Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Hamish on October 14, 2000, 01:07:00 PM
-
I read a long long time ago, that the Montana class Battleship was supposed to be the next class after the Iowa Class. She had been partially built by the end of WW2, and had been scrapped at the end of the war. Bring it in as a "Perk Battleship" !!
Hamish!
-
Hmm... perk battleship? How bout a Nimitz-class CVN? Perk only of course. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Seriously, having a battleship would be cool. But one thing that would be extremely beneficial would be the ability to call for fire from the BB's guns. Use battleship to bombard bases and targets near shore, not just enemy ships. I thought HTC was working on a self-propelled arty piece... this could work in a similar way. Thoughts?
-
Originally posted by Hamish:
I read a long long time ago, that the Montana class Battleship was supposed to be the next class after the Iowa Class.
True.
She had been partially built by the end of WW2, and had been scrapped at the end of the war.
False. No Montana class BB had ever its keel laid.
Some stats on the Montana, and line drawing:
Length(O/A) 925'
Length(W/L) 890'
Beam 121' 2"
Draft(max) 40' 5"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Displacement
Maximum 73,500 tons
Full Load 70,965 tons
Design 60,500 tons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propulsion
Turbines:4 sets Westinghouse geared turbines
Horsepower:172,000 forward
43,000 reverse
Ships Generators:10 x 1,250 KW turbo generators
2 x 500 KW diesels
Shafts:4
Speed:28.0 knts @ 166 rpm
Endurance:15,000 NM @ 15 knts
Bunkerage:7,500 tons oil
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armor:
Main Side Belt 16.1" STS plate inclined 19 degrees
Inner Side Belt 7.2" inclined 10 degrees
Bulkheads 18" forward,15.25" aft
Deck:total 10.454"
Barbettes:21.3"
18":rear
Turrets:face 18"+4.5"
sides:10"
back:12"
roof:9.15"
Conning Tower 18" sides
7.25" roof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armament
Main guns:12 x 16"/50 cal (Mk 7) in 4 triple turrets
2 forward 2 aft
Secondary:20 x 5"/54 cal (Mk 16) in ten twin turrets
5 port 5 starboard
Heavy A/A:80+ x 40mm/56 cal Bofors in 15 quad gun mounts
Light: A/A 60+ x 20mm/70 cal Oerlikons
-----------------------------------------
(http://www.warships1.com/USbb67_Montana_LD2.jpg)
But it was only a design. I like Yamatos the most (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Or a Bismarck (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-14-2000).]
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-14-2000).]
-
Beautiful RAM! thx for the drawing, i'm gonna go recheck my site on the internet, i could have sworn i read that her keel had been laid and she'd been at least started before the end of WW2. but Come on now, The Yamato? Granted she had 18" guns, but they didn't have quite the range of U.S. 16" guns (if i remeber right, i could be wrong) And those 4, count em, 4 tri-turrets would eat a yamato for Lunch (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
(http://www.warships1.com/JAPbb08_Yamato-LD1.jpg)
I like more the Yamato because they look better, but still beware about them...
Yamato's armor was more than impressive:
Side:
16.14" (410mm)
Deck:
1.3"-1.9" (33-48.3mm) superstructure deck
7.87" (200mm) MNC main deck
7.48" (190mm) MNC main deck (hull #110 & 111)
3.5" (89mm) second deck
Turrets:
25.6" (650mm) faces
15" (381mm) sides
Barbettes:
21.5" (546mm) sides
Conning Tower:
19.5" (495.3mm) sides
WOW :eeks:
Those 18.1'/45 guns had better range than the 16'/50 american guns. Both guns were mounted in triple turrets with a maximum elevation of 45º. At that elevation Yamato's guns had a range of 45,960 yards (42,030 m), while Iowa's guns had a range of 42,345 yards (38,720 m).
Moot point, as none of both were going to strike anything at such distances (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
What is true is that the 16' projectile had the same penetration as the 18.1', due for better AP shape (Japanese shells were optimized to diving underwater hits, damaging its normal AP power).
Anyway, with same penetrations, 16' superheavy AP projectile weighted 2,700 lbs. (1,225 kg), while 18.1' AP projectile weighed 3,219 lb (1,460 kg), and those 500 Lbs are quite a difference (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif).
As you see...be careful... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Yamatos were SERIOUS problems for a Montana, had the latter have existed.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-14-2000).]
-
Actually Ram, if you read the detailed comparison at the Imperial Japanese Navy Page (http://www.combinedfleet.com/[url), the Iowa class were actually better and more potent battleships than the Yamoto's. The page actually has a detailed comparison between all the major BB classes of WW2. The author's findings show the Iowa to be the best BB of WW2
For instance:
Armor
Suffice it to say that I am surprised as you that Iowa has the most effective belt armor of the lot; I would have bet on Yamato any day. But Iowa's combination of an inclined belt, and a highly effective STS-steel shell plate outboard of the belt (which has just enough resistance to strip the AP cap off of an incoming shell) tips the score in her favor. Richelieu also had this same design, and very good protection as a result. Bismarck, despite the reputation of her side armor, fares very poorly in this category. From a deck armor perspective, Yamato comes out on top, followed closely again by Richelieu and Iowa. Vittorio Veneto is very vulnerable to high-angle fire, and Bismarck is as well. Yamato thus emerges as the best armored of the lot, followed closely by Iowa and Richelieu. This makes perfect sense to me, as Yamato also had the distinction of carrying the only armor plates which were completely impervious to any battleship weapon ever mounted afloat -- her 660mm turret faceplates. She was, indeed, an awesome beast. It makes the American and French feats of achieving protection within a hair as good, on much smaller displacements (particularly the South Dakota, which has the second smallest displacement of the seven warships detailed here), a very impressive feat as well. On the bottom of the heap, Vittorio Veneto and Bismarck were both penalized for their inability to cope with a long-range gun duel. Bismarck also suffered from the poorest belt armor of the lot.
Guns
The Japanese 18.1"/45 reigned supreme as the most destructive piece of naval ordnance ever mounted afloat. However, its ballistic performance was not particularly inspiring, and the performance of its Type 91 shells was inferior to the norm, partly because they were optimized for underwater trajectories 7. Immediately below it in terms of power is the US 16"/50. Good ballistics, and superb shells, give this gun a tremendous whallop, and in combat terms I rate it as the equal of the Japanese weapon, largely because of its shells. Below that, in an upset, comes Richelieu's 15"/45, as the best all-around 15" gun, and feel the most useful in an actual combat situation. The Italian 15"/50 was an enormously potent weapon from a raw power perspective, but it sacrificed a lot in order to achieve that performance, and had decidedly inferior shells. I should note, though, that I am still investigating this particular gun and her shells in more detail; the information available on her shells is rather spotty. Bismarck's 15"/47 shell is 10% lighter than the French and Italian, although her cyclic rate is attractive, and her guns were very accurate. At the bottom of the spectrum, King George V's 14" gun clearly doesn't have nearly the oomph necessary to compete with the rest of these guys.
Fire Control
The bottom line is that, after 1943 or so, having the world's best optical fire-control systems was largely irrelevant. The night battle between Washington and Kirishima near Savo pretty much settled the point; good radar usually beats good optics in a stand-up fight. And the radar used by Washington off of Guadalcanal was not as good as the sets fitted aboard Iowa.6
Then there's the fact that all radar fire-control is not created equal. Radar operating at meter or decimeter wavelengths is useful for ranging, but lacks the angular accuracy necessary for training. In practical terms, this means that a decimetric set can develop a range solution via radar, but must rely on an optical director to supply training information for the battery. This hybrid fire-control solution is, of course, limited by the quality of the optics available, and also by the visual horizon (which is closer than the radar horizon), and weather conditions. Only with the advent of 10cm and (later) 3cm wavelength sets was true 'blindfire' radar fire-control achievable, wherein the firing ship need never come into visual range of the opposing vessel. The Germans, Japanese, and Italians never developed sets of this capability (both the Japanese (despite its 10cm wavelength) and German sets were usable for fire control against a battleship-sized target only out to a range of about 27,000 yards.) The bottom line is, then, that the Allied vessels, and particularly Iowa and South Dakota, would enjoy an enormous advantage in gunfire control over their adversaries. She would have the ability to lob shells over the visual horizon, and would also perform better in complete darkness or adverse weather conditions.
