Dirtnap
Kanmusu Affecionado
I'll say this, Navy gonna Navy. The second they hit a port for a liberty call...all bets are off. After all you've been crammed in an even smaller tin can than the destroyermen and they can seriously party.
Changing Destiny (Kancolle)
- Thread starter Skywalker_T-65
- Start date
I did say, 'in comparison...'
- Location
- Australia
I always wondered why did the New York class battleships were relegated to the Atlantic, since they did have same speed and armament as the newer ones. I think it was something to do with the protection scheme pre-Standard.
Short version is that the New Yorks (and Arkansas, the oldest battleship still in commission as a battleship at the start of the war) were equipped with pre-All or Nothing armor schemes. This left them relatively vulnerable, particularly to long-range plunging fire because of the relatively thin deck armor it required. Since potential engagement ranges in the North Atlantic were much shorter than they were in the Pacific (on the order of 10 miles versus 23 miles)--not to mention that German and Italian capital ships had less powerful guns than the majority of Japanese capital ships--this meant that they had better chances of survival in the Atlantic than the Pacific.
Note also that, until the Atlantic was free of Axis capital ships, all three former coal-burners (who also had reciprocating engines instead of turbines--something else that made them less suitable for the wider Pacific) were never alone in the Atlantic, but instead, had at least a Standard in the Atlantic Fleet with them, and generally a couple of Standards and at least one of the new-build fast battleships--I know that North Carolina and Massachusetts both served a significant amount of time in the Atlantic before being transferred to the Pacific, for example, with Big Mamie spending a couple of years in the Atlantic and famously dueling with the unfinished French battleship Jean Bart on two occasions (to keep the Nazis from finishing her).
Note also that, until the Atlantic was free of Axis capital ships, all three former coal-burners (who also had reciprocating engines instead of turbines--something else that made them less suitable for the wider Pacific) were never alone in the Atlantic, but instead, had at least a Standard in the Atlantic Fleet with them, and generally a couple of Standards and at least one of the new-build fast battleships--I know that North Carolina and Massachusetts both served a significant amount of time in the Atlantic before being transferred to the Pacific, for example, with Big Mamie spending a couple of years in the Atlantic and famously dueling with the unfinished French battleship Jean Bart on two occasions (to keep the Nazis from finishing her).
- Location
- Australia
Also, IIRC the New Yorks were basically the only US traditional super-dreadnought until Nevada came along with her all-or-nothing armor scheme, making them thrown back into second-rate units at best, along with the Wyomings and the other older ships of the line. Also one of the last battleships to use twin turrets, including Nevada and Colorado.
It makes sense to keep the ship in the Atlantic since the battleline is probably mostly cruisers and destroyers, and keeps the battleships cooped up somewhere else.
It makes sense to keep the ship in the Atlantic since the battleline is probably mostly cruisers and destroyers, and keeps the battleships cooped up somewhere else.
Ehhh.... I wouldn't call them less powerful. Either a Bismarck or a Littorio will shredded a New York.
Fuck before the North Carolina come out the Bismarck 15"/52 WERE the most powerful guns on any ship. If any ship short of a Yamato end up with 20,000 yards of a Bismarck, they will end up hurting badly. Maybe even having to be scrapped. And Yes I included the Iowas in the get fuck group.
The Littorio meanwhile had range greater then either the Iowa or the Yamato. The only reason they did badly was because of poor quality control on there shells.
Fix that?
They had a similar dispersion as an Iowa at a GREATER RANGE.
As much as people like to rag on these ships they were good ships...
And Majority of Japanese ships had 14 inch guns only four had bigger, the Nagatos (16) and the Yamato's (18).
The Majority of the Europian boats meanwhile had 15 in guns...
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Probably unnecessary technical quibble: Nevada is considered the first USN superdreadnought.
Skywalker_T-65
Writer with too many ideas.
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- Plural/They/He/Her
The issue with every Eurobote other than Vanguard, the Littorios, and the Richelieu class (Dunkerque is debatable) were that they were either actual WW1 designs- hello Warspite -or fundamentally WW1 designs, like Scharn and Bisko. Bismarck's edge is in her guns and that her armor is hilariously hard to pen in horizontal duels. That's why she bounced so much fire, because the Brits were firing horizontal for the most part, and while it utterly shredded her upperworks- poor Lutjens -and her turrets, her armor bounced most of the fire sent it's way.
