Best Battleship?

[Slater]

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

 

Another entertaining site on this never-ending debate. Didn't know that the Iowa's main battery rounds had superior armor penetration to the Yamato's.

[Tiornu]

We have a fairly complete set of penetration data for WWII battleships at

http://www.geocities.com/kop_mic/ .

[Sparviero]

Fuso, anyone?

 

I believe most naval enthusiasts call for psych analysis, ok maybe only those at warships1.com, of anyone who considers anything besides the Iowa the best. With dispensation maybe being given for those who would argue Yamato or Vanguard.

[Tiornu]

I once saw a web site crediting Scharnhorst with greater firepower than Yamato.

[Mobius]

We have a fairly complete set of penetration data for WWII battleships at

http://www.geocities.com/kop_mic/ .

131100[/snapback]

 

Oops, Sorry Tiornu, I was copying your data and I must of burnt up your daily bandwidth. I'll probably use your figures (after I compare it to mine) in my naval game.

[Sparviero]

I once saw a web site crediting Scharnhorst with greater firepower than Yamato.

131122[/snapback]

 

Behold the power of Schnapps?

[R011]

Fuso, anyone?

131119[/snapback]

 

You mean Fuuuuuuuso, of course.

 

(Tiornu's nighmare - a fleet made up of Fusos screened by flotillas of Omahas)

[Guest aevans]

Fuso, anyone?

131119[/snapback]

 

For the time, it was a decent design. Now if you want to talk about execution...

[Ol Paint]

You mean Fuuuuuuuso, of course.

 

(Tiornu's nighmare  - a fleet made up of Fusos screened by flotillas of Omahas)

131140[/snapback]

 

 

That would be Omahahahas, I believe.

 

I'd vote for the Iowas, because they were fast South Dakotas with better guns and the speed and volume to serve alongside carriers. I don't know how their accommodations compared, but I would expect the added volume to have helped habitability and arrangements. I think their speed would have made them more useful post-war than any production of Montanas, even if they weren't as balanced a BATTLESHIP design.

 

Douglas

[Guest aevans]

On the day, any battleship with millimetric radar vs. any battleship without. Okay, maybe not Pennsylvania vs. Yamato (though you could make a case) but you get the idea.

[Redbeard]

IMHO an available battleship is allways better than one not available, even a rowing boat with a peashooter would be better than something not existing (yet).

 

If you haven't got my point yet I'm of course referring to the Iowas not being available until 43-44.

 

If taking this important factor into account I'll have to mention the French Richelieu class. Richelieu was wery close to being ready when France fell in June 40 and could leave the yard under own power. Richelieu was in same size class as KGV, North Carolina and South Dakota, but IMO had the best balance of speed, firepower and protection (splendid torpedo protection), her surfcae-only secondary battery probably being the only serious drawback.

 

Of never-builts I find the G3's cancelled after WT of 1922 very impressive. If built they would still by WWII be among the best.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[tanker_karl]

If taking this important factor into account I'll have to mention the French Richelieu class. Richelieu was wery close to being ready when France fell in June 40 and could leave the yard under own power. Richelieu was in same size class as KGV, North Carolina and South Dakota, but IMO had the best balance of speed, firepower and protection (splendid torpedo protection), her surfcae-only secondary battery probably being the only serious drawback.

131198[/snapback]

 

The Richelieu class had some other serious drawbacks, such as the inaccuracy of its main artillery up until 1948.

 

Shell dispersion as reported in Robert Dumas' Richelieu was :

 

Test of 30.05.1947 : 1,500 meters dispersion at a range of 12,000 meters

Test of 06.06.1947 : 1,775 meters dispersion at a range of 25,000 meters

Test of 19.11.1947 : 1,460 meters dispersion at a range of 20,400 meters

Test of 25.11.1947 : 870 meters dispersion at a range of 28,200 meters

 

This was somehow corrected in 1948 by adding a 60 milliseconds firing delay between the guns to avoid interaction between the shells.

 

According to Dumas, shell dispersion (with AP projectiles) at a range of 25,700 meters subsequently decreased from 950 meters on average to 300 meters on average.

