Baddest Battleships - World War I Edition

[DesertFox]

On Combined Fleet, there is a "Baddest Battleship" page. I am thinking it might be interesting to do the same thing for World War One Battleships. These would be battleships which actually served during World War One not post World War One exempting the Hood, California, Colorado, Nagato classes. These are also unmodified, not as modified for World War II.

 

These are the various factors from the Combined Fleet page

Guns

Armor

Underwater Protection

Fire-Control

Tactical Factors

Secondary Armament: Anti-ship

Operational Factors

 

I removed "Anti-Aircraft" because it had not been a major feature at that time. As well, if there are any factors which anybody thinks should be added?

 

Contenders

Austria-Hungary: Tegetthoff class

British: Queen Elizabeth class

France: Bretagne class

German: Bayern class

Italy: Doria class

Japan: Ise class

Russia: Imperator Nikolai I class

United States: New Mexico class

I would like to read reasons behind arguing why one class is better than the others, perhaps with a rating like the Combined Fleet page. As well, if there are any that people feel should be added to the list?

 

I am sure that I will be accused of being prejudice but will start with arguing for the New Mexico class. There are a few things I will have to look up later to make this complete.

 

Guns

12 14 inch mounts firing a heavy shell disposed in four turrets. Throw weight - 16,800 lbs. Can only be raised up to 15 degrees but has good penetration although inferior to German and British 15 inch shells. All Navies shells were unreliable at this time however as far as penetrating and bursting.

The US ammunition protection scheme appears to have been safer than the British system along with their cordite being far more stable.

Armor

All or nothing.

Main Belt 13.5 inch. US armor steel was not quite up to German and British standards. Still, better distributed than most Navies' armor scheme. As well, the ship has quite heavy deck armor for its generation. Heavier armor on turrets / Barbettes than the Queen Elizabeth class. Also, no separate thickness for upper and lower belt and thinning on the sides. Less is protected by an all or nothing scheme but what is protected is better protected. As well, non armored portions don't create shell fusing for AP shells.

Underwater Protection

Reasonably decent with multiple bulkhead although no bulge for additional protection. Good subdivision, much improved over previous classes. Four shaft vice three shafts for Bayern.

Fire-Control

Generally fire control was less advanced than British and German until after technical exchanges with Great Britain and serving with the British Fleet.

Tactical Factors

Speed 21 knots, a bit below the speed of the Queen Elizabeth class but equal to Bayern class. Four shafts vice three shafts makes the ship likely more manuevable than Bayern.

Secondary Armament: Anti-ship

14 single mounts 5/51 compared to 14 6 inch mounts for Queen Elizabeth and 16 5.9 inch mounts for Bayern. Had a higher rate of fire than the 6 inch mounts and 5.9 inch mounts. Slight less ability to "Knock out" destroyers however.

Operational Factors

Great range due to needing to operate in Pacific (~20,000 nm).

[bojan]

Comparing just throw weight is dangerous approach, quality of shell played large factor, eg. Brits found out that Russian 12/52 guns have better penetration then their own 13.5" guns until they introduced greenboy (IIRC) shell when those became roughly same.

[Olof Larsson]

Comparing just throw weight is dangerous approach, quality of shell played large factor, eg. Brits found out that Russian 12/52 guns have better penetration then their own 13.5" guns until they introduced greenboy (IIRC) shell when those became roughly same.

 

This was not only because of flawed brittish design, but also because the russian 12"/52 fired a shell

with a sectional density and muzzle velocity similar to the 13,5"/45".

[gridley]

I'm certainly interested, but won't be able to contribute since you already did the ship I have the most technical information about. :-)

[Getz]

I'm going to address a couple of your points before putting forward my own candidate...

 

Guns

12 14 inch mounts firing a heavy shell disposed in four turrets. Throw weight - 16,800 lbs. Can only be raised up to 15 degrees but has good penetration although inferior to German and British 15 inch shells. All Navies shells were unreliable at this time however as far as penetrating and bursting.

 

Sadly for the US, this is simply not true. The British Green Boy Shells and all German shells are extremely capable of penetrating in a bursting condition at pretty oblique angles. US shells were not fixed until well into the 20's meaning that in the time frame indicated the New Mexicos have an impressive throw weight but precious little chance of doing any damage when they actually do hit. As far as I understand the problem with US shells was primarily to do with delay fusing, as in they didn't have any. As a result they would normally either explode outside of the armour or partially penetrate. The later makes for impressive holes in armour plates, but doesn't help you actually sink ships.

 

In addition, the triple 14"/50 mount suffered from really bad dispersal problems. These were never entirely solved and had not been addressed at all as of 1918.

 

Therefore, despite looking good on paper, the New Mexicos probably have overall the worst main armament of the nominated ships as of 1918.

