Secondaries even worth having right now?

[AurumCorvus]

3 hours ago, Iuvenalis said:

4. Your caliber choice: Bigger isn't always better. As I said, I tend to choose setups that are geared toward better penetration. If I happen to come up against a very lightly armored target, I'm actually better off hitting with a smaller gun. A 6"-8" gun, especially at close range, may just be punching a pair of small holes in one side of the ship and out the other, the over-penetration just causing minor and quickly remedied flooding. On the contrary, in the same scenario smaller 4" or 5" shells may penetrate, detonate and deal full damage.

I very, very much disagree with this, and advocate for the biggest caliber you can fit for a few reasons:

(1) Bigger calibers have much better range, meaning you can completely crowd out smaller ships' armaments (especially noting DDs which are limited to 5in guns, and an 8in gun could potentially kill a DD without ever giving it a chance to fire). This matters in the late-game as well because of it is much better to not let torpedo-carrying ships to get close as they get faster and more deadly (with more range as well).

(2) As a part of their better range, they have much better accuracy at the range that lower calibers just start firing, and much better accuracy at any range compared to smaller calibers. Again, it means you can do meaningful damages much sooner/much more often than smaller calibers.

(3) When they do start hitting, they'll cause much more damage, much more quickly. You'll quite easily erase the structure durability of smaller ships. Though, yes, you'll struggle in flooding damage to a degree, unlike the multiple hits of a smaller caliber, more gun battery.

(4) Finally, your point of overpens... doesn't make sense, to put it as kindly as I can. All guns start at 0 inches of pen at 0 percent accuracy. Yes, there is a band where you'll get full damage, and a band where you'll overpen. Yes, that damage will curve up much higher (Y-axis). But the fact that a bigger caliber is spread over a greater range (X-axis) means you'll have a bigger or at the very least similar band of effectiveness against a certain armor value at variable ranges.

Also, HE characteristics toss this straight out the window. Reference Evil4Zerggin's guide below. HE only has 25% penetration. Unless you're at point blank range with main-gun caliber guns, that modifier will make it near-impossible to get overpens. Even 10 inches will reduce down to 2.5 inches, of which (calculations in the same thread below) only below 0.04 in armor will allow for overpens. Mind you, that is only a hair above 1mm, and quite literally impossible to set if you're using inches in game measurement.

Finally... even if you overpen, it still does roughly 35% damage. An 8in shell will still out damage smaller shells.

 

Edited October 25, 2021 by AurumCorvus
I hungry that I hadn't had lunch yet, so I ate some words from my explanation.

[Iuvenalis]

On 10/25/2021 at 2:27 PM, AurumCorvus said:

I very, very much disagree with this, and advocate for the biggest caliber you can fit for a few reasons:

(1) Bigger calibers have much better range, meaning you can completely crowd out smaller ships' armaments (especially noting DDs which are limited to 5in guns, and an 8in gun could potentially kill a DD without ever giving it a chance to fire). This matters in the late-game as well because of it is much better to not let torpedo-carrying ships to get close as they get faster and more deadly (with more range as well).

(2) As a part of their better range, they have much better accuracy at the range that lower calibers just start firing, and much better accuracy at any range compared to smaller calibers. Again, it means you can do meaningful damages much sooner/much more often than smaller calibers.

(3) When they do start hitting, they'll cause much more damage, much more quickly. You'll quite easily erase the structure durability of smaller ships. Though, yes, you'll struggle in flooding damage to a degree, unlike the multiple hits of a smaller caliber, more gun battery.

(4) Finally, your point of overpens... doesn't make sense, to put it as kindly as I can. All guns start at 0 inches of pen at 0 percent accuracy. Yes, there is a band where you'll get full damage, and a band where you'll overpen. Yes, that damage will curve up much higher (Y-axis). But the fact that a bigger caliber is spread over a greater range (X-axis) means you'll have a bigger or at the very least similar band of effectiveness against a certain armor value at variable ranges.

Also, HE characteristics toss this straight out the window. Reference Evil4Zerggin's guide below. HE only has 25% penetration. Unless you're at point blank range with main-gun caliber guns, that modifier will make it near-impossible to get overpens. Even 10 inches will reduce down to 2.5 inches, of which (calculations in the same thread below) only below 0.04 in armor will allow for overpens. Mind you, that is only a hair above 1mm, and quite literally impossible to set if you're using inches in game measurement.

