies had no idea it even existed.

And she was sunk with a single torpedo if I'm not mistaken.

[IndyShark]

The Shiano was the size of a modern US carrier. Up until then the Allies had no idea it even existed.

And she was sunk with a single torpedo if I'm not mistaken.

No she was hit by at least four and perhaps five torpedos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Shinano

[Panzergranate]

How effective any piece of millitary ordance is depends on operational deployment, method of use, quality of the personel crewing it but above all, how smart and astute the guy incharge of it is.

For instance the Soviet Red Army in 1941 had the world's most advanced battletank, the KV 1, which had more armour on the deck and belly than German tanks carried on their fronts at the time. The armour was far more than German or any western anti-tank gun could penetrate. It was mine proof, aircraft bomb proof and mine proof (many reports of KVs driving through mine fields unscathed and being Stukaed unsuccessfully!!) ad it out gunned all other tanks.

In effect it was the equivalent of a modern Challenger II tank today.

However they were KOed in droves!! How?? The crew had just 5 hours of training and were taken from raw recruits with know experience of tank tactics as well.

Most were either captured or detroyed after beaching when pushing over trees, running aground in parallel ditches, being boarded by infantry and other minor driver errors made only by the most clueless of tank crews today.

In fact the Germans captured so many intact that they were able to fully equip two whole regiments with these heavy tanks and it inspiredt hem to start development of the Tiger tank, which had less armour than the KV 1 heavy tank.

It proves that training is more important than equipment in combat. Ordinary but better trained infantry armed with nothing more than a rifle, piece of oil soaked rag or a grenade could elimiate the most advanced piece of millitary hardware on the planet at that time.

 

[Brush Wolf]

I disagree about the Kv's being advanced. They were really designed on the WWI model of a bunker/trench buster and was also mechanically unreliable. Once the Germans figured out what to do it was easily beaten. The T34 was the advanced tank and was truly a shock for the Germans and only the penney packet use of the T34 allowed the Germans to combat it initially. The German response(s) were the famed Mark V Panther and the Panzerfaust infantry anti-tank weapon. they also up gunned the Mk IV's to a higher velocity long barrel 75 instead of the low velocity 75 it carried up to that point.

[Hexx]

Pretty sure even the long barreled 50mm's could score a pen on a Kv
(can't remember the PAk number)

[Brush Wolf]

The 88's using AP ammo were only able to penetrate them at point blank range. About all any lesser gun could hope for would be a track hit to immobilize it.

[Just plain old Punisher]

The KV-1's were better than any of the PZ-IVD's, PZ-IIIF/H, and PZ-II's that the Germans had at the time of the German invasion of the soviet union.

[Brush Wolf]

The KV-1's were better than any of the PZ-IVD's, PZ-IIIF/H, and PZ-II's that the Germans had at the time of the German invasion of the soviet union.

I don't think the Kv's were better but they were definitely tougher. The T-34 which mounted the same gun in a more reliable and more mobile platform was the breakthrough design. While the T34 carried less armor than the KV that armor was also steeply sloped and provided almost as much protection and was the tank that the German high command was truly worried about.

[AcePylut]

1 Shinano with Medium bombers wouldn't have mattered, had it not been sunk by a sub.  Not when they'd get thrown against a fast carrier fleet with 300 Hellcats and Corsairs.

[Panzergranate]

I think that the Japanese high command fell into the same trap as the Germans with tanks, believing that bigger was better. OK the Sherman was crap as a battle tank, undergunned (until the British stuck a 17Pdr. gun on one!!), poorly designed  anti-armour ammo (M63, M72, etc.), ran on Av Gas,  but it could be built in vast numbers, was reliable, easy to fix, etc.

A lot of small, fast tanks, with well trained crews, can be fielded everywhere where as a handful of resourcefully expensive, high tech, over complicated tanks can only be in one place at time.

Interestingly, German tank crews in 1941 were told to avoid direct combat with any of the 63 Soviet 5 turreted T35 land battleships. These giant beasts were left to occupy and dominate the small radius of territory they occupied whilst everything just went around them. The Russian learn a hard lesson form this in 1941 which they took notice of, hence the excelent T34, the best tank of the WW2.

The Shiano would have probally ssuffered the same fate. For the resources wasted on building it, the Japanese could have built 2 or maybe 3 conventional carriers. The US Jeep carrier programme proved to be the winning way.

[CaptStumpy]

Shinano was originally laid down as the third Yamato class BB, was converted to a carrier in slip, and was designated to be a support ship for carrier task forces carrying reserve aircraft, fuel and ordinance but only a limited amount of her own aircraft. Of her own aircraft (around 40) she would have carried less than half of what an Essex class was carrying (about 90 aircraft).

