Who would Win early 1942

[PetrOs]

Well, there could be two cases with the crew:

1) Finished as the germany did not attack USSR (or USSR became an ally of Germany against UK and USA), so ships would have had a chance for a shakedown in peacetime or at least in peaceful waters. In such a case, I would not be such a big problem, as such ships were likely to become the best men, and there were enough of good specialists in the young soviet navy. Also, words "little tradition" sound quite unpleasing for my ear, for me being a russian naval historian coming from a traditional seamen family ;o) Imperial Russian navy and its successor Soviet Navy had quite a tradition, being a navy number two after british (rough equivalent with french navy) for some periods in 18 and 19 centuries. Even if its might was broken by the Russo-Japanese war, traditions were quite strong.
So in this case, crew shakedown and expertise can be counted as ok. Main problem would be lack of combat experience, but it was a common problem in peacetime. Another problem could be that officers might be quite scared of showing too much initiative by the stalin's purges of late thirties, and of punishment in case of failure, but as with most other units, half a year of war viped this out.

2) Case german-russian war occurs later, in 42 for example.
Thus the ships would be eiher rushed in service, and given makeshift crews, or suspended. That would reduce the crew quality most likely.


Actually, those ships were anyways built for war against britain, and not for war against germany. Being confined in Gulf of Finland or Black Sea by mines and air power is a big problem for soviet navy (Gangut class battleships were standing 99% of time in bases as floating batteries anyways.) Thats why postwar navy was mainly far east and arctic based. In case of war of USSR allied with Germany against UK and/or US (what was quite a possiblity) the ships would have had much easier access to war theatres.

I dont consider mechanical reliability a problem. Contrary to common point of view, reliability of the machinery and weapons on soviet ships was ok, even in rough conditions of Arctics. Main problem there was mechanical integrity of modern destroyers (project 7 and 7U) and cruisers (Kirov Class), as those were closely related to italian designs (destroyers were designed after buying italian "Mistrale" plans, and cruisers "Montecuccoli") which were solid enough for Mediterranean, but not for Arctical storms...

[chuck]

Imperial Russian navy and its successor Soviet Navy had quite a tradition, being a navy number two after british (rough equivalent with french navy) for some periods in 18 and 19 centuries.

1. Russian Navy has never tangled with a sizable first class navy until it fought and lost miserably to the smaller Japanese Navy.

2. While Russia had a impressively looking sailing fleet consisting of many 1st and second rates, they only ever operated in Baltic and Black seas in an essentially littorial role. They really had no conception of naval power as anything other than facilitator of boat transportation of land troops.

3. It is true that, for a time during early 19th century, Russia had a larger building program than France, it is quite untrue that Russian Navy were therefore number 2 ahead of France. For one thing, Russian maintenance were abysmal and the number of ships capable of active service were disproportionately low in relation to the size of sustained building program. For another, Russian navy was quite backwards in employment of latest innovation. No one outside Russia could seriously argue that Russian sailing Navy was a match for the French Navy at any time.

[Werner]

Chuck is quite correct.

It is the day in, day out sailing and the many other things sailors do that aggregate to make a particular navy into a fighting force. The British became masters of the 19th Century seas by maintaining the close and distant blockades of France for the better part of the preceeding century. Sure it was expensive and wore out equipment, but it made confident sailors who could patch up and keep sailing no matter what.

[PetrOs]

1. Russian Navy has never tangled with a sizable first class navy until it fought and lost miserably to the smaller Japanese Navy.

Well, in 18 century there were many engagements with Swedish fleet, which was not the worst at the time. Main enemy in most wars was the Turkey (not the ultimate power, but still strong in 18 and 19 centuries).

The thing about the japanese navy - yeah, i agree that it was the BAD loss. But actually, Japanese navy was numerically superior all the time on the theatre. First pacific squadron was beaten before the arrival of the reinforcements, and the second which was send as reinforcements has been led absolutely terribly to say at least... I used even to write an article on that topic in one of russian naval magazines.

2. While Russia had a impressively looking sailing fleet consisting of many 1st and second rates, they only ever operated in Baltic and Black seas in an essentially littorial role. They really had no conception of naval power as anything other than facilitator of boat transportation of land troops.

Well, I'd agree with the littoral role. However, there was a concept of a naval power behind it - to win a total dominance at sea at the particular theatre of war. But according to geographical location army had to had a priority, other than, say, in britain.

3. It is true that, for a time during early 19th century, Russia had a larger building program than France, it is quite untrue that Russian Navy were therefore number 2 ahead of France. For one thing, Russian maintenance were abysmal and the number of ships capable of active service were disproportionately low in relation to the size of sustained building program. For another, Russian navy was quite backwards in employment of latest innovation. No one outside Russia could seriously argue that Russian sailing Navy was a match for the French Navy at any time.