 

The US ammunition protection scheme appears to have been safer than the British system along with their cordite being far more stable.

 

This is certainly true

 

Armor

All or nothing.

Main Belt 13.5 inch. US armor steel was not quite up to German and British standards. Still, better distributed than most Navies' armor scheme. As well, the ship has quite heavy deck armor for its generation. Heavier armor on turrets / Barbettes than the Queen Elizabeth class. Also, no separate thickness for upper and lower belt and thinning on the sides. Less is protected by an all or nothing scheme but what is protected is better protected. As well, non armored portions don't create shell fusing for AP shells.

 

This rather depends on what kind of battles you expect to fight. In actual fact an all or nothing scheme would have probably been a very bad choice at Jutland as most of the fighting took place at moderate ranges where the incremental schemes used by both the Germans and British worked as advertised - the problem was the lack of horizontal protection and plunging fire hitting turret roofs in particular. However, for long ranged gunnery in the Pacific AoN armour makes much more sense.

 

It is probably noteworthy that the Germans studied AoN for the Bayern follow on design and rejected it as being unsuitable for the sort of short ranged fights they expected in the North Sea and Baltic. Also, post war the Royal Navy adopted a much more measured system in the G3 and Nelson designs, where the weight saving aspect of AoN was adopted, but differing thicknesses of armour were applied depending on the significance of the system it was protecting

 

Underwater Protection

Reasonably decent with multiple bulkhead although no bulge for additional protection. Good subdivision, much improved over previous classes. Four shaft vice three shafts for Bayern.

 

However much the four shaft layout might provide some theoretical advantage over the German three shaft layout, German underwater protection was so vastly better in every other way that it's irrelevant. US underwater protection was okay, but certainly no superior to British practice and miles behind the Germans.

 

Fire-Control

Generally fire control was less advanced than British and German until after technical exchanges with Great Britain and serving with the British Fleet.

 

Agree

 

Tactical Factors

Speed 21 knots, a bit below the speed of the Queen Elizabeth class but equal to Bayern class. Four shafts vice three shafts makes the ship likely more manuevable than Bayern.

 

Arguable, all the German Battleships were very handy in practice (unlike their battlecruisers). Also, exactly how fast the Bayerns were will never be known, but they were definately faster than 21 knots. After the war started German ships did not run proper deep water measured miles and performed their trials at full load. This is why the Derfflingers only achieved 26 knots on trials but were easily able to keep up with the Molktes and Seydlitz which were nominally 28 knot ships. Similarly, the Konigs only did 21 knots on trials but were faster in service than the Kaisers which were capable of 23 knots, Grosser Kurfurst unofficially achieving 24 knots at Jutland. The Bayerns were probably 22-23 knot ships in service.

 

Secondary Armament: Anti-ship

14 single mounts 5/51 compared to 14 6 inch mounts for Queen Elizabeth and 16 5.9 inch mounts for Bayern. Had a higher rate of fire than the 6 inch mounts and 5.9 inch mounts. Slight less ability to "Knock out" destroyers however.

 

Make that "significantly less ability to knock out destroyers" and we might agree - also the rate of fire wasn't really any higher in practice either. Much like the QEs, the New Mexicos secondary armament was frequently unworkable in any kind of sea way. Because the Bayerns had significantly more beam their battery was mounted slightly inboard making them somewhat drier in all conditions. None of these ships have especially effective secondary batteries by later standards, but as of 1918 the Bayern's was easily the best on account of this factor alone.

 

Operational Factors

Great range due to needing to operate in Pacific (~20,000 nm).

 

Only relevant to a navy that has to sail across the pacific without any refueling stops - or in other words, only relevant to the US Navy. For any other navy this is an inefficient use of available tonnage and could actually be considered a drawback, not an advantage.

 

In the murky North Sea without radar it would be very hard to beat the Bayerns, but by vote goes for the Queen Elizabeths for the following reasons;

 

Guns:

The Royal Navy 15"/42 was probably the single most satisfactory piece of naval ordnance ever designed, being the longest ranged and most accurate of the guns listed with period elevation. The Greenboy shells it fires are also easily the best penetrators of the period. It short, it will hit first, hit most often and hit hardest of the guns listed. The only one that comes close is the German 380mm from the Bayerns, but they have been optimised for flat shooting, short ranged engagements - the 15"/42 is dangerous over all range regimes.

 

Armor:

The QE's don't have the best armour of the ships listed, and it isn't arranged all that efficiently, but they are still well protected by period standards. They also will have had their turret roofs and decks thickened by 1918.

 

Underwater Protection:

By 1918, the QE's had received torpedo bulges, giving them good underwater protection. Obviously, they couldn't match the German BB's for underwater protection, but they were at least as good as any other ship in the world.

