Vittorio Veneto vs Washington Treaty Battleships

[Thomas E. Johnson]

What is the general consensus on the design and effectiveness of the Vittorio Veneto Class itself? The one book I have about battleships that gives the class any real discussion, claims that it was a poorly designed vessel, and much of the build quality was poor. Somehow, I recall reading somewhere else, claims of the exact opposite.

[Secondo]

Claims that those ships were poorly designed and built are based on wartime propaganda commonplaces. I see no element to prove that there was something wrong in their design or in their construction (their machinery for instance was so poorly designed and manufactured that Vittorio Veneto's starboard turbines brought the ship safely back home at 24 knots running at 110% power for more than 12 hours, after she was torpedoed at Matapan ) and research has proved that their gunnery was mediocre because of excessive tolerance limits for the ammo allowed by the Navy.

[GMG4RWF]

Well all Quality (Production & crew etc...) aside - on a pure design level she was about the same size as DKM Bismarck (actually about 3000 tons smaller) carried 1 more 38cm gun on 1 less Barbette. had the same secondary (6-15-15.2 cm guns) in 2 less turrets but 4 fewer tertiary DP guns of smaller caliber in 50% more turrets - overall design was a match for any British Battleship short of the Nelsons which she could out run & any French BB (a tossup with the Jean Bart's) so not bad for Europe at the time - but Washington or South Dakota would have had her for lunch (& they were a little smaller!)

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Well all Quality (Production & crew etc...) aside - on a pure design level she was about the same size as DKM Bismarck (actually about 3000 tons smaller) carried 1 more 38cm gun on 1 less Barbette. had the same secondary (6-15-15.2 cm guns) in 2 less turrets but 4 fewer tertiary DP guns of smaller caliber in 50% more turrets - overall design was a match for any British Battleship short of the Nelsons which she could out run & any French BB (a tossup with the Jean Bart's) so not bad for Europe at the time - but Washington or South Dakota would have had her for lunch (& they were a little smaller!)

She could outrun Washington and South Dakota though.

[GMG4RWF]

She could outrun Washington and South Dakota though.

Not if she's having to defend a strategic point (such as the entrance to Toronto harbor) ! That's why the USN never emphasized speed in our BB's, just put a big monster where they need to be & the enemy has to come to you or run away.

[Hallis]

She could outrun Washington and South Dakota though.

Not if she's having to defend a strategic point (such as the entrance to Toronto harbor) ! That's why the USN never emphasized speed in our BB's, just put a big monster where they need to be & the enemy has to come to you or run away.

Except... that the last 3 classes of USN battleship were built as "fast battleships". And designed to be fast to be able to keep up with and screen carrier fleets for fighters and warships. I'll see your "come to you or run away" argument and raise you one Pearl Harbor.

[GMG4RWF]

Except... that the last 3 classes of USN battleship were built as "fast battleships". And designed to be fast to be able to keep up with and screen carrier fleets for fighters and warships. I'll see your "come to you or run away" argument and raise you one Pearl Harbor.

Actually, they were designated "Fast" Battleships after the fact - they were still designed for combat (weapons & armor) first, with speed as available - that's why the 1st 2 classes were "only" 28kt'ers not 30+kt'er, all had the largest guns available at the time of design & all had as many as was thought practical for there size (the 1st 2 being limited to 35000tn by treaty & the Iowas by 108' beam for the Panama canal). as well as the max armor protection thought practical. This can be seen best when the Montanas were designed, they did away with the limits to increase firepower & thus speed (even with the new engines available) dropped back to 28kts. Had new engine technology not been available, the "Fast" Battleships would not have been. They were not "designed" to keep up with carriers. that was just a "happy" coincidence. The 1st 2 classes actually couldn't (the carriers being 30+kt'ers) the carriers had to slow themselves a few knots to let them keep up, it was just an "acceptable" loss.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Except... that the last 3 classes of USN battleship were built as "fast battleships". And designed to be fast to be able to keep up with and screen carrier fleets for fighters and warships. I'll see your "come to you or run away" argument and raise you one Pearl Harbor.