Finally... even if you overpen, it still does roughly 35% damage. An 8in shell will still out damage smaller shells.

 

I don't agree with that at all. The developers have put a lot of work into giving this game depth. I think the game allows you explore different designs for different situations utilizing different solutions that will create advantages and disadvantages depending on your playstyle and tactics. I don't think there is one "right answer" to ship design.  If the answer to every ship design was just "BIG GUN GO BOOM!" then it wouldn't be very fun.

I concede that where I said "I'm actually better off..." I should have said "I actually MAY be better off...".  There are situations where your "Bigger is Better" philosophy will work and there are plenty where it will fail. Let's take this to the extreme as an example. You advocate the largest calibre possible, which basically answers OP's question by saying  "yes, secondaries are useless". By your logic, a battleship design should have as many 20" barrels as possible and no other armament. I challenge you to make that design (on a reasonable ship size, not a 150k ton meme-boat) and pit yourself against a fleet of CLs and DDs. I think you'll find you'll knock a few out and soon then be eating torpedoes faster than you can chew.

You're also mistaken in some of your assumptions. For example, your 2nd paragraph is flat out incorrect. I encourage you to look through the tables on various guns in different years/tech levels. An 8" does not always have better accuracy at a given range than say a 5". Also, to put it as kindly as I can, your point about overpens and HE doesn't make any sense, as I never advocated smaller guns to avoid HE overpen. 

Lastly, I based my comment on my experience getting overpens and was speaking to OPs original question about fighting off light cruisers at close range. You can tell me all you want that I'm wrong, but when I use a bunch of big guns with penetration oriented components against light ships, I get plenty of overpens. I was offering my experience and thoughts to OP to give ideas. After all, one of the fun factors of this game is supposed to be experimentation. My suggestions worked for me in the battles that I played and I had fun implementing them.

 

 

[SonicB]

On 10/24/2021 at 9:13 PM, SpardaSon21 said:

Another thing to keep in mind is that overall effectiveness of secondary guns is well below what it was IRL.  The ancient US 5"/51 got a rate of fire of 8-9 rounds a minute, or a 7.5 second reload rate, and a range of 17km.  The 5"/54 introduced in 1945 had a four second reload time, and a maximum naval engagement range of 23.7~ kilometers.  The short-barreled 5"/38 reached out to a 16km horizontal engagement range, and looking at the stats in Custom Battle a 5" Mark 5 has a maximum range of 12.7km and a fire rate  You can, with a single barrel, triple-base propellant, autoloading, and light ammo, get a 5" Mark 5 gun to have a 4 second reload.  But of course, the USA was making twin turret with with that reload rate, and it still doesn't have the range to match their historical counterparts.

Absolutely. And that's not even taking into account the salvo mechanic that slows down secondary ROF even from its stated numbers - when one turret fires, it cannot fire again until the last turret on target has fully reloaded. With small calibre weapons, especially with late-game tech, this makes reload speeds a joke compared to similar secondary battery performance IRL.

[Iuvenalis]

2 hours ago, SonicB said:

Absolutely. And that's not even taking into account the salvo mechanic that slows down secondary ROF even from its stated numbers - when one turret fires, it cannot fire again until the last turret on target has fully reloaded. With small calibre weapons, especially with late-game tech, this makes reload speeds a joke compared to similar secondary battery performance IRL.

And we all laughed at the AI for designing ships with every small caliber of gun in a mix of single, twin and triple mounts... guess there IS a reason for it!

[SonicB]

19 hours ago, SonicB said:

Absolutely. And that's not even taking into account the salvo mechanic that slows down secondary ROF even from its stated numbers - when one turret fires, it cannot fire again until the last turret on target has fully reloaded. With small calibre weapons, especially with late-game tech, this makes reload speeds a joke compared to similar secondary battery performance IRL.

In fact, since I'm in the middle of an academy battle where this is showing up to an egregious level, I'm going to dig into the figures some more (and I'm a historian, not a mathematician, so please feel free to point out any errors.)

Let's take the late-1930s tech secondary armament of an Iowa class battleship, 10x5" twin mounts. With decent technology and crew experience, you're going to see a roughly 6s, or 10rpm, stated reload time per turret. The salvo mechanic adds approximately 1s between turrets, and resets the new salvo timer every time a turret is fired. If we assume all five turrets on one side are engaged on one destroyer, this means that only the final turret in the salvo enjoys the stated 6s reload time, the penultimate turret takes 7s, and the first turret to fire takes 10s to fire again.