On the other hand, mind, Littorio was a great design. Tough, great guns, fast...her limitation is in crappy Italian shell quality, never having the fuel to sortie, and being a Medbote.
Richelieu is just a great design all around. French quad turrets worked properly, she had very thick armor, and was speedy. Underrated ship that one.
Depends on definition of 'super-dreadnought' one uses. The classical definition is all-centerline guns that are larger than 12-in. USN had all-centerline from the start, so that's out. But New York has 14-in guns, which makes her from a firepower perspective the first Super-Dread in USN service.
Furthermore, from an armor perspective, the All-Or-Nothing design of Nevada is different from any other super-dread.
Strictly speaking, since their turret layout and weight of fire are super-dread, one has to use the armor definition, and look at how other super-dreads like QE compare. The Standards, with all-or-nothing really should be their own category, and that's how I've always listed them.
On the other hand, mind, Littorio was a great design. Tough, great guns, fast...her limitation is in crappy Italian shell quality, never having the fuel to sortie, and being a Medbote.
Richelieu is just a great design all around. French quad turrets worked properly, she had very thick armor, and was speedy. Underrated ship that one.
Depends on definition of 'super-dreadnought' one uses. The classical definition is all-centerline guns that are larger than 12-in. USN had all-centerline from the start, so that's out. But New York has 14-in guns, which makes her from a firepower perspective the first Super-Dread in USN service.
Furthermore, from an armor perspective, the All-Or-Nothing design of Nevada is different from any other super-dread.
Strictly speaking, since their turret layout and weight of fire are super-dread, one has to use the armor definition, and look at how other super-dreads like QE compare. The Standards, with all-or-nothing really should be their own category, and that's how I've always listed them.
The Standards are a real pain for European historians, because despite starting to arrive four years BEFORE the Battle of Jutland, they're what European historians chose to describe as "post-Jutland" designs--i.e., all-or-nothing armor, with guns, fire control, and armor package all optimized for fighting at long range with plunging fire instead of close-in slugging matches. While not as hilariously heavily optimized for it as post-Washington Treaty designs would be (note how thin the belt armor on US fast battleships was by comparison to the Standards, and how much of the total armor weight they transferred to deck armor, and how the Standards were built with maximum gun elevation of ~15-20 degrees), they nevertheless showed all the long-range-fighting features that European designs would only acquire after Jutland showed that most fighting would be at longer range, with admirals loathe to close on an enemy to kill them due to the risk it posed to their own ships.
While many European observers at the time tended to pooh-pooh American designs as overgunned (which, in the pre-dreadnought period, they admittedly were) and technically backwards (for the sheer length of time the US held on to reciprocating engines instead of going with turbines--a decision made by the poor fuel economy of the early direct-drive turbines and the requirement for extreme range to fight in the Pacific; remember that Nevada was the prototype US turbine battleship, while her sister Oklahoma was a piston-engined ship meant to determine once and for all which system was better), starting with South Carolina, US battleships were pretty much the equal, technically, of anyone else's when they were built, and often had at least one way that they were more advanced than others. (For the South Carolinas, it was using a superfiring main battery to maximize the efficient use of weight. For the Standards, it was the use of all-or-nothing armor in the early units, and the multilayer torpedo defense system of thin, highly elastic bulkheads in the later units.)
While many European observers at the time tended to pooh-pooh American designs as overgunned (which, in the pre-dreadnought period, they admittedly were) and technically backwards (for the sheer length of time the US held on to reciprocating engines instead of going with turbines--a decision made by the poor fuel economy of the early direct-drive turbines and the requirement for extreme range to fight in the Pacific; remember that Nevada was the prototype US turbine battleship, while her sister Oklahoma was a piston-engined ship meant to determine once and for all which system was better), starting with South Carolina, US battleships were pretty much the equal, technically, of anyone else's when they were built, and often had at least one way that they were more advanced than others. (For the South Carolinas, it was using a superfiring main battery to maximize the efficient use of weight. For the Standards, it was the use of all-or-nothing armor in the early units, and the multilayer torpedo defense system of thin, highly elastic bulkheads in the later units.)