Please tell me your source of information about bad maintenance in russian navy. According to my infomation, coming from the russian central naval archive, maintenance was average. Not as good as in royal navy, but of a same level as in france.

Also, can you please tell me an example of late innovations in sailing navy?
As a counter-example - As long as I know, Russia was the first navy to introduce and employ in combat the HE shells. In 1853 HE shells annihilated turkish squadron in battle of Sinop.

[PetrOs]

Chuck is quite correct.

It is the day in, day out sailing and the many other things sailors do that aggregate to make a particular navy into a fighting force. The British became masters of the 19th Century seas by maintaining the close and distant blockades of France for the better part of the preceeding century. Sure it was expensive and wore out equipment, but it made confident sailors who could patch up and keep sailing no matter what.

Well, Royal Navy is a special case, and in sailing fleet issues it was unmatched. Just due to the case British metropoly has only SEA borders, and no land borders.

However, compared to other navies of the continental powers, russian navy of that time was quite a match to france and better then any other navy between 1720 and about 1850.

[chuck]

Please tell me your source of information about bad maintenance in russian navy. According to my infomation, coming from the russian central naval archive, maintenance was average. Not as good as in royal navy, but of a same level as in france.

Also, can you please tell me an example of late innovations in sailing navy?
As a counter-example - As long as I know, Russia was the first navy to introduce and employ in combat the HE shells. In 1853 HE shells annihilated turkish squadron in battle of Sinop.

Royal Navy dockyards supported Russian ships during the French Revolutionary war. The British took the opportunity to survey Russian ships. The inferior quality of material, the use of unseasoned wood, the poor state of fastenings, the light structure and the general poor state of maintenance of these Russian ships came under universal derision at these yards. These criticisms are well documented. Similar criticisms were never leveled at captured French ships surveyed by the British. While the British found French ships to be structurally weaker than British ships, French workmanship and maintenance were generally highly praised, especially after a number of scandals involving substandard worksmenship in RN's own ships during later years of Napoleonic wars.

The continuing weakness of Russian ships after the Napoleonic war is attested the large size of the sustained building program relative to the sustained size of the active fleet, and the fact that Russian ships are generally laid up or dismantled outright rather than refitted or rebuilt after relatively short service lifes.

Amongst the improvements which were rapidly popularized in the British and French Navies during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, but which were late in coming to the Russian Navy, includes the abandonment of the lateen mizzen sail, the closing over of the midship gangways, the adaptation of the round bow, elliptical stern, Spenser sail, flint lock firing mechanism, shell firing guns (Russians were not the first to adapt them, even if they might have been the first to find occassion to use them), standardization of gun calibers on all decks.

Regarding Russian Navy being number 2 between 1720 - 1850 (!!!), one has to point out that first, between 1720 and 1805, Russian Navy, in pure numerical strength ranks below that of Spain not to mention France. During parts of that time, Russian Navy ranked even below that of Nederland and Denmark. Except during perhaps a brief period immediately after Bourbon restoration in 1815, French Navy also maintained considerable numerical superiority over Russian Navy in ship in active service and in active ready-deploy reserve throughout the 19th century.

All these things do not even begin to take into consideration the much larger base of maritime population available, larger Maritime infrastructure, the Navy's higher priority in claims to national resource, the greater operation experience of other Navies.

[Werner]

The simple truth is that Stalin had less interest in a navy than did even Hitler. The Soviet talent recognized advancement and whatever advantages life might offer in the USSR were to be found in the Tank Corps or Aviation. Only those who failed to gain favor in the preferred services went into the Navy.

[chuck]

The simple truth is that Stalin had less interest in a navy than did even Hitler. The Soviet talent recognized advancement and whatever advantages life might offer in the USSR were to be found in the Tank Corps or Aviation. Only those who failed to gain favor in the preferred services went into the Navy.

Also keep in mind that Russian Navy has no real port from which it can securely operate against the Germans, and if things go badly on land for Russia, Russian fleet has no real way out of Baltic. Russian Baltic fleet would be trapped and would be undoubtedly be destroyed by German airpower irrespective of whether they could technically win a gunnery battle with the German fleet.

Sovietskii Soyuz were designed to fight a German navy which didn't need to fight the Sovietskiis in order to destroy them.

[PetrOs]

The simple truth is that Stalin had less interest in a navy than did even Hitler. The Soviet talent recognized advancement and whatever advantages life might offer in the USSR were to be found in the Tank Corps or Aviation. Only those who failed to gain favor in the preferred services went into the Navy.

Well, not really. For a youth, it was more like an option "Do you want to serve (or be educated to become an officer) in infantry, tanks, air force, or navy?" before 1941. At least, all 4 my great-grandfathers and both granddads claim it to be this way. During the war it was less possibility to choose, and even if you go for navy, you were very likely to land by the marines.