This gives an average reload time per salvo of 8s, which is a 33.3% nerf to the stated reload time, and twice the reload time given as a minimum for the mid-war US 5"/38 DP mount by navweaps (15rpm/4s to 22rpm/2.7s).

Let's assume that the destroyer is exposed to secondary battery fire for only one minute before being in a position to launch torpedoes. Our five twin 5" mounts at 6s/10rpm should be able to fire 100 rounds at this destroyer during one minute, but instead they're only firing 75 rounds. Furthermore, historically, our Iowa should be firing a minimum of 150 rounds. As we know, even the first major hit is crucial, as it has a good chance to slow down the destroyer or possibly wreck a torpedo mount - therefore a 33.3% higher hit chance would be game-changing, never mind a historically accurate ~100% hit chance.

I can see the point of the salvo system for rangefinding (and I'd welcome any historical input on how secondary batteries were employed, and whether salvos were used at all) but if I were to propose a solution, it would be a toggle between 'salvo fire' - providing a long range accuracy bonus and allowing accuracy to improve per salvo as per the present system - and 'rapid fire' which stops the incremental accuracy improvement but maximises fire rate.

[DougToss]

No kidding about the Iowa pumping out rounds at close range.

[Iuvenalis]

7 hours ago, SonicB said:

I can see the point of the salvo system for rangefinding (and I'd welcome any historical input on how secondary batteries were employed, and whether salvos were used at all) but if I were to propose a solution, it would be a toggle between 'salvo fire' - providing a long range accuracy bonus and allowing accuracy to improve per salvo as per the present system - and 'rapid fire' which stops the incremental accuracy improvement but maximises fire rate.

To my knowledge, salvo firing was historically very important, particularly the longer out your range is. Secondary batteries did engage in salvo firing. This was one of the disadvantages of a secondary battery (or any battery) of mixed calibres, or having different batteries of guns too close in calibre. For example, a pre-dreadnought carrying 12" main guns and 6" secondary guns firing at a target a few thousand yards away could easily spot and discern a 12" splash from a 6" splash and the crew members directing fire for each battery could adjust. Now take something like USS Virginia, BB-13, (ridiculous superimposed turret layout aside) which had an intermediate battery of 8" guns between the other two calibres and try to hit a target 12,000 yards away. Suddenly those 6" and 8" splashes get blurred together.

Batteries of guns also did engage in rapid fire. This could and did happen for a variety of reasons, including things like the enemy being at point blank range where fire control was not necessary to score a hit, or having your fire control equipment disabled and having to locally aim the guns. In the latter, without the ability to centralize fire, increasing your chance to hit through rate of fire becomes a viable option versus more carefully trying to zero in salvo by salvo.

To your point, it has always bothered me that it seems the "aggressive" stance for guns doesn't seem to do anything. The "Save" option will cease fire if the hit probability drops too low, but "Normal" seems to just fire at maximum range anyway. I think the "aggressive" stance should do as you say ignore all fire control and lose the accuracy bonuses but pump rounds out at a faster pace. This could be an interesting option in situations where you're badly damaged, have a disabled bridge or fire control, or the enemy is so close you're at or near 100% chance to hit and want to give a sort of "fire at will" command. While wasteful, it worked for Dewey!

"You may fire when ready, Gridley" - Admiral George Dewey, Manila Bay, 1898 

[SpardaSon21]

7 hours ago, Iuvenalis said:

To my knowledge, salvo firing was historically very important, particularly the longer out your range is. Secondary batteries did engage in salvo firing. This was one of the disadvantages of a secondary battery (or any battery) of mixed calibres, or having different batteries of guns too close in calibre. For example, a pre-dreadnought carrying 12" main guns and 6" secondary guns firing at a target a few thousand yards away could easily spot and discern a 12" splash from a 6" splash and the crew members directing fire for each battery could adjust. Now take something like USS Virginia, BB-13, (ridiculous superimposed turret layout aside) which had an intermediate battery of 8" guns between the other two calibres and try to hit a target 12,000 yards away. Suddenly those 6" and 8" splashes get blurred together.

Batteries of guns also did engage in rapid fire. This could and did happen for a variety of reasons, including things like the enemy being at point blank range where fire control was not necessary to score a hit, or having your fire control equipment disabled and having to locally aim the guns. In the latter, without the ability to centralize fire, increasing your chance to hit through rate of fire becomes a viable option versus more carefully trying to zero in salvo by salvo.