The final adjusted rating also reflects the fact that American FC systems employed by far the most advanced stable vertical elements in the world. In practical terms, this meant that American vessels could keep a solution on a target even when performing radical maneuvers. In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns.7 This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems, and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other.
General Factors
This category is tremendously subjective. All I am trying to do here is put together at least a rough index of how useful the ship might be tactically (gun platform, speed), and how much raw punishment it could absorb (displacement, damage control). Gun platform is simply a rough index of the beam of the vessel (we'll deal with actual sea-keeping in a later section). In the matter of speed, I am personally of the belief that a fast ship is a nice thing to have, but that speed in general is not a critical deciding factor in the outcome of battles. For the purposes of the rating, I put Iowa at 33 knots and subtracted .5 point per knot from there on down. Damage control is very hard to quantify. American practice, by the end of the war, was simply superb. How much better than the everybody else (especially the French, about whom I don't even have anecdotal evidence) is impossible to say. So I simply took my best guess. The end result was that these ships all scored very close together in terms of an overall rating, which 'feels' right to me. All seven of these ships were large, steady gun platforms which could absorb an enormous amount of punishment. Iowa barely edges Yamato because of her speed and superb damage control. Yamato, though, has the advantage of an enormous displacement. To my mind, for all practical purposes, they are practically the same in their usefulness -- it's largely a matter of preference. All the others display a good blend of factors, but aren't quite in the same league in their ability to absorb damage, largely because of their displacement. The deciding factor in determining their real usefulness and damage-resistance ability becomes their respective protection schemes.
Final Decision
Some discussion is obviously in order here, because my scoring runs counter to some of the established and accepted 'battleship lore' out there. For instance, my scoring indicates that King George V was a pretty close match for Bismarck in a stand-up fight. So, if this was such an even fight, why did Prince of Wales break off her action with Bismarck, instead of just duking it out in a manly fashion? There are a few things to remember in this regard. First; this comparison shows a King George V-class battleship in a late-war configuration equipped with Type 274 radar; a luxury the Prince of Wales did not enjoy in 1940, but which would have been a huge equalizer later in the war. If one assumes British fire control to be equal or slightly inferior to the Germans in 1940, Bismarck starts looking better again. Second; the British had little idea that Bismarck was as tough a low-angle target as she was, and thus closed the range to come to grips with her (which, had she made it that far, also would have reduced Hood's exposure to high-angle deck hits - a vulnerability the British were acutely aware of, and another reason why they tried to close the range with Bismarck as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, they cut their intercept course too fine, and couldn't run the gauntlet before Hood was fatally hit). In retrospect, a ship like King George V is better off fighting Bismarck at long range, where the German ship's own vulnerability to high-angle fire would be heightened. Third, of course, is the fact that Prince of Wales was suffering from teething problems in her main mounts, to put it mildly, and was not getting nearly the output of shells she might have enjoyed in a late-war engagement when all the bugs with the British 14"/45 mount had been worked out. Late-war, at long range, with blindfire radar fire-control, and turrets working, I believe King George V was a decent match for the Bismarck.
Second, I'm saying that South Dakota would have usually whipped the Bismarck. Not only that, but if handled correctly, she ought to have had a better-than-even shot against Yamato, a statement that on the face of it seems absurd! Yamato was fully 27,000+ tons heavier, had much thicker armor, and possessed the largest naval rifles ever mounted afloat. However, the American ship had the world's best fire-control system, a fantastic armor belt, and guns which delivered very large projectiles at high-angle trajectories which could go through thicker deck plates than Yamato's 18.1" shells. Again, fire-control and the ship's fighting instructions become crucial. If the American stays at range (30,000-35,000 yards), she should be able to deliver many more hits to Yamato than she receives in return, because she can both shoot and maneuver (due to her much better stable vertical fire-control system elements). Further, Yamato's internal subdivision is not as good as SoDak's, and American hits are therefore likely to be more damaging than the Japanese. On the other hand, historically the Americans had little idea of Yamato's capabilities, and were likely to have attempted to close the range with her, not knowing the extent of her armoring, or that she was, in fact, armed with truly enormous 18.1" guns, rather than the 16" guns everyone on the American side of the lake assumed was the case. Closing the range with Yamato would likely have resulted in the American ship learning a painful lesson in gunfire supremacy. South Dakota's belt is better than Yamato's (barely), but at close range Yamato's guns have much better penetration. Further, Yamato's secondaries are very powerful, and would have begun to take a possible toll on SoDak's exposed radars and fire-control equipment, which would reduce her advantage in fire-control substantially if disabled. The bottom line is that South Dakota is a boxer, and should maintain her distance from a slugger like Yamato. Under the right circumstances, however, she was perfectly capable of dishing out critical damage to her hulking opponent.
This website also contains the most detailed info on the IJN and some of the best info on the Pacific War that I've ever seen.
------------------
Lt Col Dune
X.O. 352nd Fighter Group (http://www.352ndfightergroup.com)
"The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney"
"Credo quia absurdum est." (I believe it because it is unreasonable)
- The motto of the Republic of Baja Arizona
-
The Nihon Kaigun Page, yes I know it and I know that study and comparisons. Interesting, but IMO, very subjective, and very dubious at its best.
For example I can't agree with the armor thing. A 12' belt is a 12' belt, here and in Mars. I'd rather take a 16' vertical belt than a 12' inclined one...why? because shells come upside down...and some angles the penetration will be higher with an inclined belt, bit with others it will be some less. So at some ranges the 12' belt will perform like a 16' one and at other ranges it will perform like a 10' belt!!!!!!
And that study is incomplete and wrong in some things,For instance, it says that KM Bismarck had the worse belt armor of the lot (12'5 inches, it had more than Iowas!!)...but it doesnt say that at small ranges it was virtually impenetrable due the in-depth arrangement of the armor. Remember that in her last fight ,Bismarck was being repeatedly hit with 14' and 16' shells from 2000 yards!!!!, and she refused to go down. It is true that at long ranges its deck armor was lacking (and that the armor arrangement itself left some vital equipment out of the armored citadel), but it is ,again a subjective and dubvious argument.
About guns and shells ,the study says what I said in my previous post, that the Japanese AP shells had a marked lacking in ballistic performance due their commitment in the teory of underwater shell hits. It also says what I say ,that a penetrating 2700lbs hit is a bad thing.But a 3200lbs hit is MUCH worse. And given the armor schemes of both ships, an Iowa has more chances to suffer a penetrating hit than the Yamato.
The lack of objectivity of the author can be clearly seen in this thing, as he first admits that the Yamato has a bigger shell, and then that the 16/50 shell has equal penetrating capability thanks to the excellence of the 16' shell and the defectuous ballistichs of the 18.1' shell.
Then he proceedes to range them as EQUAL?...so the heavier shell with same penetration is the equal of a lighter shell?.
Absurd.
Regarding fire control, I only can agree with this study's conclussions. Allied radar fire control outclassed anything the Axis had, by far. Iowas were considered as Yamato's equals because this feature (as it was the only thing that Iowa did better than Yamato... Iowas were better in nothing else but speed).
But again there are some things not contemplated in the study. Remember that a Radar is a weak thing, and that even a light 5' non penetrating hit can disable the radar set...even the concussion of a hit can disable the set for a while...
So making FC change to optics, where the Japanese relied in a 15metres Rangefinder!!! (the most accurate optics ever mounted on a BB) while the Americans had worse equipment!.
So RFC is a good thing...but it is a feature easy to be knocked out early in the battle. It has a lot of weight but not enough to bring up an Iowa to the Yamato's cathegory.
