Washington and WWI

[Laurence Batchelor]

Well summarised ar, all of this of course is in your's and John's conclusions at the back of your joint Battleships bk.

Shame many can't buy it nowadays, they might learn something!

[chuck]

Yamato's main battery firing cycle is 25 seconds at 5 degree elevation and 38 seconds at 45 degrees.

Do you mean per gun?

Yes, per gun. But in typical situations all guns in a triple turret would operate in unison, so the time also applies to duration between salvos.

[Guest]

No one is saying that Japan had the best designed battleships here. Everyone knows how useless they were during the war for the various reasons spoken here for countless times.

What do you mean? Practically everyone says Yamato was the best battleship. The countless models from many vendors are a testament to this belief.

Everyone? I'll make it easy for you. Name just one.



Vendors make Yamato models not because these ships were the best, but because they were cool and they sell. If we Americans care about the best, the big 3 automakers would be out of business by 1965.

[Guest]

Dear Warner,
No need to get upset, it's not life or death.

All you need to know is that the Vanguard was the best battleship ever built.

The Yamatos had the greatest margin of deadweight per ton.

The Iowas had an inefficient hull form, (parallel hull for some length below the waterline).

The Bismarcks were passable but not brillant.

Jean Bart, nothing special, and one should never have quadruple turrets, even if they were paired twins. Triples are bad eough.

The Italians, not a clue.

Why Vanguard? The Royal Navy had the greatest amount of design and construction knowledge, and by far, the most COMBAT EXPERIENCE. The RN was the ONLY navy to suffer the loss of a modern battleship and then able to incorporate those lessons in follow-on construction. ie Anson, Howe and Vanguard. Nobody else did this or was able to.
There, that should do it.

Disagree. Vanguard is a passable design that failed to correct the critical flaws of KGV and would not have fared well in an environment where their damage resistence would be intensely tested.

Littorio's 15"/50 guns are the most powerful 15" guns ever built, far superior in power and ballistics to Bismark's 15"/47 guns, let along Vanguard's 15"/42 guns. Not only do the Italian guns fire a very heavy shell for their caliber, they do so at the highest muzzle velocity ever achieved for any battleship main gun bigger than 11". Their armor penetration qualities are the equal to US 16"/50 at most ranges, superior in some. Their guns are the Ferrari's of naval guns. But their torpedo protection is weak, they were the only modern battleship ever to be stopped by 1 torpedo, and that a substandard 17" air dropped torpedo. Their armor coverage is small in comparison to other ships. Their range is also very limited, and their construction too weak for stormy high seas. They are on the whole less than satisfactory. Perhaps they are more satisfactory when viewed from Italy's Mediterranean persepctive, but it would not be fair to penalize other people's battleship that had to weather the more serious oceans and go farther than the width of Mediterranean when doing the comparison.

The Richelieu class has great potential. Despite being only 38,000 tons, they had the deepest and probably one of the most effective torpedo protection of any WWII era battleship. Their horizontal protection is usually strong for their size, stronger than any other battleship other than Yamato. Their secondary armaments were, at different times, the strongest in anti-surface role, and the strongest in AA roles of any battleship. When their secondary armaments have been upgraded to become the strongest of any battleship in AA role, the anti-surface capabilities of their secondary armament was still the equal of any WWII battleship other than Yamato in its original, not later AA enhanced, fit. Their main fire power may not be the strongest, but is strong enough equal their main rivals and strong enough to seriously threaten any other battleship in the world. Their basic design is probably the most efficientof all WWII battleships, and ton for ton they were the best. (Hello, Werner )

Bismark was a good basic design for close range, bad visibility, North Sea type surface action in the pre-radar days. Yes, that basic design was rapidly outmoded. But she still had other considerable redeeming qualities - she probably has the most comprehensive set of damage tolerant features built into the hull of any battleship. None of her water-tight transverse bulkheads were pierced below water line. All her electrical passages are redundant, access through armor deck is all through long water tight trunks leading up to the main deck. etc. Basically a very difficult ship to sink. So she was an outmoded ship whose exceptional construction qualities makes her a serious opponent even after the obsolecence of her basic design.