To your point, it has always bothered me that it seems the "aggressive" stance for guns doesn't seem to do anything. The "Save" option will cease fire if the hit probability drops too low, but "Normal" seems to just fire at maximum range anyway. I think the "aggressive" stance should do as you say ignore all fire control and lose the accuracy bonuses but pump rounds out at a faster pace. This could be an interesting option in situations where you're badly damaged, have a disabled bridge or fire control, or the enemy is so close you're at or near 100% chance to hit and want to give a sort of "fire at will" command. While wasteful, it worked for Dewey!

"You may fire when ready, Gridley" - Admiral George Dewey, Manila Bay, 1898 

That sort of salvo firing became a lot less necessary once you had the target locked, and when you realize the Iowa's FCS systems would be the equivalent of a Gen 3 radar set in-game for both the main and the secondary guns... hell, even the 40mm cannons on US BB's got radar ranging systems during the war, with an upgrade to automatic direction and laying at the end.  10 5" guns at full fire rate with radar direction and laying would shred an Agano and its 2.4" belt, never mind an unarmored destroyer.

[Iuvenalis]

On 10/29/2021 at 11:30 PM, SpardaSon21 said:

That sort of salvo firing became a lot less necessary once you had the target locked, and when you realize the Iowa's FCS systems would be the equivalent of a Gen 3 radar set in-game for both the main and the secondary guns... hell, even the 40mm cannons on US BB's got radar ranging systems during the war, with an upgrade to automatic direction and laying at the end.  10 5" guns at full fire rate with radar direction and laying would shred an Agano and its 2.4" belt, never mind an unarmored destroyer.

Correct, but it was a sliding scale over time. You're describing what was basically the "end" of naval artillery development in the 20th century as a primary armament, missiles taking center stage in the 1950s and onward. (Yes, I know development continued and guns are still used today, but they're generally not the main armament of a major surface combatant). The better the targeting tech got, the less important it was, and the less likely you would be salvo firing with secondaries.

[DeadlyWalrus]

6 hours ago, Iuvenalis said:

Correct, but it was a sliding scale over time. 

I think that's one of the big issues that the current design is really having issues with.  The tactics, effectiveness and really the fundamental purpose of a ship's secondary battery changes greatly from the pre-dreadnaught era to the end of gun based warships. The purpose of a small, rapid-fire gun is going to be very different in an era were everything is under local control and battle ranges are in the few thousands of yards compared to ships aiming radar-directed salvos at 30,000+ yards.

Edited November 1, 2021 by DeadlyWalrus

[DougToss]

2 hours ago, DeadlyWalrus said:

I think that's one of the big issues that the current design is really having issues with.  The tactics, effectiveness and really the fundamental purpose of a ship's secondary battery changes greatly from the pre-dreadnaught era to the end of gun based warships. The purpose of a small-rapid, fire gun is going to be very different in an era were everything is under local control and battle ranges are in the few thousands of yards compared to ships aiming radar-directed salvos at 30,000+ yards.

I think this encapsulates many, many of the issues with UA:D’s gunnery. 
 

A 5 Inch gun in 1890, 1910, 1925, 1940 and 1950 could be the “same” gun but there were wild, wild changes in effectiveness as doctrine, tactics, mounts, fire control, ammunition etc. evolved.

Of course the Iowa could effortlessly plink 300 ton torpedo boats! Those were no longer the threat - torpedoes delivered by aircraft were. A ship in 1900 that came up against a torpedo boat flotilla without a screen would be in dire straits though. Making their guns as effective as the apex of radar controlled, rapid fire gunnery, at the height of analog fire control and direction is a major misstep.

I mean, you could say the threat matrix of Torpedo Boat > Destroyer > Torpedo Bomber > Air-to-Surface Missile was a continuum, different iterations of the same basic idea of threatening major surface combatants with smaller, more agile forces. In principle, the idea of 3 inch guns on Dreadnoughts turret tops and CIWS on a modern ship are the same, maybe even against their contemporary threats they were equally effective, but that doesn’t mean Victorian pom-poms was as effective as CIWS in real terms, if you know what I mean.