 

Fire-Control:

Circa 1918, Royal Navy Fire control was arguably the best in the world. German fire control was excellent but is not well documented so it's hard to make comparisons, whilst the US and Japanese navies only got close by copying RN equipment and procedures. Nobody else can compete.

 

Tactical Factors:

Obviously, the QE's were the fastest BBs in the world at the time, although their effective top speed of 24 knots isn't that much faster than the Ise's or what the Bayerns were probably capable of. They were certainly handy ships.

 

Secondary Armament: Anti-ship

The 6" QF was a excellent piece, but the positioning was undoubtedly poor.

 

Operational Factors:

I'm not sure what to put here in a 1918 context. Oil Firing was certainly helpful - as was being part of the largest, most powerful navy in the world.

 

 

Of course - there is another class of ships which have been missed out from the list of nominees - the Royal Sovereigns. All of the above applies except form my comments about protection - the Rs were as well protected as any ship afloat in 1918 - and speed, but compared to most of the ships listed 21 knots is easily fast enough. It was only in the context of the 30's where the R class's lack of speed became a liability.

 

You'll notice that I haven't given any much time for the other ships nominated. I don't personally rate the Ises and Fuso all that highly and while the Austro-hugarian, Italian and Russian submissions all have technical merit, they are also all about a generation behind the New Mexicos, QE's and Bayerns. As for the Bretagne class, they were okay I guess, but they don't compare well to the Iron Dukes, Konigs or New Yorks, much less a more modern class.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Getz

[DesertFox]

Sorry Getz, I notice one error you make already.

 

According to Friedman,

The Queen Elizabeth class was rated at 280 lbs of TNT

The Baden class was rated at 330 lbs of TNT

The Pennsylvania class was rated at 300 lbs of TNT and the Tennessee was rated at 400 lbs of TNT. The New Mexico class is considered improved over the Pennsylvania and more like the Tennessee class. This would give it the best underwater protection most likely.

[Getz]

According to Conway's the New Mexicos were essentially repeat Pennsylvanias, the only differences being the improved battery, clipper bow and slightly thickened main bulkheads. According to Conway's, underwater protection was not improved until the Tennessee class, which were indeed rated against 400 lb of TNT. I'm afraid I don't have Freidman so your claim is new to me.

 

However, underwater protection is a function of more than just the TNT rating of the TDS - it also encompasses drainage and subdivision. The Bayerns were more minutely subdivided than any of the other ships listed here and had significantly more pumping capacity. In addition, German underwater protection has been more comprehensively tested than any other nations and was only found wanting with the loss of the Lutzow (who shipped a huge amount of water before being declared unsavable) so it's quality is well established. British period underwater protection was only properly tested once with HMS Marlborough, who had virtually identical underwater protection to the QE's and was never placed at risk of sinking (I'm discounting Audacious as many of her watertight bulkheads were still open as per peacetime regulations when she was mined). US period underwater protection was never tested.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Getz

[DesertFox]

The US torpedo defense of the USS Washington was well tested and was shown to be equal to the 400 lb TNT or greater that it was considered to be. Friedman talks about tests against it in his Washington Treaty chapter. (Edit: Friedman seems to state that the underwater protection of the New Mexico class was changed from the Pennsylvania)

 

All or nothing frees up tonnage for turret tops and deck. As well, if you look at simple percentage of displacement devoted to armor, the New Mexico just has under the Bayern and both have far greater values than the Queen Elizabeth.

 

As far as dispersion, I remember reading that US 14/50 dispersion was considered excessive but I cannot find any actual numbers to evaluate what that means in real terms.

 

Interesting is that while the New Mexico class might lag behind slightly in speed, they have a very small tactical diameter for a battleship and in fact better than US destroyers of the same time period. This gives them an advantage according to some sources at dodging torpedoes over faster vessels.

 

The reason I tend to hit the "R" class is that I have read is because my understand that their low GM was always a major handicap.

 

Edit: As far as shell, I too have read about problems with US shells but the problem is that I have read of problems, that while different in nature, reduce British and German shells in effectiveness against armor to the same extend at the US shells. As such, I kind of classify it as a wash except against light armors.

Edited November 3, 2010 by DesertFox

[Getz]

The US torpedo defense of the USS Washington was well tested and was shown to be equal to the 400 lb TNT or greater that it was considered to be. Friedman talks about tests against it in his Washington Treaty chapter. (Edit: Friedman seems to state that the underwater protection of the New Mexico class was changed from the Pennsylvania)

 

Sorry mate, my sources dispute this. I don't have any books speciically about US battleships, but all of my general resources state that the New Mexicos were repeat Pennsylvanias with new guns, clipper bows and detail changes to the armouring. None mention improvements to the TDS until the Tennessee class.

 

Edit: As far as shell, I too have read about problems with US shells but the problem is that I have read of problems, that while different in nature, reduce British and German shells in effectiveness against armor to the same extend at the US shells. As such, I kind of classify it as a wash except against light armors.