[DKTanker]

IMHO an available battleship is allways better than one not available, even a rowing boat with a peashooter would be better than something not existing (yet).

 

If you haven't got my point yet I'm of course referring to the Iowas not being available until 43-44.

 

If taking this important factor into account I'll have to mention the French Richelieu class. Richelieu was wery close to being ready when France fell in June 40 and could leave the yard under own power. Richelieu was in same size class as KGV, North Carolina and South Dakota, but IMO had the best balance of speed, firepower and protection (splendid torpedo protection), her surfcae-only secondary battery probably being the only serious drawback.

 

Steffen Redbeard

131198[/snapback]

 

Point taken that the Iowas weren't ready until 1943-1944. Of course the rowboat with a peashooter that gets to the party is better than something better that wasn't ready until the party was over.

[Mobius]

I once saw a web site crediting Scharnhorst with greater firepower than Yamato.

131122[/snapback]

 

Maybe I'm not clear on your tables Tiornu. Something that says Ge PP means Proof penetration vs German armor right? Not proof using the German standard against US armor. Just wondering because I was comparing your values vs. what is given in some refrence books. In your tables the 16"/50 penetrates 26.2" at 10,000 yds on the GE PP line is exactly what my book, Battleship by Norman Friedman, says the 16"/50 penetrates. This was taken from US Naval tables. I wonder why the US was using either German penetration standards or German armor as a standard.

[Tiornu]

All the abbreviations and terms and caveats are explained on the first page of the web site before you get to any of the tables.

Our figures have nothing to do with official figures you see quoted in some books. The Americans based their penetration figures on an old formula that took no account of the differences between German and American face-hardened armor. In fact, it was not a formula meant for use with face-hardened armor at all.

Richelieu was not available until October 1943, around the same time as Iowa and New Jersey. In looking at her dispersion figures, it's important to remember she always shot better with AP than with HE, so some of the figures can be tricky.

[Tony Williams]

I'll have to mention the French Richelieu class. Richelieu was wery close to being ready when France fell in June 40 and could leave the yard under own power. Richelieu was in same size class as KGV, North Carolina and South Dakota, but IMO had the best balance of speed, firepower and protection (splendid torpedo protection), her surfcae-only secondary battery probably being the only serious drawback.

 

You forgot to mention they also looked terrific!

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

[Pachy]

Richelieu was not available until October 1943, around the same time as Iowa and New Jersey.

131343[/snapback]

She was considered 95% complete in July 1940, although with much inferior AA armament.

[Redbeard]

The Richelieu class had some other serious drawbacks, such as the inaccuracy of its main artillery up until 1948.

 

Shell dispersion as reported in Robert Dumas' Richelieu was :

 

Test of 30.05.1947 : 1,500 meters dispersion at a range of 12,000 meters

Test of 06.06.1947 : 1,775 meters dispersion at a range of 25,000 meters

Test of 19.11.1947 : 1,460 meters dispersion at a range of 20,400 meters

Test of 25.11.1947 : 870 meters dispersion at a range of 28,200 meters

 

This was somehow corrected in 1948 by adding a 60 milliseconds firing delay between the guns to avoid interaction between the shells.

 

According to Dumas, shell dispersion (with AP projectiles) at a range of 25,700 meters subsequently decreased from 950 meters on average to 300 meters on average.

131234[/snapback]

 

Thanks for posting the data, I hadn't seen those before, only the reduced ones. The pre 1948 spreads indeed are handicapping, on the level of the 14"/50 until well into the 30's. I do wonder though about the great variation inside a few days, especially if the data are the result of several firings and not just single salvoes. If a delay coil however was enough to reduce the spread to 350m the problem was minor and could, if not with other means, then have been solved by not firing full salvoes.

 

Could the problem be connected to the the new shells produced after she took allied service?