Actually, they were designated "Fast" Battleships after the fact - they were still designed for combat (weapons & armor) first, with speed as available - that's why the 1st 2 classes were "only" 28kt'ers not 30+kt'er, all had the largest guns available at the time of design & all had as many as was thought practical for there size (the 1st 2 being limited to 35000tn by treaty & the Iowas by 108' beam for the Panama canal). as well as the max armor protection thought practical. This can be seen best when the Montanas were designed, they did away with the limits to increase firepower & thus speed (even with the new engines available) dropped back to 28kts. Had new engine technology not been available, the "Fast" Battleships would not have been. They were not "designed" to keep up with carriers. that was just a "happy" coincidence. The 1st 2 classes actually couldn't (the carriers being 30+kt'ers) the carriers had to slow themselves a few knots to let them keep up, it was just an "acceptable" loss.

I must disagree here at least where the Iowa Class comes in. The North Carolina and South Dakota Classes are partly as you say, but they did want them to be as fast as what they knew the best Japanese BB's to be, with equivalent or superior firepower and protection. But when it came to designing the Iowa Class, they had 10,000 more tons to play with, and the Navy design & construction bureau was specifically ordered by the Navy Top Brass to use that 10,000 tons to make a BB Class that had the same basic armament and protection as the South Dakota Class, but as fast as feasible on a 45,000 ton design. That info is straight from Sumrall's book, as well as other sources.

[GMG4RWF]

I must disagree here at least where the Iowa Class comes in. The North Carolina and South Dakota Classes are partly as you say, but they did want them to be as fast as what they knew the best Japanese BB's to be, with equivalent or superior firepower and protection. But when it came to designing the Iowa Class, they had 10,000 more tons to play with, and the Navy design & construction bureau was specifically ordered by the Navy Top Brass to use that 10,000 tons to make a BB Class that had the same basic armament and protection as the South Dakota Class, but as fast as feasible on a 45,000 ton design. That info is straight from Sumrall's book, as well as other sources.

They were still designed on the same basic dictum: Firepower 1st (the firepower of the Iowas out-stripped all others, except Yamato whose stats were a secret & unknown to the US at that time.) and was acceptable, Armor acceptable Vs that level of fire power 2nd & Speed as available - they just had more "available" for speed - the Montanas would not have been 30kt'ers - they were designed for 28kt to use the weight increase to increase firepower. Armor was basicly the same as it was Vs the same 16"/50

[Thomas E. Johnson]

I must disagree here at least where the Iowa Class comes in. The North Carolina and South Dakota Classes are partly as you say, but they did want them to be as fast as what they knew the best Japanese BB's to be, with equivalent or superior firepower and protection. But when it came to designing the Iowa Class, they had 10,000 more tons to play with, and the Navy design & construction bureau was specifically ordered by the Navy Top Brass to use that 10,000 tons to make a BB Class that had the same basic armament and protection as the South Dakota Class, but as fast as feasible on a 45,000 ton design. That info is straight from Sumrall's book, as well as other sources.

They were still designed on the same basic dictum: Firepower 1st (the firepower of the Iowas out-stripped all others, except Yamato whose stats were a secret & unknown to the US at that time.) and was acceptable, Armor acceptable Vs that level of fire power 2nd & Speed as available - they just had more "available" for speed - the Montanas would not have been 30kt'ers - they were designed for 28kt to use the weight increase to increase firepower. Armor was basicly the same as it was Vs the same 16"/50

The designers wanted to combine the qualities of the battlecruiser and dreadnaught into one type of capitol ship for all new design US battleships. The North Carolina's and South Dakota's were designed to be as fast as all known battleships then in service or being built. They took it to the extreme with the Iowa Class, and created a masterpiece. And the Montana Class was not designed with the same armor protection as the Iowa Class. It was to have more extensive armor, 16-18 inch side armor belts, and 10-12 inch thick armored decks. I forgot which of my books that info comes from, but it is there. And even at that, her 28 knot speed would still have put her as fast as most BBs of other nations, aside from the Bismarck, and the Vittorio Veneto, Classes, both of which she could blow away with ease. So I still would rate her as a "fast battleship."