The Yamato was the most damage resistent and damage tolerant battleship ever built, although not on a ton-by-ton basis. Although not the most efficient design, they did not warrant the distinction of having the most dead weight per ton for they were at least middle of the pack in this area. Their girder were structurally very efficient, incorporating armor into main structure rather than as a dead load, and their hull shape and hydrodynamic efficiencies are unrivaled by any other battleship, ever. But their overall structural efficiencies are damaged by poor armor belt support, and over reliance on using armor to stop the effects of torpedos instead of much more efficienct method of using multiple elastic bulkheads, liquid filled compartments and simple depth of gas expansion space. To offset this, however, they were very thoroughly calculated designs, and very little is left to empirical methods or sloppy subscale model tests. So despite the weakness of their anti-torpedo design, their overall anti-torpedo performance did in fact lived up to their very stringent design requirements, which was to be able absorb 5 torpedos on one side and still be able to return to even trim and even keel, continue to engage in gunnery battle at fleet speed of 24 knots. USN had calculated that the 5 torpedo hits on one side would swiftly capsize the Iowas.

Iowas is a design in a strange situation. They are in many ways a deeply flawed designs (one of which the 5 hit capsize feature). But thier mix of traits are such that they happen to dove tail with changing tactical realities of the war, so that their weakness didn't matter too much and their strengths cause them to be better fitted to the actual roles they were called upon to perform in a way no other battleship can rival. If we were to ask which battleships of WWII most ideally suited the roles demanded in the second half of the pacific war, it would have to be Iowas. It is true their design flaws makes it possible to imagine plausible battleship designs that would be far superior in efficiency, but none were built, and those that were built can't do their jobs. So they were the luckiest battleships in terms of features and opportunities to showcase them.

[chuck]

BTW, the Italian 15"/50 turrets also have the longest loading cycle of any WWII main caliber turret, 45 seconds at 35 degree elevation. No WWII battleship guns takes 90 seconds to load.

The Italian gun also has the greatest ballistic range of any WWII battleship gun, superior by a couple of thousand yards to either Japanese 18"/45 or US 16"/50, the next runners up.

[ar]

I have to disagree with you disagreement on Vanguard. The only battleship to FULLY exploit lessons learned in ACTUAL COMBAT, of which the RN had the most, and that is what matters the most.

Rate of fire for Yamato; no way mate, not in actual combat. However I am open to be proved wrong if you can quote a reliably source that says that the designed rate of fire was sustained/achieved in an action.
Actual combat performance is what matters the most.

[Dustermaker]

It would be cool to think about how large these ships would have gotten, but i think the costs would have gotten too great for everyone. Imagine all the steel and the guns themselves. The guns took almost as long as the actual ship to build. IMO they would have tried but they would have stopped once they got so large because of financial reasons.

[Laurence Batchelor]

Vanguard is also the most stable gun platform in any weather which counts for alot.

Italian high performance 15" guns don't mean squat when their ships are always in harbour; in fear of being hit by British shells at 13 miles; or just plain scared to go through a smoke screen!

Also how does Richelieu's AA suite compare with Vanguard's 1946 full suite as designed which I don't think was entirely fittes?
I was under the impression that would be better?

[Guest]

Also how does Richelieu's AA suite compare with Vanguard's 1946 full suite as designed which I don't think was entirely fittes?
I was under the impression that would be better?

In her last AA fit, Jean Bart still had 9 of her original 15 152 mm dual purpose guns, plus 24 new 100 mm dual purpose guns, plus 28 57 mm automatic AA guns. Her heavy AA firepower is unrivaled by any artillery ship, and her light AA firepower is only rivaled by later ships mounting 75mm and other post Bofor AAA.

[Guest]

Vanguard is also the most stable gun platform in any weather which counts for alot.

It is not all together clear if Vanguard's seakeeping and gunnery stability traits rival those of Yamato. Yamato is also known to be exceptionally good sea boat with extremely stable gun platform properties and rare combination of shallow roll and exceptionally long rolling period.

