Vittorio Veneto vs Washington Treaty Battleships

[igorp]

And I don't.
I agree that South Dakota class is, without doubts, the most advanced design of the battleship within treaty limits, given by the fact it was the latest design. That's is what it is all about, the succeeding design is always better than preceding, maybe only with exception of R class.
One can find some disadvantage on every ship class you mentioned, for example VV had very limited range, inaccurate main battery, KGV range and manoeuvrability was also not exceptional, Richelieu suffered from slow rate of fire, and the vibration problem of the NC, which was never fully cured. SoDak was cramped.
If I had to choose, in 1941 I would take Washington against all mentioned ships.

[just some dude]

1) 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.

2) Simple put, USS South Dakota class was the epitome of battleship design for the United States Navy.

1) The South Dakota class suffered from vibration problems too, if that is what you mean by "severe turbulence problem in the propellers."

A many bladed propeller test was tried out in the following sources:
"Battleships", US BB's in WWII/Dulin & Garzke, Anna,MD.,various editions,
U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman. page 287: ...."The designers cut the necessary area out of the bottom of the hull, forming a tunnel". "In its case, the chief risk was vibration due to interaction between propellers and skegs".(...)
Page 294: "All ships but Indiana (BB-58) were completed with four-bladed propellers on each shaft". (...) "Model tests showed that five-bladed props inboard would be superior"(...)"Vibration trials (Indiana) in September of 1942 showed this arrangement superior to the 4 blade outboard/3 blade inboard combination installed aboard the South Dakota (BB-57) and the 5/4 combination was installed aboard the Massachusetts (BB-59) (1944)"(...) , etc.......
Massachusetts, (Ship's Data)-Leeward publications, Anna, MD. 1979, page 22: (...) "A variety of propeller configurations was tried, in an effort to reduce vibration at high speed"(...) (...) "Alabama (BB-60) trials showed severe fore and aft vibrations due to inboard strut-supported propellers, and rather less severe athwardship vibrations due to the outboard skeg-supported ones; as a result the inboard four bladed propellers were replaced by three-bladed ones". "Five bladed propellers were also tried"(...)

As with the North Carolina class, they eventually found the right combination of propellers to reduce the vibration to an acceptable level.

2) I am curious as to why you say that the South Dakota class represented the epitome, rather than the Iowa class, given that the Iowa is for the most part a larger, faster South Dakota, with more powerful 16" guns.

[Atma]

2) I am curious as to why you say that the South Dakota class represented the epitome, rather than the Iowa class, given that the Iowa is for the most part a larger, faster South Dakota, with more powerful 16" guns.

Everything you say about USS Iowa class is true. But all the praise of USS Iowa class come from the years of active duty that receive after the war -during the war almost all battleships in the US Navy arsenal prove good enough to be used as floating AA platform-and Im sure that they have do nothing that a USS South Dakota class wouldn't be able to do.
Also the armour scheme of USS South Dakota was, simple put amazing, and USS Iowa's armour scheme was bascicly same as USS South Dakota. In my opinion USS Iowas was stretched more comfy USS South Dakota
I strongly believe the USS South Dakota was the epitome of US Navy battleship design.
Of course USS South Dakota design suffered from cramped conditions and that's I believe the reason that they decommissioned fast after the war spending more time in decommission state than active.
Also during the '50's when USS Iowa class was active during the Korean War, they where better battleships in other nations, in particular France. Jean Bart after she was finished she had better FC control and AA equipped.
So in my list, even during the early '50's when there was only 3 classes of Battleships active(the 4 USS Iowas class, 2 Richelieu and the HMS Vanguard) USS Iowa couldn't take the crown of the best battleship. The only advance of USS Iowa class was the main guns.
Anyway back at the topic. Vittorio Veneto was a noble design, that suffered from handicaps that had the roots in the doctrine and leadership of the Italian navy. But in the Mediterranean sea where Vittorio Veneto was meant to "fight", she was king of the seas.
Too bad the 2 reaming Vittorio Veneto class battleship would used against Japan in the Pacific side of the WWII. Im curious about the results. Im guessing lots of modification in the ventilation and fuel capacity would be required.

[Vlad]

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.