Early ships should be as threatened by Torpedo Boats - and Dreadnoughts by Destroyers - as Iowa was by Kamikaze, Standard Battleships were by Dive and Torpedo Bombers and 70’s ships by Backfires, I’d imagine. Making the early weapons and techniques as effective as what came much later really lowballs the level of threat they faced. 

[SpardaSon21]

14 hours ago, Iuvenalis said:

Correct, but it was a sliding scale over time. You're describing what was basically the "end" of naval artillery development in the 20th century as a primary armament, missiles taking center stage in the 1950s and onward. (Yes, I know development continued and guns are still used today, but they're generally not the main armament of a major surface combatant). The better the targeting tech got, the less important it was, and the less likely you would be salvo firing with secondaries.

That's my point.  The game does a terrible simulating the advancements in centralized fire and direction.  A maxed-tech ship will have its secondary guns aim and fire as if it was the year 1900, not 1940.

9 hours ago, DougToss said:

Of course the Iowa could effortlessly plink 300 ton torpedo boats! Those were no longer the threat - torpedoes delivered by aircraft were. A ship in 1900 that came up against a torpedo boat flotilla without a screen would be in dire straits though. Making their guns as effective as the apex of radar controlled, rapid fire gunnery, at the height of analog fire control and direction is a major misstep.

 

I would absolutely hate that as well.  A screenless BB should always be at risk of torpedo attack by destroyers, but it should be a high-risk, high-reward deal, far riskier than it is now.  I'm not too well-read on the tactics of the early period, but my understanding was that a truly successful run, as in a run close enough to sink or cripple a battleship, would have the attacker under enough fire to nearly-guarantee it would go down with the target.  There's a reason the jeune ecole never caught on, after all.

[RedParadize]

Screening would normally be the way to protect vital asset. Thing is atm handling fleets isn't very pleasant. You either have to micro manage everything or let the Friendly AI handle it... And it will just do circle around target.

[DougToss]

8 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

I'm not too well-read on the tactics of the early period, (..) There's a reason the jeune ecole never caught on, after all.

There was some discussion last page.

[Norbert Sattler]

Has anyone ever tossed seperate range-finders for primary and secondary guns into the discussions?

[DougToss]

5 minutes ago, Norbert Sattler said:

Has anyone ever tossed seperate range-finders for primary and secondary guns into the discussions?

Ideally we would have all sorts of fire control setups, down to local control and the Mk I Eyeball. There’s a lot of granularity missing.

[DeadlyWalrus]

9 minutes ago, Norbert Sattler said:

Has anyone ever tossed seperate range-finders for primary and secondary guns into the discussions?

More detailed fire-control modeling has been discussed at various points... whether that will ever come to anything?  I have no idea.

[Iuvenalis]

On 11/1/2021 at 5:09 PM, DougToss said:

A 5 Inch gun in 1890, 1910, 1925, 1940 and 1950 could be the “same” gun but there were wild, wild changes in effectiveness as doctrine, tactics, mounts, fire control, ammunition etc. evolved.

Very much so. In terms of the OP's original question, yes, secondaries should be useless by the time Iowa was commissioned in 1943. Although designed as dual purpose guns, the Iowa's (and other large ships armed with secondary batteries of the 5"/38) doctrine for them had shifted and they were expected to do mostly AA duty. If surface combatants got close enough to something like the Iowa to be using the 5" guns, it would have meant a failure of the fleet screen. Since there are no aircraft in UA:D, then yes, they should be useless, no? haha

[madham82]

1 hour ago, Iuvenalis said:

If surface combatants got close enough to something like the Iowa to be using the 5" guns, it would have meant a failure of the fleet screen. Since there are no aircraft in UA:D, then yes, they should be useless, no? haha

I would say in majority of cases you would be correct. However historic engagement ranges were frequently much shorter than people expect. Just take a look at any of the night engagements. In general ranges over 30K yrds were exceedingly rare, while ones under 20K yrds were common. Under 20K yrds and suddenly these guns can start coming into play. Unfortunately, most of these type engagements were not between full fleets, but small task forces or individual ships. So take it for what it is worth. 