As I said before I disagree with most conclussions in that study. They give more points to a South Dakota class BB than to the Yamato! and sorry that isn't quite true. SD can give Yamato a hard time, but can't survive an one-on-one standard engagement. Sheesh in her first real fight in Guadalcanal, South Dakota went out of the battle because her electrical system had a breakdown!...
Neither can an Iowa compare with a Yamato. Both, SD and Iowa can get lucky, but most of the time in a one on one battle, the Yamato will be the last ship afloat...In a Bad shape, sure, but still afloat.
I regard the Montanas as the historical match for the Yamatos. Iowas were near, but not in parity. And South Dakotas were an achievement for their displacements. But not near the "super BB" cathegory.
The best BB built ever, was , IMHO and with no doubt, IJN's BB Yamato and Mushashi.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-15-2000).]
-
I love battleships!
That "Montana" class BB drawing looks aewsome, almost as good as the Bismarck. (IMO Bismarck is best looking BB ever made, even though firepower poor)
I think the confusion over whether these Montana-class ships had their keel laid, is caused because several IOWA-class BB's which had been started but were cancelled and scrapped.
As for the comparison....YAMATO has really good armor...but the IOWA-class ships were faster. Speed is important. As for the poor showing of the Bismarck? Of course it didn't look too good, it was an older design intended largely for commerce raiding--which it was designed for very well. It would have been better to compare it to North Carolina-class battleships and earlier Japanese designs.
Those Japanese superships took a LOT of punishment, particularily the Musashi (or however the heck its spelled). Something like 20 torpedoes and several dozen bombs. Even then, it took a long time to sink. I am not sure that ANY single battleship could sink this mofo before being turned into a pile of slag by those 18-inchers. Of course, most other modern battleships could simply have run away.
Bismarck was the best of its day. Brand new, barely out of trials, and smashed up the Royal Navy in a two on one duel. Later destroyed because of a chance torpedo hit and the fact that its gunners hadn't slept in almost a week.
IOWA-class battleships were also lethal, and FAST too. "Fast Battleships". Wisconsin proved to be a real asset in the gulf war. Missle cruisers fired off their missles and had to return to port to re-arm. Wisconsin fired its Tomahawks, then cruised up to the coast and let loose with those 16-inchers. The Iraqis actually surrendered to the spotter plane on several occasions, rather than face those big guns.
Who said guns are obsolete? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
North Carolins-class battleship Washington turned Japenese BB Kirishima into molten junk in the pacific's only 1 on 1 BB duel.
South Dakota had the distinction of going dead in the water and still evading something like 30 torpedoes earlier in that same battle.
Come to think of it....navies are cool.
Too bad all the naval games are boring. PT's should be fun.
J_A_B
P.S. Will "bailing out" of a PT leave you swimming in shark-infested waters?
-
Originally posted by J_A_B:
P.S. Will "bailing out" of a PT leave you swimming in shark-infested waters?
Yes, but if you "open chute" in time, a life raft will appear and you get an "abandoned ship successfully" message. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
(j/k, but I sure hope the PT boats have some sort of safe abandon ship routine)
-
Bismark Comparison (http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm)
I'm sending this page, along with a case of Chivas Regal, to Pyro. Maybe we'll get lucky and he will throw her in!
------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000
-
WoW, Love the great responses to my "fun" post, you guys are great!!
Dune: I'v got that page bookmarked too, and it is pretty good info, forgot about it when i was playing around looking for info on the "Montana"
RAM: I have to disagree with you on the "Best" bb of the war being the Yamato. It was an impressive, beautiful ship, do not get me wrong, but i think the Iowa class would have had taken her in a 1 vs.1
i found this comparing the liklihood of a 1 vs. 1 between the yamato and Montana:
Never-the-less, the Montanas were a magnificent design. The American 16in/50 gun was probably the best battleship gun ever produced. It threw the super heavy 2700lb armor piercing shell 42,345 yards. For comparison, the Japanese 18.1in/45 gun threw a 3200lb armor piercing shell 45,960 yards. The American gun weighed less, allowing the Montanas to carry 12 of them, for a broadside weight of 32,400lbs. The Yamatos could only carry nine of the 18.1in guns on a similar size hull with similar armor and speed. Yamato's broadside weight was 28,800lbs. The Montanas were the only battleships seriously proposed that out gunned the Yamatos.
Montana's new 5in/54 DP secondary guns were superior in range and striking power to the older 5in/38. Her AA battery was well laid out with good arcs of fire for the guns. And the 40mm Bofors was better than anything the Japanese Navy had. All in all, her light battery was superior to Yamato's. Naturally, more AA guns would have been added as a result of wartime experience, as they were to all battleships.
In terms of armor, Montana and Yamato were protected to similar standards. The quality of American armor was reputed to be somewhat higher than Japanese armor, but there can be no doubt that both classes were very well protected. The Montanas were protected against their own 2700 lb shells between 18,000 and 31,000 yards (these figures from Norman Friedman's book U.S. Battleships, the definitive source of information about the design of all classes of U.S. battleships). No other American battleships were adequately immune to the 16in, 2700lb shell (or the 18.1in, 3200lb shell).
For the first time, with the Montanas, modern U.S. battleships would have had adequate underwater protection. The greater beam, coupled with a reversion to a scheme similar to that of the North Carolinas, at last provided U.S. battleships with decent protection against torpedo attack. Underwater shell hits were also taken into account.
U.S. fire control was very good, and with the advent of radar control, it completely outpaced that of the axis nations. However, the great 15 meter rangefinders of the Yamato class still represented the last word in optical design afloat.
How would the Montanas have compared to their potential adversaries? I think it is clear from the information above that they would have been the best all around battleships in the world. With more and better guns than any European battleship, and equal or better armor, they would be expected to win any one on one engagement. Only the two Japanese Yamato class giants would be serious contenders.
Compared to the Yamatos, the Montanas would have been similar in size, speed and armor protection. They were slightly superior in broadside weight, and far superior in range. The Japanese optical fire control was potentially the best in the world, the American radar fire control better yet. Any duel between a Montana and a Yamato would probably have been decided by unforeseen factors or advanced technology rather than the inherent design of either ship.
Having taken all the above into consideration, I am still left with the belief that the Montanas, had they been built, would have ultimately proven to be both the best all around battleships ever built, and the heavyweight champions in any shoot out.
I really like the broadside comparison in this document, those 3 extra guns would have been telling to say the least. So, back to my original topic, we have a "late War" sim here, and with all the rumors of "X" plane that was never actually in production becoming a "perk plane" (all wishful thinking, really)
Why not the Montana as a "perk" battleship then? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Can't wait for this:
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/bb-63-k04549.jpg)
[This message has been edited by Hamish (edited 10-14-2000).]
-
OOOOOOOOOKAY (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) answer time (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Originally posted by J_A_B:
That "Montana" class BB drawing looks aewsome, almost as good as the Bismarck. (IMO Bismarck is best looking BB ever made, even though firepower poor)
I agree on the looks, I disagree on the firepower thing. Bismarck 14.96' gun was one of the best naval guns fielded in WWII due its accuracy and muzzle speed. They were optimized for short range encounters (as everything was in Bismarck), but it packed quite a punch.
As for the comparison....YAMATO has really good armor...but the IOWA-class ships were faster. Speed is important.
well, Sorry, that is wrong. In history we have seen endless examples of it. Remember Jutland? three British fast battlecruisers blewed up there due the lack of armor compared with their german counterparts that sacrificed firepower for more armor...Speed is an important tactical asset, but armor is a BASSIC survability asset. There is no use in fielding the fastest ship in the world if with the first hit is going go be slowed down, or blown up.
Italian ships relied in speed instead of armor...with the result that in a battle where 2 italian CAs engaged ONE british CA and 3 DDs, one italian cruiser went down (the Bartolomeo Colleoni),for no losses in the British side.
