by Vlad » Sat Nov 23, 2013 5:10 am
One big thing we are forgetting when comparing ships is that immunity zones are not hard and fast concepts. Yes they are "designed" against a certain gun at a certain range but armour penetration calculations were far from an exact science and there are other environmental factors that could seriously affect the result e.g. ship roll changing angle of obliquity. What this means is that on a good day, an armour scheme designed to defeat a 15" shell might keep out a 16" shell, but on a bad day might be defeated by a 14" shell. On top of this, there are dozens of way to damage or disable a battleship without penetrating the armoured citadel, and even a belt hit that fails to penetrate will cause vibration, displacement of plates and likely substantial structural damage behind and around the impact area (all that energy still has to be absorbed somewhere).
My point is that any 1v1 fight between battleships of the same time period, Vittorio Veneto, Bismarck, King George V, Richelieu, Washington and South Dakota, in "fair" conditions (good visibility, no tactical disadvantage e.g. element of surprise) would probably be a very close call despite the fact they are all quite different ships on paper. My guess would be 9 times out of 10 both ships would sink, or the winner would have to be scuttled later. In the absolute best case the winner would limp back to port looking like Seydlitz after Jutland.
RADAR is of course a game changer but that is not specific to any ship type. Tactics, leadership and squadron vs. squadron fights are a completely different kettle of fish.
Specifically regarding South Dakota, her armour scheme was designed to keep out her own 16" shells, which were heavy and very powerful but her guns had low muzzle velocity. The Italian guns had very high muzzle velocity, so not only would Vittorio Veneto outrange South Dakota (granted, not that important since accuracy at maximum range was dubious), but in a mid range battle her shells would come in at a much shallower angle with a higher velocity and hence kinetic energy, something the Americans would not necessarily have designed for since they only had data on their own guns to compare against.
I think the Italians deserve more credit than they are given for those 15" guns. Their bad spread is at least partly due to poor shell manufacturing, and Littorio shot very well on at least one occasion. The guns themselves in my opinion are one of the most impressive pieces mounted afloat. Sure Yamato's were just huge, but I think it takes more skill and flair to make a 15" gun with that level of power. On paper they out-range the Iowas 16"/50s and have better theoretical armour penetration at all ranges vs. side armour.
In terms of pure design, I would say Richelieu wins for novelty factor but Vittorio Veneto is a stronger ship. It's easy for legends and stories to take hold, especially for a ship that didn't do much during the war and was on the losing side, but I would say the Vittorio Veneto is probably the best European treaty battleship design.
One big thing we are forgetting when comparing ships is that immunity zones are not hard and fast concepts. Yes they are "designed" against a certain gun at a certain range but armour penetration calculations were far from an exact science and there are other environmental factors that could seriously affect the result e.g. ship roll changing angle of obliquity. What this means is that on a good day, an armour scheme designed to defeat a 15" shell might keep out a 16" shell, but on a bad day might be defeated by a 14" shell. On top of this, there are dozens of way to damage or disable a battleship without penetrating the armoured citadel, and even a belt hit that fails to penetrate will cause vibration, displacement of plates and likely substantial structural damage behind and around the impact area (all that energy still has to be absorbed somewhere).
My point is that any 1v1 fight between battleships of the same time period, Vittorio Veneto, Bismarck, King George V, Richelieu, Washington and South Dakota, in "fair" conditions (good visibility, no tactical disadvantage e.g. element of surprise) would probably be a very close call despite the fact they are all quite different ships on paper. My guess would be 9 times out of 10 both ships would sink, or the winner would have to be scuttled later. In the absolute best case the winner would limp back to port looking like Seydlitz after Jutland.
RADAR is of course a game changer but that is not specific to any ship type. Tactics, leadership and squadron vs. squadron fights are a completely different kettle of fish.
Specifically regarding South Dakota, her armour scheme was designed to keep out her own 16" shells, which were heavy and very powerful but her guns had low muzzle velocity. The Italian guns had very high muzzle velocity, so not only would Vittorio Veneto outrange South Dakota (granted, not that important since accuracy at maximum range was dubious), but in a mid range battle her shells would come in at a much shallower angle with a higher velocity and hence kinetic energy, something the Americans would not necessarily have designed for since they only had data on their own guns to compare against.
I think the Italians deserve more credit than they are given for those 15" guns. Their bad spread is at least partly due to poor shell manufacturing, and Littorio shot very well on at least one occasion. The guns themselves in my opinion are one of the most impressive pieces mounted afloat. Sure Yamato's were just huge, but I think it takes more skill and flair to make a 15" gun with that level of power. On paper they out-range the Iowas 16"/50s and have better theoretical armour penetration at all ranges vs. side armour.
In terms of pure design, I would say Richelieu wins for novelty factor but Vittorio Veneto is a stronger ship. It's easy for legends and stories to take hold, especially for a ship that didn't do much during the war and was on the losing side, but I would say the Vittorio Veneto is probably the best European treaty battleship design.