 

I'm afraid that last bit is absolutely untrue. Prior to the introduction of Greenboy shells in early 1918, British shells were famously prone to pre-detonation drastically reducing their effectiveness, however Greenboy shells suffered no such problems and were probably the best shells in use anywhere in the world by the end of the war. They did not suffer any of the sorts of problems that bedevilled US shells until the mid 20's.

 

Similarly, German shells were extremely reliable penetrators, and while they may have suffered a slightly higher dud rate than British shells it was still less than 5% at Jutland, not the sort of thing you'd bet the farm on...

 

As of 1918, both navies had very effective and capable shells for the period, whilst anyone that belives that US shells circa 1918 when anything other than seriously defective is kidding themselves. Anyone who thinks that it doesn't matter because everyone else's shells were just as bad is just plain wrong.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Getz

[DesertFox]

According to Friedman in US cruisers (page 97), no rounds penetrated more than nine inches of armor at Jutland.

 

Where is the New Mexico armored less than about 13.5 inches of armor where there is enough armor to cause fusing?

 

Edit: Friedman, on page 193 of US Battleships, has a drawing of the underwater protection. Pennsylvania has a two layer void system while the New Mexico has a three layer void system. The Tennessee of course is even better with a mixture of void and liquid layers. The New Mexico void layers is actually deeper than the Void/Liquid layers of the Tennessee.

 

I tend to put the New Mexico system half way between the Pennsylvania and Tennessee system. Even if it is closer to the Pennsylvania side, this still puts it about the Bayern level. Even Pennsylvania is already above the Queen Elizabeth class.

 

An extra added factor with the New Mexico herself is that she is a turbo-electric vessel as built which allowed for better subdivision.

 

Edit-2: Most sources argue almost the direct opposite that you do on Jutland. That is that after Jutland, the attention was on longer range combat and increased deck armor. According to "Warspite: Anatomy of a Ship" (Just borrowed it from the local library), the deck armor of her became a concern immediately after Jutland. The did not do much in the way of additional armor initially. According to Friedman, only the US Standard were not extensively modified as a result of lessons learned at Jutland.

 

You also write about the Queen Elizabeth class were given bulges during World War I. According to Warspite, she was not given her bulges post Washington Treaty and she was the first of the class modified. As well, this bulge relieved most of her overweight problem indicating that she was overweight early on.

 

Also, one advantage that the US fire control computer had over the British fire control system was that it could calculate differential equations. It eventually actually was the formation of the WW2 Norden bomb sight.

 

Edit-3: Just curious, what source are you using for United States World War One shells? I would like to read more if possible.

Edited November 4, 2010 by DesertFox

[Getz]

According to Friedman in US cruisers (page 97), no rounds penetrated more than nine inches of armor at Jutland.

 

Quite correct, but the Bayerns were not at Jutland and the QE's and R's were not firing Greenboys. The data at from Jutland tells us nothing about the capabilities of guns and shells that entered service in 1917-1918

 

Where is the New Mexico armored less than about 13.5 inches of armor where there is enough armor to cause fusing?

 

So what? The German 38cm SK L45 and the British Royal Ordnance 15"/42 with Greenboys were both capable of defeating 13.5" of armour at the kind of battle ranges plausible with 1918 fire control

 

Edit: Friedman, on page 193 of US Battleships, has a drawing of the underwater protection. Pennsylvania has a two layer void system while the New Mexico has a three layer void system. The Tennessee of course is even better with a mixture of void and liquid layers. The New Mexico void layers is actually deeper than the Void/Liquid layers of the Tennessee.

 

And Conway's does not agree. Impasse - I suggest that we stop waving our books at one another because as long as we both have conflicting sources on this subject we are unlikely to find any kind of consensus.

 

Also, one advantage that the US fire control computer had over the British fire control system was that it could calculate differential equations. It eventually actually was the formation of the WW2 Norden bomb sight.

 

And yet the USN couldn't shoot for shit when they joined the Grand fleet, wheras the Grand Fleet shot extremely well at Jutland. Only the Battlecruiser Fleet put in a sub par gunnery performance.

 

Okay, on the subject of AoN armour. Jutland was fought at a variety of ranges, including ranges lower than 10,000 yards. At that kind of range the Incremental armour schemes worked as advertised - and the German battleships were hit additionally hit by numerous medium calibre shells which arguably vindicated the inclusion on medium armour. However, at longer ranges the decks and turret roofs proved vulnerable and the lesson drawn was that battles would be fought at increasing ranges so thicker deck and turret roof would be essential. The AoN theory was adopted because it permitted economy of armour weight, but was not designed in response to the lessons of Jutland.

[DesertFox]

You did not answer the question on your source on US shells so that I might further research.