[Guest]

.

Italian high performance 15" guns don't mean squat when their ships are always in harbour;

No, it does not. But conversely the fact that their ships are always in harbour also doesn't mean squat to the material qualities of their guns.

They should be discussed separately.

[Guest]

.

Rate of fire for Yamato; no way mate, not in actual combat. However I am open to be proved wrong if you can quote a reliably source that says that the designed rate of fire was sustained/achieved in an action.
Actual combat performance is what matters the most.

I see no reason why the Japanese can not at least achieved their stated salvo rate at least during the initial period of an engagement. Cyclic firing time of ~30 seconds for normal battle range engagements is extremely typical amongst all battleships. Some like the Bismark can theoretically do it in as little as 20. Number of salvos fired, when plotted against the amount of time available to fire them in, suggests that cyclic rates of fire are routinely approached during the opening stages, in good aiming conditions, by a well worked up crew manned worked up equipment.

BTW, Werner would be the first to regale with tales of US cruisers shooting at rates 50% faster than their designed cyclic rates.

[Guest]

I have to disagree with you disagreement on Vanguard. The only battleship to FULLY exploit lessons learned in ACTUAL COMBAT, of which the RN had the most, and that is what matters the most.

.

Vanguard was started too early to fully incorporate the fundamental lessons of the war. She mostly incorporated only the superficial lessons that are also incorporated into the latter units of KGV class. She still had the same sorry torpedo protection inherited from KGV, which proved devastatingly inadequate, making the POW the modern battleship that took the fewest torpedos to actually sink.

Incidentally, the slopiness of KGV torpedo defense design can be measured from the discrepency between the performance claimed by the designers, and the performance that can realistically be expected due to overall inadequacies of fundamental design, even if all minor technical and implementations problems were ironed out. The KGV designers expected the ship's torpedo defenses to fully absorb a 1000 lb TNT contact explosion. No other WWII design actually built claimed even 75% of that resistance. Yet in all material aspects, such as depth midship, depth abreast of the magazines, bulkhead thickness, etc, KGV's torpedo defenses were the weakest of any WWII battleship. Only the Italian ships, which uses a different, unique and appearently deeply flawed concept, can claim to show evidence of being as weak or weaker than the torpedo defenses of KGV.




level of performance that KGV's designers expected from that sorry system was by far the highest of any WWII battleship. The British expected KGV's torpedo defenses to be able to resist torpedo warheads 33% heavier than what Yamato's designers had believed their system to be capable of resisting, despite the fact that fundamentally KGV's torpedo defenses were materially the weakest of any WWII battleship other than Littorio.

[Guest]

That last paragraph was a bad edit.

It was saying that by their initial calculation, Yamato's designers had only expected her torpedo defenses to only absorb 700 lbs of contact TNT explosion. KGV's designers expected 1000 lbs.

But they were in fact defeated by Japanese aerial torpedoes with just 400 lbs warheads.

[Dustermaker]

since this has gone pretty off topic any way i may as well say this......The Iowa class BB's are the BEST BB's ever made. Now i will explain why. They were modernized so, the "best" ww2 BB would stand no chance vs a modernized Iowa.......now thats off topic.

[Guest]

since this has gone pretty off topic any way i may as well say this......The Iowa class BB's are the BEST BB's ever made. Now i will explain why. They were modernized so, the "best" ww2 BB would stand no chance vs a modernized Iowa.......now thats off topic.

But their nominal role changed with their modernization, and it is only fair to measure them by their relative effectiveness in their nominal role. Would they have any good chance, one on one, against a Kirov? That is, after all, the justification used to modernize them in the first place. I won't even count their 30,000 ton tonnage advantage against them.