The speed in Iowa allowed her to have the impressive career she have had, because at 30 knots she can serve well first as Carrier escort and then as fast intervention force. But it gave her nothing really serious regarging the BB's main task in WWII, that is, to engage and kill the enemy BBs.
As for the poor showing of the Bismarck? Of course it didn't look too good, it was an older design intended largely for commerce raiding--which it was designed for very well. It would have been better to compare it to North Carolina-class battleships and earlier Japanese designs.
Hummm...poor showing?...well I can go in deep here, but lets say only that it was an outdated design by any means. It was IMHO the best looking warship ever, but it had abysmal design faults.
BTW Bismarcks were NOT designed with commerce raiding in mind, but for tie down RN ships in the North Sea. The Raider BB in Kriegsmarine (as seen in the Z-plan) was to be the H-class BB, that it would've had Diesel propulsion to get the best endurance possible, and was to be LESS armoured than Bismarck in some spots. Bismarcks were designed to be a continuous menace in the Nort Sea and so make the RN keep valuable ships to keep an eye on them.
Those Japanese superships took a LOT of punishment, particularily the Musashi (or however the heck its spelled). Something like 20 torpedoes and several dozen bombs. Even then, it took a long time to sink. I am not sure that ANY single battleship could sink this mofo before being turned into a pile of slag by those 18-inchers. Of course, most other modern battleships could simply have run away.
I agree on the damage. I disagree again about the speed. Musashi was attacked by Halsey's fleet air forces, and NO ship, regardless its speed can run away from a plane...even if it want to run away.
Musashi was part of a Task force aimed at Leyte gulf to destroy US invasion forces. They were pressing forward the attack against all odds. Be sure that no plane, BB, or natural force would've stopped those ships until they were all sunk.
Same happened with Yamato's last sortie. She was heading towards Okinawa even when it capsized.
Bismarck was the best of its day. Brand new, barely out of trials, and smashed up the Royal Navy in a two on one duel. Later destroyed because of a chance torpedo hit and the fact that its gunners hadn't slept in almost a week.
Bismarck was possibly the worse design in WWII...only comparable with Scharnhorsts. It displaced 52.000 tons at full displacement, and stil had only a 12.5' belt, while British KGV displaced some 40.000 tons ad had a 16' belt!!!.
Bismarck had a very badly designed armor layout, it had no all-or-nothing scheme, and left vital things out of the armor (VITAL electric cabling was out of the armored citadel making it vulnerable even for a 5' gun!!!).
Its main armored deck was 1.5m UNDER The waterline at full displacement, meaning that flooding because hits was going to be a SERIOUS problem in any battle.
It had good speed, yes, but a triple shaft arrangement that made impossible to steer the ship without the assistance of the rudders (leading to the final death of the ship due its incapacity to steer).
It had ,too, very weak hortizontal armor, rending her vulnerable to long range plungin fire. But she was a ship designed to fight at close ranges, not long ranges.
It was grossly overweighed, and had a serious nose heavyness. the A-turret rangefinder had to be dismantled (and was sold to the Soviets, BTW), to make the nose weight to be a bit lower. Still it was very nose-heavy and the hit in the bows by the PoW in Denmark Straits only worsened the situation (if you have seen any photos of the ship after the battle, the bows are clearly low over the water).
BTW after Denmark straits, and after suffering "only" three 14' hits, Bismarck's top speed was reduced to 20 knots. Another proof that ships can be slowed down VERY fast (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
It seems to have had, too, a very badly designed control system for the turrets, because a single 16' hit from Rodney disabled BOTH fore turrets in Bismarck early in its last engagement.
And it had bad sea endurance, its fuel comssumption was quite high for a ship used in the comerce raiding role.(even when it was NOT designed with this task in mind)
Sure, it had 8 state of the art naval guns. Sure, it blew up Hood (although there is much debate about this, there are people denying this with other plausible theories). But Hood was a Golden-twinkee hit, one in a thousand. Out of 10 engagements between Bis and P.E. with Hood and PoW, be sure that 9 out of ten are going to be in the british side.
IOWA-class battleships were also lethal, and FAST too. "Fast Battleships".
A fast battleship is more usable in a modern environment than a "slow" one. In WWII 27 knots for a battleship was more than enough. Yamato's speed was 27 knots (N.Carolinas and S.Dakotas' were 28 knots).
North Carolins-class battleship Washington turned Japenese BB Kirishima into molten junk in the pacific's only 1 on 1 BB duel.
Ohhh come on, was a TWO on one BB encounter. Even Kirishima wasn't exactly a BB!!!!! (it had 9 inch armored belt, and its armor was that of a WWI British battlecruiser!, as it was bassicaly an enlarged and modernized Tiger).
Compare, one 1914 built BC with 9' belt, 8x14' guns and no idea that two US BBs are nearby, with TWO 1941 built BBs with 12-13' belts and 9x16/45 guns, Radar, and the exact picture of the Japanese force incoming.
This is not a one on one BB scenario, this is a massacre (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Originally posted by Hamish:
RAM: I have to disagree with you on the "Best" bb of the war being the Yamato. It was an impressive, beautiful ship, do not get me wrong, but i think the Iowa class would have had taken her in a 1 vs.1
And I have to disagree with you (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). It should be a close call, but in the end what matters is Yamato's better firepower, armor, and buoyancy. Iowa can win, say, 3 out of 10 encounters, but Yamato will win the other 7.
The only ace in the Iowa's side is its radar Fire Control...but it can go out with a single hit and then the advantage is gone, and her optics aren't that good compared with Yamato's (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Speed is a tactical asset, but if you are going to stay and fight, what matters is pure firepower and armor. And Yamato is the ruler in both.
Sorry, Yamatos were best BBs. Iowas were more versatile, but a WWII BB's task, the task for Iowas and Yamatos were designed was to slug it out with the enemy Battleships, not to escort carriers.
And in that task, the Yamato is quite better than Iowa.
About a Montana, as I said, it is a match for Yamato. I can't range them as equal, mostly because Montanas are only drawings on papers...and usually ships end being worse than scheduled.
If Montana was to be built with the exact figures about its armor, speed and displacement, then I agree that they'd been superior than Yamatos.
But that is a what-if...Yamatos were built, Montanas weren't (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
BTW, I like this pic more (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
(http://www.warships1.com/USbb61_pic_88_brdside3.jpg)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-15-2000).]
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-16-2000).]
-
Wheee! i love this (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) Still drooling over that pic RAM, I have been looking for that particular one for a long time , thanks for "finding" it for me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Okay, Sticking to my guns here on the Iowa thing, look back at Dune's post to the section on fire control, i'll quote the important section:
Originally posted by Dune:
The final adjusted rating also reflects the fact that American FC systems employed by far the most advanced stable vertical elements in the world. In practical terms, this meant that American vessels could keep a solution on a target even when performing radical maneuvers. In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns.7 This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems, and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other.
In My job in the Navy, I shoot large caliber Guns for a living, and Seriously, It doesn't matter if you have the largest size warhead in the world, if you cannot maintain a FCS (Fire Control Solution), You are useless. So, with the IOWA's Distinct advantage here, she could foul Yamato's aim with manuevers, while pounding the hell out of her (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Love my new wallpaper courtesy of RAM (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
P.S. Glad your O.K. bud, just read about your accident.
Hamish!
[This message has been edited by Hamish (edited 10-15-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Hamish:
In My job in the Navy, I shoot large caliber Guns for a living, and Seriously, It doesn't matter if you have the largest size warhead in the world, if you cannot maintain a FCS (Fire Control Solution), You are useless. So, with the IOWA's Distinct advantage here, she could foul Yamato's aim with manuevers, while pounding the hell out of her (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Hamish, you'd have a point here...but happens that the test with North Carolina in 1945 happened in LATE 1945, November IIRC...and WWII was over by then. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Before that, the tactics with Battleship were the same as allways, keep a steady course with only minor heading variations. So in WWII the advanced tracking ability of Iowas would've been only a limited advantage (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
And anyway to find a range with a 15 meter Rangefinder is not that tough (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) remember, Japanese optics industry was the best of its time, ever better than German's, and US optic quality was under Germany's.