 

Second, do you have any examples of Greenboys and/or German WW1 shells penetrating anything close to 13 inches of armor and bursting properly

 

Third, does Conway specifically break down the underwater system of USS New Mexico. If it is a vague reference such as "no major improvement" then Friedman would trump that. It shows the system and how it was modified with a bulge later on.

 

Edit: No matter how good or bad the US Fleet did, the Birtish would have problems with them. That is not to say that the US did not have severe problems and the British navy had been fighting and training hard for several years so it is pretty obvious that the British Navy would be better

 

That being said, the Ford fire control computer had only appeared in the fleet in 1917 so it was brand new equipment. As well, the US Navy forces were able to learn a lot from the British navy.

 

This is a bit enlightening and supports my argument that all had problems

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-017.htm

Edited November 4, 2010 by DesertFox

[Getz]

You did not answer the question on your source on US shells so that I might further research.

 

I've been discussing US shells (amongst other things) here;

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/14577

 

Check out the posts by Delcryos, who is something of an authority on the subject, in particular post 19. I have asked him for some paper or online sources for you to check out and was hoping to have a reply before posting it up, but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your challenge.

 

Second, do you have any examples of Greenboys and/or German WW1 shells penetrating anything close to 13 inches of armor and bursting properly

 

On the subject of Greenboy shells, during the firing trials conducted by Erebus and Terror against Baden, the Greenboy APC shells penetrated 13.8" in bursting condition between 11 and 18.5 degrees at a muzzle velocity of 1550 fps, simulating a range of about 16,000 yards. Shells were also fired at 1380 fps, simulating about 22,000 yards, at which range they were defeated by 13.8" armour at 12 degrees. Ergo, at 16,000 yards, which was medium/long range in 1918, the Greenboy shells could defeat the thickest armour on the New Mexico's. You can find lots more details here;

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.htm

 

I have much less data at my fingertips about the penetration performance of the German 38cm guns, but referring to the same website, the gun was rated to defeat 13.78" of WWII standard armour at 13,000 yards (inclination unknown - the tests were performed in 1938 in comparison to the 38cm L52 for the Bismarck class) and may have been able to defeat 13.23" of WWI era armour at about 22,000 yards. More data here;

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-45_skc13.htm

 

Third, does Conway specifically break down the underwater system of USS New Mexico. If it is a vague reference such as "no major improvement" then Friedman would trump that. It shows the system and how it was modified with a bulge later on.

 

As a rule, books do not trouble to detail the things that stayed the same. Conways states quite clearly that the only significant changes between the Pennsylvanias and New Mexicos were guns, bow and bulkheads (oh, and the siting of the secondary battery). The statement that they were the same except for those factors obviously includes the TDS without specifically mentioning it, in much the same way as they don't tell us that the speed was the same, or that the belt armour was the same because it should be obviously implicit to anyone but a pedant trying to assert one source over another. Look, if you can find some primary source material backing up your claim then fair enough, but as things stand we have two reputable sources saying different things. There is no point going to war over it.

 

This is a bit enlightening and supports my argument that all had problems

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-017.htm

 

I've read this essay before. Whilst the Germans did have problems with duds and low order deflagrations (which I believe I had already mentioned) the article somewhat overstates the scale of the problem. As stated before, the dud rate for German shells at Jutland was less than 5%, and while the failure of a shell to properly detonate probably saved Tiger when her turret was penetrated, there are few examples of deflagration from Jutland either. To be honest, I'd still rather have a shell that can reliably penetrate in bursting condition and detonate correctly most of the time than have one that almost invariably detonates prematurely or only partially penetrates and therefore is only capable of inflicting superficial damage to an enemy ship.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Getz

[DesertFox]

I am going to have some other items but wanted to ask one item

Does Conway's list that the New Mexico herself was Turbo-Electric?

If not, I think I can argue that it is incomplete

 

While I don't trust it for armor thickness, I can get partial references from Jane's Fighting Ships of World War One, and on such broad subjects as that I think we can be fairly positive about. It too agrees with Friedman that New Mexico was Turbo-Electric.

[Lieste]

Brown agrees that the New Mexico was turbo-electric, and that this allowed closer subdivision... but he also notes that this powerplant was 2.5-3 times less weight/space efficient than the Hood's steam turbine, and also less economical requiring significantly more steam for the same power output.

 

He also notes that although the protection scheme was 'on-paper' much better than the RS or QE, it was let down by a single switch room for all electrical power, exposed by large ventilation trunks to damage from bursting shells to a greater extent than would be desirable. The subdivision was also only of great benefit in theory, the number of pipes/fittings etc compromising the WT integrity was too high for any significant protection to be gained. As an example he quotes glass windows low down in the generator-room watertight bulkhead!