[GMG4RWF]

The designers wanted to combine the qualities of the battlecruiser and dreadnaught into one type of capitol ship for all new design US battleships. The North Carolina's and South Dakota's were designed to be as fast as all known battleships then in service or being built. They took it to the extreme with the Iowa Class, and created a masterpiece. And the Montana Class was not designed with the same armor protection as the Iowa Class. It was to have more extensive armor, 16-18 inch side armor belts, and 10-12 inch thick armored decks. I forgot which of my books that info comes from, but it is there. And even at that, her 28 knot speed would still have put her as fast as most BBs of other nations, aside from the Bismarck, and the Vittorio Veneto, Classes, both of which she could blow away with ease. So I still would rate her as a "fast battleship."

There's no disputing that they were as fast or faster than any existing BBs at the time of design, but they were not designed to be as fast as carriers (for who speed = wind over deck = larger aircraft able to be carried - if Hornet had a 28kt top speed, Doolittle would have joined the sub service!) but design priority did not switch to 1-speed 2-guns 3-armor it remained 1-gun 2-armor 3-speed, IJN priority was always 1-guns 2-speed 3-armor (as in BCs � the Japanese never really built �Battleships� they built Battlecruisers {or in term used by the IJN: �Armored Cruisers�}). It was simply possible with new equipment available (from carrier designs) to build a BB with overwhelming firepower and high speed without sacrificing Armor (as BCs did).

[Mike W]

Well all Quality (Production & crew etc...) aside - on a pure design level she was about the same size as DKM Bismarck (actually about 3000 tons smaller) carried 1 more 38cm gun on 1 less Barbette. had the same secondary (6-15-15.2 cm guns) in 2 less turrets but 4 fewer tertiary DP guns of smaller caliber in 50% more turrets - overall design was a match for any British Battleship short of the Nelsons which she could out run & any French BB (a tossup with the Jean Bart's) so not bad for Europe at the time - but Washington or South Dakota would have had her for lunch (& they were a little smaller!)

Everything I've read about Washington says the armour scheme was designed to defeat 14" shells but Vittorio Veneto, Bismarck and Richelieu all had 15" guns, so a gun fight between any of them would have been more even than you think.

South Dakota would have a clear advantage in a gun duel since her armour scheme was designed to defeat 16" shells but what if her fire control was hit early on? It happened a few times in WW2 naval actions, where one or more combatants suffered damage to their fire control early on.

thanks
Mike

[GMG4RWF]

Everything I've read about Washington says the armor scheme was designed to defeat 14" shells...

Standard U.S. BB design philosophy was to armor all ships against their own broadside. When designed, she was intended to have quad 14" turrets, to comply with the 2nd Washington Naval Treaty, but with Japan already waffling she was designed from the outset to have either quad 14" or triple 16" just incase (similar to the way Mogami & Scharnhorst were designed). Washing was equipped with the same 12" belt armor as South Dakota, the difference was South Dakota had more slope (hence her being "fatter") so they had a greater immune zone to 16" shell fire. the armor was only 1.5" thinner than Colorado (which was designed Vs. 16"/45s) & of a better type.

... what if her fire control was hit early on....

That's an irrelevant argument, the chances are very low (look at how many rounds total were fired during the war compared to the number of FC hits) any hit there is pure chance, its as impossible to "aim" for the FC as it is impossible to design FC that can't be hit (or it wouldn't be able to see back) and both sides have an equal chance (what would happen if VV took the FC hit instead).

[Mike W]

Everything I've read about Washington says the armor scheme was designed to defeat 14" shells...

Standard U.S. BB design philosophy was to armor all ships against their own broadside. When designed, she was intended to have quad 14" turrets, to comply with the 2nd Washington Naval Treaty, but with Japan already waffling she was designed from the outset to have either quad 14" or triple 16" just incase (similar to the way Mogami & Scharnhorst were designed). Washing was equipped with the same 12" belt armor as South Dakota, the difference was South Dakota had more slope (hence her being "fatter") so they had a greater immune zone to 16" shell fire. the armor was only 1.5" thinner than Colorado (which was designed Vs. 16"/45s) & of a better type.

... what if her fire control was hit early on....

That's an irrelevant argument, the chances are very low (look at how many rounds total were fired during the war compared to the number of FC hits) any hit there is pure chance, its as impossible to "aim" for the FC as it is impossible to design FC that can't be hit (or it wouldn't be able to see back) and both sides have an equal chance (what would happen if VV took the FC hit instead).