At the time of her shake down cruise and sinking, the problem wasn't carriers, the problem was finding the trained aircrews to put on them and the fuel to put in the ships to carry them. Shinano, though impressively large for her day, wasn't remarkable as a carrier, except for size, armored flight deck and protection afforded her by her Yamato class lineage.

Had she been completely manned, worked up and her damage control teams trained, she would have very likely shrugged off the four torpedoes that struck her. Even still, she managed to stay afloat for 7 hours.

Regardless, the is little doubt she would have suffered the same fate as her half-sisters and the rest of the Japanese fleet when she completed her outfitting and work up. There is little the Japanese could do to stop the overwhelming American fleet in 1945. At Leyte, the carriers were used as decoy's and wasted, having not enough aircraft to be used effectively anyway.

[Just plain old Punisher]

I think that the Japanese high command fell into the same trap as the Germans with tanks, believing that bigger was better. OK the Sherman was crap as a battle tank, undergunned (until the British stuck a 17Pdr. gun on one!!), poorly designed  anti-armour ammo (M63, M72, etc.), ran on Av Gas,  but it could be built in vast numbers, was reliable, easy to fix, etc.

A lot of small, fast tanks, with well trained crews, can be fielded everywhere where as a handful of resourcefully expensive, high tech, over complicated tanks can only be in one place at time.

Interestingly, German tank crews in 1941 were told to avoid direct combat with any of the 63 Soviet 5 turreted T35 land battleships. These giant beasts were left to occupy and dominate the small radius of territory they occupied whilst everything just went around them. The Russian learn a hard lesson form this in 1941 which they took notice of, hence the excelent T34, the best tank of the WW2.

The Shiano would have probally ssuffered the same fate. For the resources wasted on building it, the Japanese could have built 2 or maybe 3 conventional carriers. The US Jeep carrier programme proved to be the winning way.

Well the reasons why early war carriers were so limited in displacement was the Washington and London naval treaties that limited each major maritime power to so much tons in carriers. I think japan was limited to something like 90,000 tons.

[CaptStumpy]

I think that the Japanese high command fell into the same trap as the Germans with tanks, believing that bigger was better. OK the Sherman was crap as a battle tank, undergunned (until the British stuck a 17Pdr. gun on one!!), poorly designed  anti-armour ammo (M63, M72, etc.), ran on Av Gas,  but it could be built in vast numbers, was reliable, easy to fix, etc.

A lot of small, fast tanks, with well trained crews, can be fielded everywhere where as a handful of resourcefully expensive, high tech, over complicated tanks can only be in one place at time.

Interestingly, German tank crews in 1941 were told to avoid direct combat with any of the 63 Soviet 5 turreted T35 land battleships. These giant beasts were left to occupy and dominate the small radius of territory they occupied whilst everything just went around them. The Russian learn a hard lesson form this in 1941 which they took notice of, hence the excelent T34, the best tank of the WW2.

The Shiano would have probally ssuffered the same fate. For the resources wasted on building it, the Japanese could have built 2 or maybe 3 conventional carriers. The US Jeep carrier programme proved to be the winning way.

Well the reasons why early war carriers were so limited in displacement was the Washington and London naval treaties that limited each major maritime power to so much tons in carriers. I think japan was limited to something like 90,000 tons.

81,000 tons to be exact, and she fudged that. The treaties in some ways, helped Japan, and put her ahead in naval aviation, since many of the resources and even some of the BC hulls, like Akagi, were diverted to what turned out to be more useful carriers. It also made Japan focus on higher quality of ships to overcome numerical inferiority. At the beginning of the war their carriers and fleet air arm and aircraft were the best in the world. Their DDs and CAs top notch and they had perfected a devastating 45 kt torpedo, with twice the warhead and 4 times the range of other navies that they put to good use in the Solomon's and gave the US commanders a nasty surprise. They also worked on overcoming their numerical inferiority by concentrating on night-fighting tactics, which they again put to good use in the Solomon's. A major failure and flaw was their virtual ignoring of radar until it was much too late. Also the focus of using their submarine force in fleet support and attack instead of supply and logistical interdiction strategy.

The big BBs where really just huge useless fuel sucking anachronisms that were really obsolete before they were laid down. Shinano was really just a crazy stop gap measure to use up an existing hull.

[Just plain old Punisher]

Helped us too, since we could use our two BC hulls to lay down our 34,000 tonners, the lexington and Saratoga.

But in order to save weight, the Japanese also launched several light carriers of limited usefullness. And their existing fleet carriers lacked any signifigant flight deck armor.

[Just plain old Punisher]

Ha! Here is where buying that bargin book "Janes history of modern naval warfare" pays off!

[CaptStumpy]

Ha! Here is where buying that bargin book "Janes history of modern naval warfare" pays off!

Pah! That rag? It's Conway's or nothing baby!

[Just plain old Punisher]

Eh, Janes provides a lot more commentary that connects it all together =P