 

Goodall reported that the USN had more bulkhead penetrations than RN practice - examination of the Baden in 1918 suggested that German practice was possibly even worse with many bulkhead penetrations from the elaborate pumping systems and voice pipes, and they had severe problems with flooding on the Sedlitz and Lutzow. The RN suffered several losses to flooding via these defects - Audacious, Majestic in WW1, POW in WW2 are known to have had severe (and terminal) flooding of machinery spaces via bulkhead penetrations.

[RETAC21]

What would be the hit rate at 22.000 or at 16.000 yards? given that about 20 hits on average were needed to put a battleship out of action, I would suggest that no decisive result would be obtained at those ranges, and at closer ranges armor would become irrelevant.

[Getz]

I am going to have some other items but wanted to ask one item

Does Conway's list that the New Mexico herself was Turbo-Electric?

If not, I think I can argue that it is incomplete

 

Of course Conways notes that New Mexico was turbo electric. I thought we were talking about the classes common features. There were two conventionaly powered New Mexicos after all...

[DesertFox]

Brown agrees that the New Mexico was turbo-electric, and that this allowed closer subdivision... but he also notes that this powerplant was 2.5-3 times less weight/space efficient than the Hood's steam turbine, and also less economical requiring significantly more steam for the same power output.

 

I have to be honest with you. . . .

After some of Brown's writings on other US Warship classes, I am thinking he is prejudice against US hardware without good merit.

 

Direct quote out of Nelson to Vanguard (Page 38)

A Personal View

Because of her 'second-hand' guns, Vanguard is often considered a second-rate ship. However, she was much superior to King George V; compared with Iowa, her 15 inch shells should have little difficulty penetrating the thin belt of inferior armor. On the other hand, the heavy US shells would have caused much damage. Much would depend on who got the first hit; Vanguard could range to 36,500 yards and it is unlikely that Iowa could hit at greater ranges. I would have given her a good chance against the much larger Yamato

 

I have to state that this statement makes me cringe and puts a lot of doubt in my evaluation of him.

 

First, she cannot use super charges due to barrel wear and maximum range is 29,000 yards not 36,500 for the 15 inch/42.

 

Second, he completely ignores the angled belt. At any likely range, the shell be be at a steep decent against the angled armor. At just 16 k yards, the 15/42 round (with a decent angle of 15.6 degrees) would have to penetrate 14.8 inches of belt armor (just calculating thickness not energy deflection - 32% of energy would be deflected) due to the 19 degrees incline on the 12.2 inch belt compared to 14.5 inches for Vanguard's non inclined 14 inch belt. By that, it is actually thicker than Vanguard's belt. It was also designed to resist 16 inch shells at a reasonable set of ranges. In that case, it makes no sense why she would not resist the lighter 15 inch shells.

 

Third, comparing her to the Yamato. Her belt is 16.1 inches and angled as well. According to what I have been able to find at 20 degrees. Her main deck is almost 7.9 inches. Only at 29 K yards could the main deck be penetrated and she then has a 3.5 inch second deck. I get 8.6 inches by adding the square of them against each other and taking the square root of that. That cannot be penetrated at any range. Her belt thickness cannot even be penetrated flat at greater than 18 k yards and playing with angles and how much energy is deflected, we likely get that she would have to be within 12 k yards at best to penetrate the Yamato. Yes, I am using Japanese armor figures.

 

On the other hand, the Vanguard can be penetrated in her belt out to 26 k yards. The 16/50 with a 2700 lb shell has a similar performance against Vanguard's armor.

 

Edit: Throughout these calculations, I used the tables using Nathan Okum's formulas to calculate penetration and angle of decent.

 

Edit: On the power vs weight - Tennessee appears to generate 30,980 (No listing on New Mexico and Mississippi is GT) on 1,862 tons of machinery. Hood generates 144,000 on 5,300 tons of machinery. A second comparison point in Lexington which appears to have generated 180,000 on 5,743 tons.

Edited November 5, 2010 by DesertFox

[Getz]

First, she cannot use super charges due to barrel wear and maximum range is 29,000 yards not 36,500 for the 15 inch/42.

 

Christ DesertFox, you keep on coming up with these things that are completely untrue. Where are you getting your data from? Although Vanguard never carried supercharges in service she was specially fitted with strengthened mountings so that she could use them and range tables were prepared for supercharges in the 30 degree mount. Furthermore, the 15"/42 - being a distinctly unstressed, overengineered gun in it's orginal form - was able to easily accomodate supercharges without suffering extreme barrel wear.

 

Therefore the Vanguard could have ranged out to 36,500 yards with a wartime load and at that range she could have defeated an Iowa's deck protection. There is no argument that the Iowas had sigificantly more hitting power, however.