I think you missed the point. It's not irrelevant at all. Anything can happen in a naval battle, just because your battleship has bigger guns does not mean it will win every battle and to suggest it would is nonsense.

The point with Washington still stands, they were designed around a 14" main armament and armoured against 14" shells(1500lbs). They were upgunned to 16" but the armour scheme was not upgraded, therefore the firepower advantage against a 15" (1951Lb shell on Veneto) is nullified a little against 15" gunned opponents. On that basis there is no way you can say they would definitely win a battle or even be almost certain of winning.

Where I would say Washington had a clear edge was in her fire control, I know the US fire control was excellent and I suspect superior to Veneto's by a fair margin. So I would give Washington the edge for that reason against Veneto, if it was at night or in bad weather it would be a huge advantage.

Whatever arguments anyone comes up with, it's all just opinions and speculation. Until such a time as every ships technical details can be fed into some kind of non biased computer simulation and a meaningful set of results happen, opinions and speculation is all these sort of discussions can be.

thanks
Mike

[GMG4RWF]

I think you missed the point. It's not irrelevant at all.

No I didn�t � it is irrelevant.

Anything can happen in a naval battle, just because your battleship has bigger guns does not mean it will win every battle

Agreed that � a little D.E. �COULD� sink the Yamato � if "EVERYTHING" went just its way, the Yamato fails to hit with any shots, Yamato fails to turn away, the DE fires just at the right angle, the 5� AP round hits just right to penetrate the Yamato�s secondary magazine hoist, the explosion blows down to her secondary magazine. The Yamato�s flooding system fails. Yea � so does that mean the Yamato is equal to a D.E.? � No the chances of that happening Vs. the Yamato sneezing & blowing the D.E. to driftwood are extremely remote at best!

Where I would say Washington had a clear edge was in her fire control, I know the US fire control was excellent and I suspect superior to Veneto's by a fair margin. So I would give Washington the edge for that reason against Veneto, if it was at night or in bad weather it would be a huge advantage.

yes, very much so � so the chances of her getting a hit on VV�s FC is even greater than the other way around (due to the greater hit probability in general from her better FC) � more hits overall means more chances for a lucky hit in a given spot.

...and to suggest it would is nonsense�On that basis there is no way you can say they would definitely win a battle or even be almost certain of winning� Whatever arguments anyone comes up with, it's all just opinions and speculation...Until such a time as every ships technical details can be fed into some kind of non biased computer simulation and a meaningful set of results happen, opinions and speculation is all these sort of discussions can be.

That would mean any discussion regarding any ships merit over another is irrelevant � so Naval war-gamming (even that done by the Naval War College) is irrelevant!? � I disagree, you take the available data and look at the likely outcomes - not the remote possibilities {Is it possible? - maybe - but chances are it wouldn't happen - so don't worry about it}.

The point with Washington still stands, they were designed around a 14" main armament and armoured against 14" shells(1500lbs). They were upgunned to 16" but the armour scheme was not upgraded, therefore the firepower advantage against a 15" (1951Lb shell on Veneto) is nullified a little against 15" gunned opponents.

She was equipped with the exact same armor as South Dakota, 12� of the most advanced armor available in the US at the time, sloped and stronger than the 13.5� armor the Colorados had been equipped with (& they were designed against their own 16� broadside) it just wasn't as heavily sloped, so she didn't need an armor upgrade. The Washingtons were designed from the outset to carry either 14� or 16� turrets (not reengineered on the fly). Now � they weren�t designed as the IJN Mogami or DKM Scharnhorst to be equipped with 1 and then swapped later to the other � when the design was put down, 2 different designs were made, 1 with 14� quads & 1 with 16� triples with the 2 designs being as close to identical (engines, hull, aircraft accommodations, FC, ARMOR etc�) as could be with the turrets & barbets differing. So the construction could start & be finalized when the 2nd Washington treaty was finalized (one-way or the other). The armor was capable of sustaining 16� hits, it just didn�t have as much slope as that of the South Dakotas & couldn�t deflect the hit from as great an immune zone as they could. Her immune zone against 38cm hits would have been greater than that of 16� hits, you do know that the 28cm�s from the Graf Spee can penetrate the armor of the Iowa � right? At extreme ranges (close or distant) no armor can withstand a very heavy shell being slammed into it (at point blank range � blasting strait from the muzzle to the belt & at maximum range plunging threw the weak deck armor with the full force of gravity behind it) � that�s essentially what happened to the Arizona � she was protected against 14� AP rounds but a 14� AP round dropped from a height (without the benefit of a propellant charge) smashed right threw her deck armor (& the turret armor of the Tennessee) � it�s only at certain �engagement� ranges that armor really protects a battleship. This is known as the �immune zone� and the Washington would have had a fair size immune zone against the Italian 38cm AP, Far better than the VV�s immune zone Vs. a U.S. 16�/45 AP.