With no radar control and conventional tactics, Fire Control is on Yamato's side, not Iowa's (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Love my new wallpaper courtesy of RAM (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) glad you liked it, is one of my favorite photos (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
P.S. Glad your O.K. bud, just read about your accident.
Thank you a lot. I am still a bit affected by it, but I hope this will pass soon (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
If HT has to worry about about ship modelling to this kinda detail, guess we can forget seeing AC updates....
SKurj
-
RAM--
Thanks for the inof on the Bismarck. Good information on German ships is a bit hard to come by where I live.
But I *still* think it was a good design for when it was originally planned...it's just that other designs surpassed it while it was being built. True, though, the armor layout wasn't well-concieved. BOTH of the fire-control centers were without any armor at all, and the turret machinery was also un-armored.
But it looked sooo cool, almost shark-like (why is it that so many German war machines are "shark-like"?).
Also, I have practically no information on Scharnhorst except that it was under-gunned and saw action in a few encounters (convoy raiding, chanel run, etc) before being destroyed. A brief description of the basic design would be helpful to me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Note:
Actually, the Washington vs Kirishima WAS a 1 on 1.
The other American Battleship, the South Dakota, had suffered a complete power failure earlier and never caught up to the Washington until well after the battle (South Dakota was also pummeled pretty good and stood up to it well). True, though, Kirishima was a bit obsolete. Washington closed to 4 miles without firing--which doesn't say much for Kirishima's gunnery.
Also--I say speed is important meaning that a faster ship can stay out of range and run away from a slower more powerful one. This happens in Aces High with the planes, and happened at times in naval warefare. Weaker American Fast Battleships would have, in a 1 on 1 situation, simply stayed away from Yamato. True, in a slugging match speed is of little help.
Also about speed--Jutland involved Battle Criusers, which weren't armored like a battleship. An IOWA-class battleship is fast AND well-protected. At Jutland, speed wasn't proved useless--battle cruisers were. The battle cruisers, like German Pocket Battleships, are better suited for destroying convoys and their light escort warships.
Why do you disagree on the amount of damage absorbed by the Japanese ships? Granted it was from airplanes, but still....they took a heck of a lot.
Here's another interesting fact...
ADM. Spruance wanted to fight the YAMATO and her fleet with his IOWA-class battleships, and actually ordered the carrier aircraft NOT to engage. The commander of the carrier task force ( I can't spell his name) ignored the order and destroyed the super-battleship. Had his planes failed (or suffered excessive losses)he probably would have been court-martialed.
If the great battleship battle HAD happened.....Americans would have won (superior numbers), but it would have been a helluva fight.
J_A_B
-
J_A_B,
Interesting that you note the failure of battlecruisers. Did you you know that the Kirishima was a battlecruiser?
The US Navy classified all Japanese battlecruisers as battleships. Look at the armor on the Kirishima, its battlecruiser armor, like the Hood.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Lets see (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Originally posted by J_A_B:
I *still* think it was a good design for when it was originally planned...it's just that other designs surpassed it while it was being built. True, though, the armor layout wasn't well-concieved. BOTH of the fire-control centers were without any armor at all, and the turret machinery was also un-armored.
I have to disagree. KM Bismarck was an outdated ship from the same moment that it was designed, in all regards it was only a modernized Ersartz York from WWI, and the little experience that German Design Bureau had won with Scharnhorsts.
The lack of DP secondary battery is not that important when one thinks that DP guns were good for weight savings to make the ships comply with Washington Treaty, and germans weren't interested in saving weight to comply any treaty...But the lack of All-or-nothing armor is an horrible thing,not only because the armor protected non-vital zones, but because the same armor that was there to "protect" a non vital zone can arm a AP round's fuse.
PoW's hit on the Bow of the Bismarck won't have had fused to explode like it did if it had not hit an armored surface. It would've gone through, but with no explosion. As you see, sometimes armor is far from protecting the ship... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif).
But it looked sooo cool, almost shark-like (why is it that so many German war machines are "shark-like"?).
Oh..YES! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) It is the meanest looking ship in history, no doubt about that.
(http://www.warships1.com/GERbb08_Bismarck_40_strbrdfrt-LW.jpg)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-16-2000).]
-
Also, I have practically no information on Scharnhorst except that it was under-gunned and saw action in a few encounters (convoy raiding, chanel run, etc) before being destroyed. A brief description of the basic design would be helpful to me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Well, Scharnhorsts were the only design of WWII that made Bismarcks look a quality design. In short words, they were HORRIBLE.
If Bismarck had few horizontal armor to protect her against air bombing and/or long range plunging fire, Scharnhorsts were virtually unprotected, with only 3 inches! of armor deck. Again ,the armor deck was UNDER the waterline...
But the inexplicable blunder, the amazing thing, is that nearly half the boilers of the ship had virtually NO armor over them due a design deficiency. Amazing as it is, the boilers were unprotected against a deck hit.
Not only that, but Scharnhorsts were real devils for their crews. They had so much latest technology equipment (none of it worth the weight)and so many advanced features (virtually none of them working like it should), that when the time came to fight against a outdated WWI dinosaur (Renown, in Norway campaign) and three destroyers, both Battleships had to run like screaming girls because:
1-) the A turrets were inoperable due the terrible nose heavyness of the ship making the sea come into the guns.
2-) the tracking system was so advanced that it was broken half the time. Or all the time, for that matter.
3-) the ships' equipments were so terribly complicated that after 15 minutes their rate of fire had been halved.
Was the classic example of "too much tried with too few experience" thing. After Norway campaign, and while they were in drydocks repairing torpedo damage, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had most of its "advanced" equipment removed, nearly 3 miles of useless cabling gone and more reliable systems fitted.
BUt the ships were still nose-heavy overweighted monsters that at full displacement had their armored belt barely over the flotation line. As I said they were terribly bad designed ships.
Good points?...they were terribly fast, 32knots, and had a bit more of belt armor than Bismarcks, 13 inches. Ah, and their 11' triple turret was very efficient (the turret, not the shells).
And they were handsome ships, again. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
(http://www.warships1.com/GERbc09_Scharnhorst_prt1.jpg)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-16-2000).]
-
Actually, the Washington vs Kirishima WAS a 1 on 1.
The other American Battleship, the South Dakota, had suffered a complete power failure earlier and never caught up to the Washington until well after the battle (South Dakota was also pummeled pretty good and stood up to it well). True, though, Kirishima was a bit obsolete. Washington closed to 4 miles without firing--which doesn't say much for Kirishima's gunnery.
You are ignoring a big fact here, apart that what karnak said ,that kirishima was a BC,not a BB. Kirishima had spotted South Dakota but had NOT SIGHTED USS Washington. They kept on firing SD all the time (and got several hits, some of them barely stopped by SD's armor).
Washington's presence caught Kirishima completely unaware and sealed her fate. Was a two on one, not an one on one, regardless the electrical breakdown aboard South Dakota.
Also--I say speed is important meaning that a faster ship can stay out of range and run away from a slower more powerful one. This happens in Aces High with the planes, and happened at times in naval warefare. Weaker American Fast Battleships would have, in a 1 on 1 situation, simply stayed away from Yamato. True, in a slugging match speed is of little help.
See this scenario. Yamato ,Mushashi and Shinano (imagine she was completed as BB) are heading towards American beachhead in, say, Guadalcanal. They can go only at 27Knots. You have USS Iowa, USS Wisconsin and USS New Jersey.
Tell me what do you want your 33 knots for?. you MUST engage. BB vs BB scenarios don't happen because they happen, one of the forces has a task and the other force tries to deny the chance to complete it. Again, highest speed is a tactical asset, but is nothing compared with firepower and/or armor. In that scenario, probably, 2 out of 3 US BBs would've gone down for maybe one Yamato (and very probably only if Aerial support came into the battle).