 

You seem to think that a naval battle is conducted like a game of top trumps where you compare statistics and the one with the highest number wins. However, there is always far more to the equation than that. Vanguard could have defeated a Yamato by using her radar guided gunnery to outrange the Japanese ship, then attacking her with high explosive in order to blind and mission kill her and having her destroyer escort torpedo her to finish her off. This theory is often used to explain how an Iowa of South Dakota could defeat a Yamato and Vanguard could do it just as readily. Brown is saying that despite her apparent flaws, Vanguard was good enough to defeat an Iowa or Yamato, even though she wasn't necessarily superior to them.

 

Or are you rejecting sources because they don't agree with your predjudices?

Edited November 5, 2010 by Getz

[Steven P Allen]

While Friedman is not infallible, his info is certainly to be trusted over Conway's.

[DesertFox]

Christ DesertFox, you keep on coming up with these things that are completely untrue. Where are you getting your data from? Although Vanguard never carried supercharges in service she was specially fitted with strengthened mountings so that she could use them and range tables were prepared for supercharges in the 30 degree mount. Furthermore, the 15"/42 - being a distinctly unstressed, overengineered gun in it's orginal form - was able to easily accomodate supercharges without suffering extreme barrel wear.

 

Therefore the Vanguard could have ranged out to 36,500 yards with a wartime load and at that range she could have defeated an Iowa's deck protection. There is no argument that the Iowas had sigificantly more hitting power, however.

 

You seem to think that a naval battle is conducted like a game of top trumps where you compare statistics and the one with the highest number wins. However, there is always far more to the equation than that. Vanguard could have defeated a Yamato by using her radar guided gunnery to outrange the Japanese ship, then attacking her with high explosive in order to blind and mission kill her and having her destroyer escort torpedo her to finish her off. This theory is often used to explain how an Iowa of South Dakota could defeat a Yamato and Vanguard could do it just as readily. Brown is saying that despite her apparent flaws, Vanguard was good enough to defeat an Iowa or Yamato, even though she wasn't necessarily superior to them.

 

Or are you rejecting sources because they don't agree with your predjudices?

 

Same source you linked to earlier

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.htm

 

However, from a study of the records, it would appear that no ship ever fired a shot using Super Charges, although they were used by the coastal artillery at Dover. Super Charges were not issued to ships with 30 degree mountings

as the increased barrel wear and mounting stress was not considered to be acceptable.

For this reason, sources which quote HMS Vanguard as having gun ranges in excess of 32,000 yards (29,260 m) are somewhat misleading, as such a range would have required the use of super charges, which she never carried.

 

If you wish to substitute the words "Did Not" for "Can Not", that is fine and a quibble. My biggest argument is that he completely ignored that Iowa's 12.2 inch belt is at 19 degrees when he argued in "The Grand Fleet" that Hood's armor at 12 degrees makes her 12 inch belt equal to 14 or 15 inches so he definitely knows about the effect. If effect, he is writing a falsehood either through ignorance (which is what I hope) or willfully.

 

[Edit: Actually a even simpler failure is that multiple sources give that the Iowa has a good immunity zone against a 16 inch/45 gun firing a 2240 lb shell yet he seems to think that it would not resist the lighter 15/42 at least at the same ranges.

 

Somebody else I was discussing with gave this information:

 

Dulin & Garzke, US Battleships in WW2, page 140:

"The armor protection of the Iowa provided an immunity zone of from 17,600 to 31,200 yards against the old 16-inch/45 calibre gun firing 2,240-pound AP shells, against the more modern 16-inch/45 calibre gun firing 2,700-pound AP shells, this zone extended only from 20,400 to 26,700 yards."

 

So you can see that unless the person is lying, there is a second source beyond Friedman giving a wide range of imunity against the 2,240 lb shell.]

 

He should also really be honest and state that at no practical range could Vanguard penetrate Yamato's armor and would have to rely on a mission kill. From my math and the steep target angle against 19 degree inclined armor, I suspect that Vanguard would have to be inside of 16 k yards to penetrate the Iowa belt.

Edited November 5, 2010 by DesertFox

[Getz]

If you wish to substitute the words "Did Not" for "Can Not", that is fine and a quibble.

 

There is a world of difference between "can not" and "did not." Vanguard never fired her guns in anger, it doesn't mean she couldn't have. The point is that if Vanguard had been finished a couple of years sooner she'd have been equipped with super charges and packed off to the Pacific to fight something. As it happened, she was finished after the war ended with the days of the battleship clearly over so they never bothered. What the RN intended to do with her when she was laid down and what actually happened are worlds apart, but it doesn't mean she wasn't capable of fulfilling her design brief.