[ar]

I hold to my point until someone can reference otherwise. From documents that I have seen over the years, no battleship ever achieved the designed rate of fire on a sustained basis in action. "In action" is the most important thing here, because, "in action", things always happen, unexpected things. As an example look at KGV during the Bismarck action. Here you have a fully worked up ship with a trained crew with lots of sea time, and yet there are problems with the guns. And why; it is because of being "in action". gunnery officers act differently, the loading crew do the same, mistakes are made, you find out who is good under fire and who is not and so on. Combat experience counts for so much and is often THE most important factor but so difficult to put down on paper.

Sustained rate of fire per gun for cruisers is another matter, a whole dirrent subject.

.

Rate of fire for Yamato; no way mate, not in actual combat. However I am open to be proved wrong if you can quote a reliably source that says that the designed rate of fire was sustained/achieved in an action.
Actual combat performance is what matters the most.

I see no reason why the Japanese can not at least achieved their stated salvo rate at least during the initial period of an engagement. Cyclic firing time of ~30 seconds for normal battle range engagements is extremely typical amongst all battleships. Some like the Bismark can theoretically do it in as little as 20. Number of salvos fired, when plotted against the amount of time available to fire them in, suggests that cyclic rates of fire are routinely approached during the opening stages, in good aiming conditions, by a well worked up crew manned worked up equipment.

BTW, Werner would be the first to regale with tales of US cruisers shooting at rates 50% faster than their designed cyclic rates.

[ar]

I have to disagree with you disagreement on Vanguard. The only battleship to FULLY exploit lessons learned in ACTUAL COMBAT, of which the RN had the most, and that is what matters the most.

.

Vanguard was started too early to fully incorporate the fundamental lessons of the war. She mostly incorporated only the superficial lessons that are also incorporated into the latter units of KGV class. She still had the same sorry torpedo protection inherited from KGV, which proved devastatingly inadequate, making the POW the modern battleship that took the fewest torpedos to actually sink.

I should have written after thinking, "to exploit substantially", which I stand by. The torpedo protection may not have been the best, but internal protection was GREATLY improved in Vanguard along with many other features.

Incidentally, the slopiness of KGV torpedo defense design can be measured from the discrepency between the performance claimed by the designers, and the performance that can realistically be expected due to overall inadequacies of fundamental design, even if all minor technical and implementations problems were ironed out. The KGV designers expected the ship's torpedo defenses to fully absorb a 1000 lb TNT contact explosion. No other WWII design actually built claimed even 75% of that resistance. Yet in all material aspects, such as depth midship, depth abreast of the magazines, bulkhead thickness, etc, KGV's torpedo defenses were the weakest of any WWII battleship. Only the Italian ships, which uses a different, unique and appearently deeply flawed concept, can claim to show evidence of being as weak or weaker than the torpedo defenses of KGV.




level of performance that KGV's designers expected from that sorry system was by far the highest of any WWII battleship. The British expected KGV's torpedo defenses to be able to resist torpedo warheads 33% heavier than what Yamato's designers had believed their system to be capable of resisting, despite the fact that fundamentally KGV's torpedo defenses were materially the weakest of any WWII battleship other than Littorio.

[ar]

AS a postscript of a somewhat general nature is assessing design, construction and performance. I was told by the Japanese Naval Constructor Fukui* in his home in Yokohama in 1973, that the most sucessful cruisers of the Japanese Navy were those of the Agano class. According to Fukui they had the greatest utility because they were conservative in that they (the designers) did not try to get nine pints into a gallon jar, which was one of the major problems that Japanese designers had, and that was because of lack of experience.
The navy with the greatest amount of sea time combined with combat experience usually produce the best in a general sense.

Royal Navy designs were by far the most conservative over the decades and I believe had the greatest utility. Not always the best but not too bad either.
The RN had by far the greatest amount of experience of all types over a very long period; a huge and hidden asset.

* I hope that you will forgive the name droping, but Fukui was a first hand source.

[ar]

Dear Mr Dustermaker,
You have dived into the deep end, try the shallow end to begin with.
Do not take offense.

since this has gone pretty off topic any way i may as well say this......The Iowa class BB's are the BEST BB's ever made. Now i will explain why. They were modernized so, the "best" ww2 BB would stand no chance vs a modernized Iowa.......now thats off topic.