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[Tiornu]

The American-made shells appear to my untrained eye to conform to French standards, including an odd double boattail that is very non-American. I can't say that how long these shells would have remained in service. I believe the order from Crucible Steel included a little over a thousand shells. If the only remedial measure was the installation of delay coils--and that's the only one Dumas has mentioned--then I doubt the shell form was the problem.

[Scott Cunningham]

Was Crucible Steel involved in battleship shell manufacture?

 

My Grandmother worked there for years as an admin person. I think it is still open doing specialty steels.

[Tiornu]

Crucible Steel Co. of America, Atha Works, Harrison, NJ. That's what it appears to say on this form I have.

Hm! Here's an HE shell for the French 340mm gun. Its weight is 842.16 lbs +/- 11.0 lbs. Isn't that an extremely wide tolerance? The 380mm AP is 1948 lbs +/- 5.4 lbs. I must admit I've never looked at such things. Were all HE shells given such lax standards? Was this why French HE shells showed so much more dispersion?

[Guest Nlneff]

Tiornu.

 

That not only seems a pretty wide tolerance, but the difference in weight between the HE shell and the AP shell seems rather extreme, compared to US Shells (1900 vs. 2700, and that was a superheavy shell, the normal one was 2240 or so).

 

I can't help but wonder if the HE design was done for expediency sake?

[BJE]

That not only seems a pretty wide tolerance, but the difference in weight between the HE shell and the AP shell seems rather extreme, compared to US Shells (1900 vs. 2700, and that was a superheavy shell, the normal one was 2240 or so).

 

The difference is between a 340mm HE and a 380mm AP.

 

I suspect that the difference between a 14in HE and a 16in AP is also quite large.

[tanker_karl]

I do wonder though about the great variation inside a few days, especially if the data are the result of several firings and not just single salvoes.

131497[/snapback]

 

As fas as the 1947 testings go, the variation in dispersion are also explained by the use of different shell + charge combinations, which I should have mentioned in the first place :

 

Test of 30.05.1947 : shell is BOFAK Model 1938, charge is E3

Test of 06.06.1947 : shell is BOFAK Model 1938, charge is E1

Test of 19.11.1947 : shell is BOFAK Model 1938, charge is E1

Test of 25.11.1947 : shell is OPFK Model 1938 (or Model 1943), charge is E1

 

BOFAK Model 1938 is primarily a practice shell, with a weight of 884kg and a MV of 800 mps.

OPFK Model 1936 is the original French-made AP shell with a weight of 890kg and a MV of 800 mps.

OPFK Model 1943 is the US-made AP shell with a weight of 885kg and a MV of 800 mps. As said by Tiornu, it was very close to the original OPFK Model 1938.

Charges E1 and E3 are for practice only.

 

 

Could the problem be connected to the the new shells produced after she took allied service?

131497[/snapback]

 

It doesn't seem to be the case from what Dumas reports in his book.

 

The 1948 testing carried out in Mers-El-Kebir with and without delay coil provided the following results with OPFK and charge C1 (maximum combat charge), at a range of 25,700 meters :

 

Without delay coil :

- average dispersion : 950 meters

- maximum dispersion : 1,710 meters

 

With delay coil :

- average dispersion : 300 meters

- maximum dispersion : 577 meters

 

Again, as said earlier by Tiornu, the effectiveness of the installation of delay coys as the only remedial measure as shown in the figures above suggests the problem had nothing to do with the shell form (French OPFK vs US-made OPFK).

 

Dumas nevertheless underlines that dispersion with BOFAK shells was greater than with OPFK, as shown by the 1947 tests.

[Mobius]

I was trying to figure out Tripitz's mainbelt protection to the magazines per gun penetration tables at http://www.geocities.com/kop_mic/ .

So it has 315mm @ 0° and 120mm @67°. Giving a 0° LOS of 315+307=622mm. Ordinarily I might try to figure the impact angle was greater than 0°. Say at 15,000 yds a 15-16" shell would impact around 10° thus reducing the angle of the sloped deck to 57°. But since the table already breaks down the penetration to horizontal and vertical maybe I should just use the 0° figure?

 

OK, ok. Everyone going to say. 'It's more complicated than that.' Isn't it always?