 

And also this is getting well off topic. The Iowa v Vanguard path is a tediously well trodden one which always seems to boil down to the same arguments. We of the RN cheering department believe that Vanguard was a fine ship (especially considering her somewhat ad-hoc conception) if not actually the last word in battleship design, who would have aquitted herself with honour against an Iowa, but we would never claim that she was actually better in every respect. There are many commentators on the other side of the discussion who can tolerate that opinion, but there always seem to be a vocal few Iowa "fan boys" who absolutely cannot accept any conclusion other than that the Iowas were immeasurably better in every conceivable way and that the only possible outcome for a clash between them would be a one sided curbstomping in the US ships favour - and then the same people wheel out exactly the same arguments they shouted down in the Iowa/Vanguard discussion to explain how an Iowa could kick a Yamato's arse.

 

I think it might be something cultural - like us Brits playing sports where a draw is possible, or admiring someone who plays the game well even when they are beaten.

 

So, to get somewhat back on topic I'd like to clarify that I think the New Mexicos were easily the third best of the ships listed and I'm happy to acknowledge that they had some clear advantages over their rivals, but I feel that (notwithstanding their faults) the QEs were the best balanced of the named ships whilst the Bayerns were actually very powerful ships indeed, but were too optimised for a specific set of conditions to be named the winner. If the US dispersal and shell problems had been solved by 1918 then the New Mexicos would have a much stronger case.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Getz

[DesertFox]

None of the R class or QE class ever used super heavy shells (Edit: I mean super charges) either, even when they served in the Pacific.

 

I will ask if you will at least acknowledge the fact that Brown is wrong about the US armor scheme with the Iowa class?

 

Yes, some Brits do go way to far. For example, Tigger trying to argue that super heavy shells are not effective. May want to make sure you do not become a Tigger.

Edited November 5, 2010 by DesertFox

[Getz]

None of the R class or QE class ever used super heavy shells (Edit: I mean super charges) either, even when they served in the Pacific.

 

What does that have to do with anything? Do I need to remind you that Vanguard had her gun mountings strengthened to allow for super-charge use - why do that if they had no intention of issuing supercharges?

 

I will ask if you will at least acknowledge the fact that Brown is wrong about the US armor scheme with the Iowa class?

 

No I won't - because whilst I haven't read Warrior to Vanguard for a very long time, I'm pretty certain he never discussed the Iowa armour scheme at all, but instead merely voiced an opinion that the Vanguard was capable of defeating an Iowa if required. That is his opinion (albeit one that I share) and he is entitled to it. I don't remember him saying anything that was factually incorrect.

 

Yes, some Brits do go way to far. For example, Tigger trying to argue that super heavy shells are not effective. May want to make sure you do not become a Tigger.

 

Am I the only one who finds that last comment ironic - the pot calling the kettle black and all that? I have tried very hard to be reasonable and good humoured throughout this discussion and when you have made some statements that were basically false I have always assumed good faith and that you were misinformed (your comments on British and German shells, for example). Where we have differences of opinion I am happy to accept them as exactly that - differences of opinion. If my manner has been misinterpreted as being rude or brusque, then I apologise, but that does not make you right when you have said something wrong and that does not make your opinion more valid than mine.

 

I think that if a QE had had cause to fight a New Mexico in 1918, then (assuming equal crews) the QE would have won four times out of five because she would have been armed with more powerful, more effective, longer ranged guns and she had a sufficient margin of speed to dictate the range and prevent the US ship from escaping. Prove me wrong...

[DesertFox]

I had made no firm stance as far as how the New Mexico compares to the Queen Elizabeth class. . . .

What I am doing is arguing for various points and seeing how they play out. My stance right now likely is that the Queen Elizabeth is slightly superior but not by any great margin. For example, that the class is overloaded as build is a penalty. That is what I am trying to do, gather enough information to make a full case for each class (or at least the top three) and try to rate them in each category.

 

I did note that in your discussion on the other board that you made multiple mistakes. As well, some of what repeated back from that board was not even passes real well across. As well, there are many points you seem completely unwilling to give such as that even the Pennsylvania underwater protection is better than the Queen Elizabeth class.

 

There are even small points like if having no vertical armor in the steering would have helped or hurt Warspite (Edit: I made a mistake, thought it was a hit but steering jammed - question then becomes if that plagued other vessels of the class.) Also, why the British still backed their main armor with teak and if it made sense or not.

 

Now, I will state straight up that Brown completely screwed up as far as the armor of the Iowa class. The simple fact is that he said it was "thin" while at any conceivable range, the thickness of the Iowa belt is thicker than that of Vanguard.

 

I am posting this from the other thread

 

 

Now, I will say that the King George V belt is more effective (at least vertically) at many ranges than the Iowa but the Vanguard is not that way. Also, it can be argued that the Nelson belt could not be penetrated by a Colorado except at extremely close range.

 

I want you to argue why you think that a 15/42 round will be more effective than a 16/45 round when the Iowa is designed around defeating that round?

 

Remember exactly what he stated -

Her 15 inch shells should have little difficulty penetrating the thin belt of inferior armor.

Edited November 5, 2010 by DesertFox