[Mike W]

I'm aware how the Washingtons were designed but by the time they opted for the 16" gun it was too late to revise the armour scheme.

The point is NOT irrelevant. Washington had a firepower advantage over European battleships true and probably better all round fire control but that is no guarantee of victory. Your comment about Washington, implying she would be invincible against any European battleship is pure nonsense and irrelevant.

Your way of trying to prove a point by comparing a Destroyer Escort and Yamato or Graf Spee and Iowa is also pointless and irrelevant, seeing as realistically a Destroyer Escort has no realistic way of sinking or crippling Yamato, like wise Graf Spee Vs Iowa. It's about battleship Vs battleship.

WW2 Naval Combat was not an exact science and there are too many variables to guarantee results. Hood and Prince of Wales, on paper, superior to Bismarck, yet Bismarck sinks Hood in 5 salvoes (without the use of radar gunnery too) due to a lucky magazine hit. Renown encounters Scharnhorst and Gniesnau off Norway and in a few salvoes has knocked out Gniesnau's forward fire control - you could have substituted Gniesnau for Washington and the same thing could have happened within the first few shots. In the battle of the North Cape, HMS Norfolk fired a few salvoes at Scharnhorst and knocked out her forward fire control.

My point was simply any European battleship would be capable of doing that to Washington, severley hampering Wasington's shooting and from then on could cripple it in the same way as Rodney and KGV did to Bismarck. Yes Washington has advantages over European battleship but that would not render her invincible by any means.

[Atma]

Really North Carolina class was the nadir of US Battleships design.
The Lexington battlecruisers too. One of the worst warships ever. Thankfully for the sailors, they never completed as Battlecruisers.
Now back at the North Carolina class, they have massive turbulence problems with the propellers, its doubtful if she can run at full speed and I dont know when this problem was solved. And Im not impressed with VV class gunnery skills(besides the FC) like Im not impressed with North Carolina's.
Both Vittorio Veneto and North Carolina class are comparable.
But at the end of the day I prefer the South Dakota and Richelieu class as the most "powerful" and "successful" battleships of the W. Treaty(IJN Yamato belongs to his own league).

[Atma]

And to end this. I tend to give the edge to South Dakota(I prefer them even over the Iowas ) and Richelieu(IMO the best European battleship) versus North Carolina, Vittorio Veneto and King Geroge V class battleships.
And between the last three in my opinion I prefer Vittorio Veneto mostly for looks cause thats the only significant edge between those 3, everything else is on an equal footing AND collective outlook and behaviour for a single ship(fanboyism).
Vittorio Veneto are truly underestimate battleship designs.

[igorp]

So, reading between lines, Atma, NC were bad ships, dangerous for own sailors, and South Dakota's were gorgeous, right? Remember Guadalcanal battle with SoDak and Washington versus Kirishima? Which ship saved that day?

[Atma]

So, reading between lines, Atma, NC were bad ships, dangerous for own sailors, and South Dakota's were gorgeous, right? Remember Guadalcanal battle with SoDak and Washington versus Kirishima? Which ship saved that day?

I prefer a Vittorio Veneto, a King George IV, Richelieu or South Dakota battleship over North Carolina.
Yes USS North Carolina class had terrible severe problems with the turbulence on the propellers, USS South Dakota had better armour than USS North Carolina and no severe turbulence problem in the propellers. Those facts dosnt change.
Simple put, USS South Dakota class was the epitome of battleship design for the United States Navy.