Genolution
Hello there
- Location
- [DATA EXPUNGED]
Actually, weren't the Nelsons all or nothing to an almost ridiculous degree? The speed is WW1-esque, though. And how are the KGVs WW1 esque?
Genolution
Hello there
- Location
- [DATA EXPUNGED]
In addition to Prof. Sky's statement, the New Yorks had an about 1-2000 ton jump in displacement over previous dreadnoughts, just like other superdreads like the Orions.
We Just Write
Blatantly Plural
- Location
- New England
- Pronouns
- Plural
Presumably, by 'Orions' you are not referring to the theoretical spacecraft propelled by thermonuclear warheads.
Yes the Nelson were AoN to a such a stupid degree that you could be knocked the fuck out if you were inside their hull when the guns fire if they were over you.
The KVGs could count as WW1 esque if you go by how their armor was lay out and their guns. Vertical belt with guns worst then most of the US standards.
But they do have more belt and deck armor then the Iowas. Fourteen inches of high quality steel that was better then anything the US had for their belt. And a 5.88 inch armor deck compare to the Iowa 4.75 inch armor deck.*
Amusingly, if I done my math right, the KVGs actually had an small immunity zone to the Iowa guns, about the 30-32000 yard range.
And the KGVs had a better TDS, rate with actual tests for 1,000 pounds of TNT. The Iowa were design for 770 but were actually around 660 cause of design fuck ups and the lack of testing....
*Before someone say something about how the layer deck equal 7 inches on the Iowa the same can be said for the KGV but AT 9.5 INCH. But layer deck armor is one of the bad ideas in hindsight deals like the Iowas TDS system so the Iowa has effectively 4.5 inches to 5 at best of deck armor.
Yes he is.
Orion-class battleship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
We Just Write
Blatantly Plural
- Location
- New England
- Pronouns
- Plural
I was try to confirm that you were right.
We Just Write
Blatantly Plural
- Location
- New England
- Pronouns
- Plural
The internet doesn't carry subtle undertones very well. Neither does my somewhat autistic brain.
Skywalker_T-65
Writer with too many ideas.
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- Plural/They/He/Her
Admittedly I missed the KGVs for which I blame the fact that I was rushed to get that down before I had to go to work. Slight misstep here is better than being late to work 
Nelson I would still call WW1 since she's basically a shrunken down/compromise/treaty BB version of the N3/G3 style design. Which are only barely post-Great War themselves.
Though Nelsol and Rodnol are in an odd spot considering when they were built.
Nelson I would still call WW1 since she's basically a shrunken down/compromise/treaty BB version of the N3/G3 style design. Which are only barely post-Great War themselves.
Though Nelsol and Rodnol are in an odd spot considering when they were built.
Six months and one month, respectively. Alabama, five months.
Once, during the Torch invasion, by USS Massachusets. This was not to keep the Germans from finishing her as she was (a) not under German control (b) stuck in North Africa and (c) very incomplete; she had fled the yard ahead of the German army a year and a half before her scheduled date. Jean Bart was not going to be finished during the war.
Oh? In what way? The US 16"/45 (Maryland class) for example seems to hold up pretty good against the German gun. The 15"/50 on the Littorio class also seems slightly more powerful.
The Italians built against the French and went for 15" because 16" was out of their infrastructure and price range. The French built against the Italians and also went for 15". The Germans wanted to appear to keep to the treaties and had infrastructure problems as well thus for the Bismarck class they also went for 15". None of these were planning to go after the Japanese or the US.
There is a story I read (havan't been able to track down where) that Littorio shot much tighter salvos than her sisters. Her secret was reputedly that the crew weighed the shells and added lead to each underweight shell until they had the correct weight.
Also the best torpedo defense system afloat.