Remember too, that a 67.000 ton ship will ALLWAYS stand more damage than a 50.000 one. It has way more reserve buoyancy to play with, and can handle more damage in a better way.
Sorry, Iowas were awesome ships, but Yamatos were, again, IMHO, better (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Also about speed--Jutland involved Battle Criusers, which weren't armored like a battleship. An IOWA-class battleship is fast AND well-protected. At Jutland, speed wasn't proved useless--battle cruisers were. The battle cruisers, like German Pocket Battleships, are better suited for destroying convoys and their light escort warships.
I am going to shake some classical misconceptions that people have about Battlecruisers. People uses to think that BCs were unprotected ships, right?.
Wrong. The British concept of the BC was a lighlty armored ship with heavy firepower and outstanding speed.
German Ships traded FIREPOWER for speed, letting armor at BB levels. So most of the Germans BCs sported guns 1 or 1 1/2 inches less than their British counterparts...but then you must look at some facts...following are the stats of three contemporary ships, one german BC, one British BB and one british BC
German Derrflinger BC class stats:
(http://www.warships1.com/GERbc04_Derfflinger-LD1.jpg)
Displacement: 26.000tons
Speed: 26Knots
Armor:
Belt: 12'
Deck: 1.2'-3'
Citadel: 10'
Turrets(face): 10.6'
Barbettes: 10.4'
Conning Tower: 11.3'
Weapons: 8x12' guns
-----------------------------------
British Lion Class BCs:
(http://www.warships1.com/BRbc09_Lion-LD18.jpg)
Displacement: 29.000tons
Speed: 27 Knots
Armor:
Belt: 4'-9'
Deck: 1'-2.5'
Turrets(face): 9'
Barbettes: 9'
Conning Tower: 10'
Weapons: 8x13.5' guns
-------------------------------
British Iron Duke Battleship stats:
(http://www.warships1.com/BRbb11_IDuke-LD1.jpg)
Displacement: 26.000tons
Speed: 21Knots
Armor:
Belt: 12'
Deck: up to 3'
Turrets(face): 11'
Barbettes: up to 10'
Conning Tower: 10'
Weapons: 10x13.5' guns
---------------------------------
Surprising isnt it?...turns out that German Battlecruisers were as well armored as their contemporary enemy's Battleships, and way better armored than the enemy's Battlecruisers.
But the war was won by the british...and so the British BC standard whas the one that was widely used. Ships that sacrificed armor for speed, and so were unreliable in battle and prone to blow up.
German ships were the toughest in the world, and their battlecruisers were with no doubt the best ships afloat in 1914-1918.
So, as you see, Battlecruiser isnt always a synonim of "unprotected fast ship" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-16-2000).]
-
Why do you disagree on the amount of damage absorbed by the Japanese ships? Granted it was from airplanes, but still....they took a heck of a lot.
Because speed will never help a ship against a plane. You seemed to use Musashi's sinking by aircraft as a proof that speed was better than armor. Once again, is better a 27 knot ship armored as Yamatos than a 30 Knot Iowa that won't absorb half the ammount of damage that Yamatos did.
Here's another interesting fact...
ADM. Spruance wanted to fight the YAMATO and her fleet with his IOWA-class battleships, and actually ordered the carrier aircraft NOT to engage. The commander of the carrier task force ( I can't spell his name) ignored the order and destroyed the super-battleship. Had his planes failed (or suffered excessive losses)he probably would have been court-martialed.
AFAIK it was Adm. Lee's desire that the battle should be a Battleship one. Spruance was the one who ordered the aircraft carriers to attack and declined the BB action.
If the great battleship battle HAD happened.....Americans would have won (superior numbers), but it would have been a helluva fight.
I agree completely. But it would've been much costier for US Navy in lifes. Only 10 planes were lost in the attack over Yamato, but only one 18' hit on a US BB would've done tripe that damage.
It was better as it was, that for sure.
---------------
Sorry for the 3 consecutive posts...dunno what happens with my browser, it doesnt post long posts. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Ram, if I remember correctly, the loss of the Queen Mary, Indefatigable and Invincible at Jutland had less to do with the thickness of their armor plates and more to do with the poor design of their turret-powder room connections. I remember that the British only used one set of doors between the turret and the powder room, whereas the Germans used two. Similar to an airlock.
It is believed that flashes from strikes on the turrets entered the powder room and blew the ships up. In fact Beatty's flagship, the Lion, almost had the same thing happen to it. However a seaman ordered the powderroom flooded to prevent a fire.
But I could be wrong. It's been awhile.
------------------
Lt Col Dune
X.O. 352nd Fighter Group (http://www.352ndfightergroup.com)
"The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney"
"Credo quia absurdum est." (I believe it because it is unreasonable)
- The motto of the Republic of Baja Arizona
-
Not exactly, Dune. True, there is a heavy chance that Indefatigable and maybe Invincible were lost due to open flashtight doors, but Queen Mary was surely lost because armor weakness, and maybe structural weakness too. And Invincible's loss is very doubtful that happened due the flastight doors.
The doors themselves were well designed, not faulty. But Beatty, later to be First Lord of the Admiralty, ordered his ships to fire at the highest rate of fire possible. That meant to keep the Flashtight doors open ALL the time, I.E. not let them closed until the shell and powder were being lifted from the magazines, but opened all the time.
Indefatigable was probably lost this way, with a shell bursting into a turret and the fire going down thru the barbette into the Main Magazines. But Queen Mary suffered four consecutive straddles from Seydlitz, and in all of them there were multiple hits. It was reported by eyewitnesses that the ship was ALREADY sinking when the magazines blewed up, the ship was virtually tore apart by the consecutive fast hits on her and seems that she had already lost speed and was going down quite fast before the last explosion. And the explosion itself, we'll never know, may have been due the flashtight doors, or due a direct magazine hit.
Invincible most probably was lost because a direct Magazine hit, because she was under Jellicoe's command, not Beatty's; and Jellicoe had ordered to shut the flashtight doors. A ship that is blown up due for a magazine explosion means that it is a ship with a fatally wrong design and armor layout.
British BCs were hoppelessy unprotected for a direct gun battle. sure, ships as Lion survived with very heavy damage (Lion herself was saved by a miracle, as the magazine caught fire and a heroic mortally wounded officer flooded it before dying). But ships of 30.000 tons are expected to stand some damage.
Bad armor means exposed zones, mostly magazines and machinery...and you see, one ship was virtually disintegrated by gunfire, other was blown up by a magazine explosion,the third because the magazine caught fire because imprudent cordite handling, and another was a hair off blewing up, too.
Then remember HMS Hood. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
Not a good reference for the british BC concept, for sure.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-16-2000).]
-
Here is the photo I talked about before. Note the tremendous nose weight of the Bismarck after only a 14' hit in the bows. The ship had serious weight problems by itself but that hit really made their day. Only because this hit Bismarck was reduced to a speed of 20 knots, showing how relatively light damage could ruin a raider's mission.
(http://www.warships1.com/GERbb08_Bismarck_41_dmg-LW.jpg)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-17-2000).]
-
OOPS double post (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-17-2000).]
-
Hey RAM, while you are at it, gimme coordinates for the Battle of Jutland please (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
-
I was unaware the Kirishima was a battle cruiser. My primary source of data on naval engagements is USN and Royal Navy information. I have very little from the Axis perspective.
Thanks
Also: My point on YAMATO-class ships sustaining damage was only to show how durable they were--I didn't mean for it to have anything to do with speed (since those ships, at 27 knots, weren't that fast). It was more a testimonial to the effectiveness of their armor.
Regarding ADM. Spruance and Lee--perhaps I got names confused. It has been several years since I read much naval history.
Finally, part of the reason Bismarck was slowed down so much was the fact that much of its fuel was trapped and contaminated by that one shell hit. The largest fuel tanks on Bismarck were in the bottom of the bow, directly under where the shell struck. I read somewhere that the damage itself only slowed Bismarck to 27 knots (from 30), but the lack of fuel is what forced it down to 20.