Also keep in mind that Russian Navy has no real port from which it can securely operate against the Germans, and if things go badly on land for Russia, Russian fleet has no real way out of Baltic. Russian Baltic fleet would be trapped and would be undoubtedly be destroyed by German airpower irrespective of whether they could technically win a gunnery battle with the German fleet.

Well, Baltic and Black sea were bad options for basing such big ships, as exactly the case you tell would be true (Even if german air force failed to destroy any of three battleships of Gangut class, only damaging one of them).

However, from Sovietski Sojuz class it was scheduled to base one in the arctics in Molotovsk and one in Vladivostok, and those ones would have a good access to the oceans.

Sovietskii Soyuz were designed to fight a German navy which didn't need to fight the Sovietskiis in order to destroy them.

Hmm, I have an article (in russian, from 1998, can scan it for you if you are interested) here quoting the official design task documents and everywhere it is quoting the royal navy as enemy, indirect of course (like, it should withstand shells from any british warship, especially Nelson class). Also in 39, when design was finalised, germany was more of an ally then the UK.

[Walt]

I would have to give the North Carolina the edge even that early on in the War. Her Rate of fire of 2 rounds per minute as well as her excellent firecontrol even early on as well as her 27 to 30 Knot Battle Speed and good seaworthy design and excellent armor put her in my top choice position. The Bismark would be a close 2nd .
Both of these ships designs were years ahead of the others mentioned.
In a 1 on 1 fistfight between these early monsters fire and movement would be as important to the outcome then as it is now.
The slow firing 1 rpm guns of Yamato and and most of the others on this list would have been their weakness especially when the NC could put 2 rounds on them for every one round sent back..
Yes the Yamato was impressive but she was slow and big and her armor offered no advantage from US Navy 16" munitions.. both qualitys you don't want when in a Dogfight with a lean and fast Dog whose teeth are as big as yours . The HMS Hood vs Bismark is an example of this, even without the fatal hit the Bismarks ROF was 2 to 1 and once range was aquired she could lay twice the firepower on the Hood than the Hood could return.. and when you take away speed or manouver as the RN torpedo attack did to the Bismark you lose a great amount of your advantage and become quite average.. as history shows us. I think crews training and skippers skills to command are a large part of a ships muscle too and often overlooked when comparisons like these are made..
The biggest concern for the big Naval gun designers post WW 1 was attaining the best Rate of Fire as well as weight of fire combinations.
I think History has shown us all why.

[Filipe Ramires]

I would have to give the North Carolina the edge even that early on in the War. Her Rate of fire of 2 rounds per minute as well as her excellent firecontrol even early on as well as her 27 to 30 Knot Battle Speed and good seaworthy design and excellent armor put her in my top choice position. The Bismark would be a close 2nd .

North Carolina doing 30 knots!?!?!?!?

Both of these ships designs were years ahead of the others mentioned.

Bismarck is pratically based in WWI designs!! Armour scheme nearly obsolete by the time. How come he's ahead of others...specially taking into account that most of the others are much more advanced design and in performance then Bismarck.

In a 1 on 1 fistfight between these early monsters fire and movement would be as important to the outcome then as it is now.
The slow firing 1 rpm guns of Yamato and and most of the others on this list would have been their weakness especially when the NC could put 2 rounds on them for every one round sent back.

True but what happens if NC is hit, by any chance, by a 18.1' shell from Yamato!?!? What happens to Yamato if she's hit by a 16' shell???

[Laurence Batchelor]

From what I've read NC was designed on the drawing board to do 27knts, in battle conditions this might have been less, please someone tell me what her trails speed was??? or what she was recorded of doing in combat 6 months out-of dry dock?

Where are these rates of fire of 2 rounds per gun per minute drawn from? source? The USN considered overall the British 15" the best naval weapon not any of their own!

The chance of Yamato hitting anything at long range is slim, though if she does hit any ship in the world she is going to cause a headache for someone!

KGV had much better side armour scheme than NC IMHO and of course by 1942 all her teething troubles with her turrets and systems have been ironed out, she has much combat and operational experience, if we say KGV herself she has been in service over a year, doesn't have a green crew, her crew know how to handle their ship best and they pack a good punch of 10x14" which are a powerful and accurate weapon system.

In heavy seas she would be as bad as any USN battleship to handle and if action was in a far distant flung region of the Earth her short legs and lack of fuel would become a weakness too.

[PetrOs]

Well, according to Skulski (p.7):
"Her [Yamato's] 18 inch guns, with 42-44 km range and superior optics equipment, were the largest and most modern naval guns ever mounted, and far exceeded the quality and construction of other countries (even today the japanese optics industry is the world's leading producer of cameras and other optical equipment). Her 15m rangefinders gave tremendous precision, her armour protection was 650mm thick [guns], and the side armour plate 410 mm; and the shape of her hull reduced water resistance to a minimum"

From all built ships I would set on yamato (oki, its personal - im building her model now ) in a pure optical duel. In a radar-engagement I would tip for NC or SD, or maybe on a late war KGVs.

