I very much doubt it, but I have no direct evidence. In practice, I don't think surface engagement was common during an aerial attack. And when I say "not common", I don't know if it ever happened.

Hi love your ship.

but just noticed on the bow and stern is the boat crane higher on the stern view than the bow one ?

JSB

Samar is the only example that I know of. We all know how that went. A combined surface-aearial attack is very effective at reducing the effectiveness of both AA defenses and the guns firing at surface targets. As for blast damage from the Iowas, I have seen a video of people on the forecastle filming whilst all the 16 inch guns are firing. So it is possible to stand within 50-75 meters of the guns without injury. Don`t know what happens to people within 10-20 meters, although I suspect heavy injury and/or death is very likely.

It's important to remember that most of the USN BB light AA fit of which we usually think was very much added on an ad-hoc basis. I think the interwar idea, when they had time to really consider things like this, was .50cal way up on the masts, 1.1" on the superstructure, and 5/25 amidships, well away from blast.

By the time it's 1942, well, you cease shore bombardment fire if the skies fill up with bad guys. If you're engaging another battleship, you probably break off the engagement for twenty or thirty minutes, by which time he really won't have gone THAT far away. If the Japanese have managed to get your battleship in a position where you can be subjected to continuous battleship and aerial attack, you congratulate him on a well-planned engagement and kiss your ass goodbye.

I'm not sure there's a better answer, short of an AK-630 farm or something

[quote="erik_t"I'm not sure there's a better answer, short of an AK-630 farm or something