As for Bismarck's vulnerability...other similar battleships were just as vulnerable. A single aircraft-launched torpedo hit (less than 450kg of explosives) on Prince of Wales cut the ship's speed in half and created an 11-degree list, as well as pulling the stern down to only two feet above the water--not to mention completely cutting electrical power the aft half of the ship (no electricity meant no steering ability).
Compared to that, Bismarck help up a little better--a torpedo caused a speed loss and loss of steering, but did not affect the guns and didn't create a massive list. Of course, the ability to steer is rather important.
(Ironically enough Repulse--a battle cruiser--did much better than Prince of Wales as it could maneuver better. Unfortunately a mass of torpedos launched from every direction proved to be unaviodable.)
Totals required to sink each ship (appox)
Bismarck: +/- 5 torpedos, massive number of close-range shell hits, plus scuttling
Prince of Wales: 5 torpedoes, 1 500kg bomb.
Yamato-class: 15-25 torpedos, untold quantities of bombs.
Judging by that, Yamato-class appears to be the winner by a large margin, with Prince of Wales and Bismarck being roughly equal. All of them are shown to be especially vulnerable to hits below the waterline.
Moral of the story: water is bad inside a ship.
J_A_B
[This message has been edited by J_A_B (edited 10-17-2000).]
-
I'll resist my temptation to put another line drawing, this time of the Kongo Class BB (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
But yes, Kirishima (A Kongo class "fast BB") was designed as an improved Tiger Battlecruiser, with similar looks ,armor and speed, but with 14' guns instead 13.5' guns. In the late 20's and early 30's all the four Kongos (Kongo, Haruna, Hiei and Kirishima) were extensively modernized, fitting them with somewhat better equipment and refitting them with new engines that gave them a tremendous boost to their speed. From 27Knot ships they were up to 30 knot ships.
But the armor remained virtually untouched all through their careers. The only armor improvement was the deck armor, but the rest remained as designed and built.
They were called by the japanese as "fast battleships" but in fact they were pure battlecruisers:
Armor:
Side: 8" (203mm)
Deck: 3.8"-6.5" (96.5-165mm) (after 1930's refit)
Turrets: 9" (229mm) faces (design)
Barbettes: 10" (254mm) sides
Conning Tower: 10.5" (267mm) sides
----------------------------------
As you can see this class of ships were lightly armored.
And NO! you didnt escape without the line drawing (HA HA HA!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))
(http://www.warships1.com/JAPbb03_Kirishima-LD37.jpg)
Noone will deny her that she was beautiful (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
All the line drawings are great, and although those are some nice looking ships, i think the Montana would have been the MOST beautiful by far, had she been built. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
And in Second, this baby:
(http://www.battleship.org/images/bb64sa.jpg)
She just Looks Mean.
Hamish!
-
RAM said
............SNIP............. .
> They were called by the japanese as "fast battleships" but in fact they were pure battlecruisers:
> Armor:
> Side: 8" (203mm)
> Deck: 3.8"-6.5" (96.5-165mm) (after 1930's refit)
> Turrets: 9" (229mm) faces (design)
> Barbettes: 10" (254mm) sides
> Conning Tower: 10.5" (267mm) sides
> As you can see this class of ships were lightly armored.
The displacement was 30,500 tons (normal). Let compare to the Italian Doria class.
Displacement 23,622 tons
Armor:
Side: 9 3/4" to 8" inch main belt, 5" at the ends
Deck: 3"
Turrets: 11"
Barbettes: 9 1/2"
Conning Tower: 11"
Guns
Ten 12.6" (two two gun turrets, two three gun turrets)
12 5.3"
Speed
27 kts
and the Littorio class
Displacement 35,000 (standard, closer to 40,000 in use)
Armor:
Belt 280mm + 70mm, bulkheads 210mm-70mm
Decks 162mm-45mm
Barbettes 350mm-280mm
Turrets 350mm-200mm
Speed 30kts
Guns
The below is a quote from:
BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TREATY BATTLESHIPS by Chuck Hawks at: http://www.teleport.com/~chalu/treaty.htm (http://www.teleport.com/~chalu/treaty.htm)
A darn nice site.
...Start quote.......
These ships were designed to carry 9-15in guns (3x3), even though the London Treaty allowed 16in guns. The choice of caliber was determined by the limitations of Italian ordinance manufacturing capabilities. Instead, they built an innovative, high velocity 50 caliber gun which fired a 885kg (1,947 pound) AP shell at 2,800fps, generating very high energy. The maximum range was 46,800yds at 35 degrees elevation. Unfortunately, the barrel life was very short. Broadside weight amounted to 17,523 pounds. Magazine stowage was only 74 rounds per gun.
.....end quote.........
Back to me now, I think they looked better too :-)
mc202
Dino in Reno
-
(http://www.warships1.com/ITbb05_VVeneto-LD43.jpg)
Littorios were beautiful ships, yes...but also had a lot of failures:
1) Its displacement was in fact 7.000 tons over the 35.000ton limit, its "light standard" rating was at 42.000tons
2) Its armor layout was decent...but the belt covered a very small portion of the hull as the plugliese TDS (Torpedo defence system) was very bulky. So an underwater gun hit would've encountered nearly no armor.
3) The TDS itself was a disaster, the PLugliese performed abysmally, and had serious drawbacks imposed on the ships that weared it. A single 18' torpedo from a Swordfish disabled Cavour (not a littorio, but CAvour used the Plugliese TDS) for the remainder of the war, and Duilio and Littorio were out of actions for months due few torpedo hits.
4)-The AAA performance was horrendous.
5)-The 15' gun, looking at the stats, seems a powerful one. But numbers don't tell half the story. It was a powerful weapon, but it was too, possibly, the less accurate BB gun on history due the high muzzle velocity of the guns.
Plus, the gun barrels needed a relining each 100! shots only. And it carried very few rounds per gun.
6)-although this was a minor problem in the mediterranean, Littorios were very fuel thirsty ships, and lacked range.
But they were very fast, and yes, they looked great (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-17-2000).]
-
So RAM, how would you rate the following:
Bismarck/Tirpitz VS Littorio
Bismarck/Tirpitz VS Nagato or Kongo
Nagato or Kongo VS Littorio
Doria VS Scharnhorst
The light Italian ships are their best, I think. Ones like the "DD" torp boats like the Navigatore and Grecale class (38 knots) and the Regolo class "CL" (HA! more like a long DD) with 41 knots, eight reloadable torp tubes, and eight 5.3" guns all in 3,400 tons
On the BIG boats, the Iowa class were the best overall, and we all have heard stories about the "real" top speed on them :-)
MC202
Dino in Reno
-
Bismarck/Tirpitz VS Littorio
Overall Littorio was a better all around ship. But all depends on the ranges we are talking about. Littorio's guns, while unaccurate, can easily penetrate Bismarck's vertical armor with ease, the opposite won't be true.
At ranges lower than 10.000 yards, Bismarck has more chances, as her guns are more accurate, her fire control is more advanced and her armor layout is optimized for close range fighting.
As Littorios have better speed they probably will choose the range of engagement. If htey stay at 20.000 yards or so, even with unnacurate guns I'd give out of 10 fights, 6 to littorio and 4 to Bismarck
Bismarck/Tirpitz VS Nagato or Kongo
Against Kongo there is no doubt. Bismarck wins 9 out of 10 times ( I let one for kongos because, well, toejam happens (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif), but normally would be 10 out of 10).
Against Nagato there is same concert that with Littorios. If Nagato stays away of 15.000 yards she will have more chances to win. If Bismarck closes (and with her speed will do it), Bismarck will win. 6 out of 10 for Bismarck here.
Nagato or Kongo VS Littorio
Kongo: same problem as above. 9 out of 10 for Littorio, and to be clement with the Japanese ship.
Against Nagato, well Littorios are better in all regards except guns. And Japanese 16' guns aren't that great anyway. Littorio wins 6 out of 10 times.