[Werner]

Although North Carolina was designed with 27 knots in mind (actually 30 knots in the early 14-inch version), vibration issues meant that 25 knots was typically the maximum speed.

British operators complained that the KGV had an unusually large turning circle and that North Carolina could turn inside RN destroyers at any given speed. The DNC defended himself saying the performance is what could be expected from KGVs single rudder and the USN had paid the drag penalty for two rudders with lower top speed.

I have read a lot on battleships and cannot think of a source where the USN regarded the 15-inch/42 superior to their own 16-inch/45. The USN was quite proud of the 16-inch/45 and /50 with "superheavy" rounds, the latter considered by ordinance experts everywhere to be superior to the Japanese 18-inch gun.

The USN was disappointed with the 14-inch triple turret until they solved the salvo dispersion problem caused by the extremely narrow turret slide with delay coils.

[Laurence Batchelor]

Well, according to Skulski (p.7):
"Her [Yamato's] 18 inch guns, with 42-44 km range and superior optics equipment, were the largest and most modern naval guns ever mounted, and far exceeded the quality and construction of other countries (even today the japanese optics industry is the world's leading producer of cameras and other optical equipment). Her 15m rangefinders gave tremendous precision, her armour protection was 650mm thick [guns], and the side armour plate 410 mm; and the shape of her hull reduced water resistance to a minimum"

From all built ships I would set on yamato (oki, its personal - im building her model now ) in a pure optical duel. In a radar-engagement I would tip for NC or SD, or maybe on a late war KGVs.

Please read the topic this duel is early 1942 for a reason

Yamato's abilty to provide good damage control if she's hit is poor. Her optics are not superior to German or the Royal Navies, Japan's rise in optics and electronics came in her post-war rebuilding not pre or during WW2.

If her optics are so good why is it Japanese long range gunnery couldn't hit a stationary barn door with a banjo? This observation is not my personal view it it the facts left to us from history. Only the Italian's had a worse large-calibre long-range gunnery record in WW2

[Werner]

Skulski is a very biased, pro Japanese source.

I will repeat my challenges: Name a major caliber hit by any Japanese capital ship beyond 10,000 meters.

Name any ship actually hit by Yamato, Musashi, or Nagato's main battery.

[Laurence Batchelor]

Although North Carolina was designed with 27 knots in mind (actually 30 knots in the early 14-inch version), vibration issues meant that 25 knots was typically the maximum speed.

British operators complained that the KGV had an unusually large turning circle and that North Carolina could turn inside RN destroyers at any given speed. The DNC defended himself saying the performance is what could be expected from KGVs single rudder and the USN had paid the drag penalty for two rudders with lower top speed.

I have read a lot on battleships and cannot think of a source where the USN regarded the 15-inch/42 superior to their own 16-inch/45. The USN was quite proud of the 16-inch/45 and /50 with "superheavy" rounds, the latter considered by ordinance experts everywhere to be superior to the Japanese 18-inch gun.

The USN was disappointed with the 14-inch triple turret until they solved the salvo dispersion problem caused by the extremely narrow turret slide with delay coils.

To my knowledge it was an official US Navy report written in 1945/46, John Roberts and Alan Raven have read it, I haven't had the privledge I'll see if I can find the full reference.

It's not a technical document, of course the USN's on paper and the proving grounds are superior, its just in practice this report considers the Royal Navies 15" Mk1 the best large-calibre weapon ever mounted on a ship.

Everyone looks at performance data only, to see the full picture you need to look at barrel wear, reliability of the mounting, ease of use and maintenance, the quality of the turret face and roof armour, training speeds, actual combat data of actual ROF's in action in all weathers... this is what the USN report used as its yardstick I believe.

[Filipe Ramires]

I will repeat my challenges: Name a major caliber hit by any Japanese capital ship beyond 10,000 meters.

Depends of what you define capital ship. If cruisers are included I can name a few.

[Laurence Batchelor]

I will repeat my challenges: Name a major caliber hit by any Japanese capital ship beyond 10,000 meters.

Depends of what you define capital ship. If cruisers are included I can name a few.

I'm talking large-calibre which means 12" and upwards, sorry thats Java out of the window then!

[Werner]

Depends of what you define capital ship. If cruisers are included I can name a few.

I'm talking large-calibre which means 12" and upwards, sorry thats Java out of the window then!

Even at Java the Japanese fired upwards of 3,000 rounds for two 8-inch hits in the first hour.

The heavy lifting was done by the light cruisers and destroyers, and of course the torpedoes.