[SpardaSon21]

18 hours ago, Iuvenalis said:

Very much so. In terms of the OP's original question, yes, secondaries should be useless by the time Iowa was commissioned in 1943. Although designed as dual purpose guns, the Iowa's (and other large ships armed with secondary batteries of the 5"/38) doctrine for them had shifted and they were expected to do mostly AA duty. If surface combatants got close enough to something like the Iowa to be using the 5" guns, it would have meant a failure of the fleet screen. Since there are no aircraft in UA:D, then yes, they should be useless, no? haha

Yes, and the 5"/38 was also the primary weapon on destroyers, as well as secondary armament on CL's and CA's, and the British 4"/45 was also shared between capitals and escorts.  It isn't only BB's and BC's we need to wonder about, given that smaller-caliber weaponry played an important role on all warships, at all time periods.  Unless you're going to say the 18 3" guns and the 12 Hotchkiss 3-pounders on the St. Louis class of semi-armored cruisers were just there for the hell of it and not torpedo boat defense!

[Iuvenalis]

On 11/4/2021 at 4:37 AM, SpardaSon21 said:

Unless you're going to say the 18 3" guns and the 12 Hotchkiss 3-pounders on the St. Louis class of semi-armored cruisers were just there for the hell of it and not torpedo boat defense!

^Oh, no, they served a purpose, undoubtedly.

I was specifically talking about captial ships in mid to late WW2. The 5"/38 served a purpose on large ships during that time, but as the war evolved they were used for AA duty far more than anti-surface. There are no aircraft in UA:D so that was my terrible joke about them being useless.

[madham82]

2 hours ago, Iuvenalis said:

I was specifically talking about captial ships in mid to late WW2. The 5"/38 served a purpose on large ships during that time, but as the war evolved they were used for AA duty far more than anti-surface. There are no aircraft in UA:D so that was my terrible joke about them being useless.

Part of that is due to the rapidly shrinking naval forces on the opposing sides by that period of the war as well. I mean look at the Iowa's, who I don't believe ever used their 16"s in a surface engagement. But both their 16" and 5" were heavily used in shore bombardment. 

UA:D is out in a completely ahistorical setting without aircraft, so are these secondary batteries by the late game period by extension.

The US originally planned an increased caliber for the 5" planned for the Montana's to make them more effective in surface engagements. When they were cancelled, they could have pursued using them for other ships, but none actually were until end of the war. Reasonable to assume because they didn't offer an advantage in air defense over the 5" mounts in service, there was no rush to replace them. Now if there had still been large numbers of surface engagements occurring, that situation would have likely changed. 

[DougToss]

The shift from surface employment to air and subsurface use of torpedoes can be seen in Just how little use the Japanese got out of those torpedo cruisers. Keeping in mind, a generation before they might have been formidable combatants. Ship-launched torpedoes never proved to be the decisive weapon everyone was afraid they were - but not because secondary batteries were able to so outmatch them as to stop them cold.
Royal Navy trials showed pom-poms and 3 inch guns could not disable torpedo craft prior to firing. Equally important is that wartime experience showed that being able to fire a torpedo and achieving decisive results were very different things. By the time secondaries could effectively hit and sink torpedo craft, the torpedo bomber was in service.
 

 

[Evil4Zerggin]

3 hours ago, madham82 said:

I mean look at the Iowa's, who I don't believe ever used their 16"s in a surface engagement. But both their 16" and 5" were heavily used in shore bombardment. 

Iowa and New Jersey were involved in one surface engagement, in which Iowa sank the light cruiser Katori and New Jersey the destroyer Maikaze and a trawler. Granted, hardly a clash of titans.

[madham82]

51 minutes ago, Evil4Zerggin said:

Iowa and New Jersey were involved in one surface engagement, in which Iowa sank the light cruiser Katori and New Jersey the destroyer and a trawler. Granted, hardly a clash of titans.

Thank you for that. These type of engagements rarely come up but is a perfect example for this thread. 

At an average range of 14,500yds, Iowa closed with Katori and fired 46 16-inch (406 mm) high capacity (non-armor-piercing) rounds and 124 5-inch (127 mm), straddling the cruiser with eight salvos. CAG 17/A16-3 reported Iowa hit Katori with her second salvo. Just after Iowa's fourth salvo, Katori quickly listed to port exposing seven large shell holes about 5 feet (1.5 m) in diameter in her starboard side, one under the bridge about five feet below the waterline, another amidships about at the waterline, plus about nine smaller holes.[citation needed] The damage on the port side was much worse. After being under attack by Iowa for about 5 minutes, Katori sank stern first, with a port side list at 07°45′N 151°20′E about 40 miles (64 km) northwest of Truk. 

Couldn't find any real details on the New Jersey engagement, but references seem to indicate her 5" batteries sunk Maikaze.