Doria VS Scharnhorst
Dorias were woefully underarmored for their task, and were 5 knots slower. Scharnhorst would have to try to close fast, but in the meantime Doria can hit her with plunging fire and do some critical damage. But once they are 15.000 yards apart each other, Scharnhorsts will have a better chance due its better belt armor. 50%/50% here.
Note that in all cases you are comparing a modern ship against an old one. And the old ones don't compare bad at all with the new ones...that means that the new ships are bassically fault designs.
The light Italian ships are their best, I think. Ones like the "DD" torp boats like the Navigatore and Grecale class (38 knots) and the Regolo class "CL" (HA! more like a long DD) with 41 knots, eight reloadable torp tubes, and eight 5.3" guns all in 3,400 tons
I agree on the DD thing. Also with human torpedoes. But the 41 Knots on the CL were attained only at trials. Never in operational use they achieved that speed again.
On the BIG boats, the Iowa class were the best overall, and we all have heard stories about the "real" top speed on them :-)
Overall, yes. As pure BB Yamatos IMO are better.
And Yes, the mitical 33 knot speed is something quite funny. IIRC real top speed for Iowas were (is) 30Knots (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
MC202
Dino in Reno[/B][/QUOTE]
-
RAM said:
> Bismarck/Tirpitz VS Littorio
snip
I'd give out of 10 fights, 6 to littorio and 4 to Bismarck.
I'd go 7 to 3 for the Littorio. The guns were not that inaccurate, and if the Bismark got too close the higher mv and flatter flight of the Italian cannon allows for better "open sights" shooting
> Bismarck/Tirpitz VS Nagato or Kongo
Bismarck wins 9 out of 10 times ( I let one for kongos because, well, toejam happens , but normally would be 10 out of 10).
Yep, best hope is a "golden BB" No not a ship. a pellet.
>Against Nagato there is same concert that with Littorios. Bismarck will win. 6 out of 10 for Bismarck here.
Seems right to me.
Nagato or Kongo VS Littorio
> Littorio, and to be clement with the Japanese ship.
Yep.
> Against Nagato, well Littorios are better in all regards except guns. And Japanese 16' guns aren't that great anyway. Littorio wins 6 out of 10 times.
I like the Italian cannon better than you, so I would guess 7 out of 10.
Doria VS Scharnhorst
> Dorias were woefully underarmored for their task, and were 5 knots slower. Scharnhorst would have to try to close fast, but in the meantime Doria can hit her with plunging fire and do some critical damage. But once they are 15.000 yards apart each other, Scharnhorsts will have a better chance due its better belt armor. 50%/50% here.
I think that the German ship would have problems with speed with any hull damage, and that would give the Doria more time to hit in. Call it 60/40 Doria.
>Note that in all cases you are comparing a modern ship against an old one.
Yep :-)
> And the old ones don't compare bad at all with the new ones...that means that the new ships are bassically fault designs.
>I agree on the DD thing. Also with human torpedoes. But the 41 Knots on the CL were attained only at trials. Never in operational use they achieved that speed again.
So say 38 knots. If they had radar how would you like to run a fleet action with them around.
AH (Avon Hill, not Aces High) had a game called CA, a board game with damm near every warship ever built. When the historical games got old, we would give every country the total historical tonnage built to "spend" any way you want rather than how it was used.
For Italy I would spend every ton on the fast CL's and attack at flank speed to medium torp range and turn and launch 200 or so torps in a five mile wide fan.....
He he he, an all Yamato fleet still sinks with that. Me, 30% to 60% losses, them 100%
MC202
Dino in Reno
-
MC202, believe me, Italian 15'/50 guns were terribly unnacurate,and I mean terribly.
A gun that after 100 rounds is absolutely wored out, and needs a relining, is enough proof. Each shot that the gun fires will make the next one less accurate. Imagine what will happen after ,say 25, shots. And after 50?...I won't say anything about 70 or more...
Not only that, but this is not aerial gunnery, where the shell ballistics improve with weight and speed. Here a high muzzle speed doesnt mean that the shell will be accurate, most times is the inverse. Remember that there are three barrels firing at the same time, and the incredible concussion of one barrel will affect the shell from the other two barrels,so making dispersion a REAL problems.
IIRC a french or italian (cant recall it) battleship reported once that the shells actually COLLIDED after going out the guns. As you see the dispersion was nothing less than monstruous.
That is the reason why migh muzzle velocity naval guns used to be less accurate at long ranges than low muzzle velocity guns. American 16'/45 and 16'/50 guns are good examples of low velocity very reliable and accurate guns. British 15'/42 was also a good example.
The guns aboard Bismarck,for instance, are a good example of this problem, too. Well, in a much lesser extent than Littorios, thats true. First, because the muzzle velocity was lower in the german 14.96'/52 gun than in the italian 15'/50 gun; and second because there were only two barrels per turret compared with Littorio's three. But they were high muzzle velocity guns and payed the good hitting power at low and medium ranges for lower accuracy and hitting power at long ranges.
The second problem with a hispeed shell is just that, as they are faster, the arc they describe is shallower. Lower velocity shells did a more pronounced arc.
The main effect of this was that the allied plunging fire was much more powerful than Axis, as a shell coming at a higher angle will probably hit the deck,not the hull. And deck hits are probably the worst a battleship can sustain, because they have less horizontal deck armor than vertical belt armor, and because a deck hit is very able to reach the critical internal systems of the ship deep into the hull, as boilers, turbines, even magazines...much easier than a standard hit.
The tradeoff is less penetration at short ranges...but with a 16'/50 gun, or a 15'/42 gun you are able to penetrate most armors at short ranges regardless of gun muzzle velocity.
And lastly, but nonetheless VERY important, Italian gun's rate of fire was 1.3 Rounds/minute. It is abysmal. That was in good conditions, in a real battle expect some a 30% disminution. That means a RoF under 1 round per minute!!!!!
compare with other guns:
German 14.96'/52: 2.6 rounds/minute (Aprox)
German 11.1'/54.5: 3.5 rounds/minute.
British 15'/42: 2 rounds/minute
British 16'/45: 1.5 rounds/minute
British 14'/45: 2 rounds/minute
French 14.96/45: 2 rounds/minute (aprox)
French 13.4'/45: 2 rounds/minute
Japanese 14'/45: 2 rounds/minute
Japanese 16.1'/45: 2-2.5 rounds/minute
Japanese 18.1'/45: 1.7 rounds/minute (aprox)
American 14'/50: 1.75 rounds/minute
American 16'/45: 2 rounds/minute
American 16'/50: 2 rounds/minute
Italian 15'/50: 1.3 rounds/minute
Italian 12.6'/50: 2 rounds/minute
----------------------------------------
At short ranges, Rate of fire is way more important than muzzle velocity. Italian 15' gun was a complete failure in this department, too, while Bismarcks and Scharnhorsts were literally "machineguns" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
As you see the italian gun looked good. But it was quite worse than it seems. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Ah, and Yamatos rule (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-18-2000).]
-
A little fuel for the fire here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Yamato/Iowa
1 on 1. Mano a Mano.
I'll leave it up to the experts (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
-Rebel
JG2 "Richtofen"
"You Rebel Scum"
-
In perfect conditions, and calm seas, Yamato 7 out of 10.
In stormy day, rough seas and bad visibility, Iowa 8 out of 10.
Radar is very important here, the only thing that can shift balance from one side to other. But if a 18.1' lands on a bad spot, near the radar set, the concussion will put the radar out of action, and from this point onwards Yamato has all the aces except speed.
As Yamato's optics are way better than Iowa's, I give a clear day's engagement an 7 out of 10 for Yamato.
But in bad weather and visibility, Iowa can fire blind. Yamato will have to aim at the flashes (mostly as Scharnhorst did in North Cape), and the optics will do little to help. There is still a chance that Iowa's radar can be disabled by a lucky hit. That's why I let it at 8/10.