Designed for a different fight. The UK and German ships had lots of medium armor because they expected closer combat where medium batteries with HE shells could make telling hits. The US went for longer range duels where medium batteries were not as much of an issue, and therefore concentrated their armor to hold out the largest caliber shells from the vitals, at the expense of protection of the rest of the ship against medium shells.
Note though that Jutland was, in fact, a close range slugging match. So I'm not sure this was a lesson drawn from Jutland, quite the opposite in fact.
A lesson that could be drawn from Jutland was that medium HE is far less threatening than large AP against battleships, hence the turn to AoN armor.
Also, ranges had been increasing for years now and the long range duel must have been the next logical step. However the Europeans fought Jutland basically as they expected it to: at relatively close range.
Note though that the thinner armor was angled for better effectiveness, and that the total armor weight and the tonnage increased. It's not just as if the belt was thinned to thicken the deck.
The KGV was very much an all-or-nothing design. Her armor was against battleships (with larger guns than she herself carried) or it was effectively splinter armor.
And Prince of Wales failed the torpedo test against smallish Japanese aircraft torpedoes, but this was due to faulty detail design and it could be and was fixed in the others of the class.
Last edited:
Genolution
Hello there
- Location
- [DATA EXPUNGED]
Well, they could have been fitted with bigger guns like the NorCars but they weren't in order to save on time, right?
Also, are we discounting the 16 inch guns on the Nagatos, Nelsons, and Colorados when talking about Bisko's guns? Heck, Rodney scored a penetration on Bisko's turret face, and some of the reasons they scored so few belt penetrations on Bismarck included the fact that they closed to way to close a range and because she was riding very low in the water, right?
Also, are we discounting the 16 inch guns on the Nagatos, Nelsons, and Colorados when talking about Bisko's guns? Heck, Rodney scored a penetration on Bisko's turret face, and some of the reasons they scored so few belt penetrations on Bismarck included the fact that they closed to way to close a range and because she was riding very low in the water, right?
Last edited:
Skywalker_T-65
Writer with too many ideas.
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- Plural/They/He/Her
Yes. There were KGV designs for both 15 and 16im guns. USN opted to eat the delay on NorCar and upgunned her. Brits didn't eat the delay on KGV.
Good thing too, PoW was already heading out with dock workers as is when hunting Bisko.
Good thing too, PoW was already heading out with dock workers as is when hunting Bisko.
Actually it was because she was hit in the WORST place.
Right in the prop shaft. Where there was no TDS, like on every other battleship. When they found her they found that her TDS was still intact during the 2007 dives on her.
What happen was that the torpedo hit right where the prop shaft exit from the hull, specifically on the outer most one. As the engines were running at full speed.
The shaft broke and bent while still spinning at max RPM. This caused it to act as a giant drill bit on the hull making a big hole in it flooding her with over 2,400 tons of water. They manage to stop the engine but apperantly they didn't realize the exacted of the damage so they turned it back on causing more damage. Also flooded from this hit were the long shaft passage itself, 'Y' Action Machinery Room, the port Diesel Dynamo Room, 'Y' Boiler Room, the Central Auxiliary Machinery Room, and a number of other compartments aft.
That is basically a kill shot on ANY ship. If the same thing happen to an Iowa? She going down.
Yamato? Sunk.
The Richuella? Ballard would probably have found her...
The bows and sterns of BBs are the most verible to torpedoes because there is not a way to protect them and because design dictates that the TDS either be thinned or remove so you can shape the hull right for high speed.
The Iowas TDS becames basically non existent about fifty feet in front of turret 1, same with basically every other battleship.
The famous rudder hit on the Bismarck? Would have done the same amount of damage to an Iowa. The only difference is that the Iowa could still steer some what but very poorly. Leaving them easy prey for more attacks.
There were some plans to outfit them with NINJA SKY.
They were actually refit plans for them to I believe for a new 15"/45 gun. Mind you all the other RN BBs had 15"/42. The new gun was also three tons lighter then the old ones to boot.
And the KGVs had good freeboard the problem was since the bow wasn't raised, like say one the Iowas, so they could shot straight forward at 0 degrees they were very wet.
Last edited:
Genolution
Hello there
- Location
- [DATA EXPUNGED]
I actually meant Bisko. I read somewhere that for much of the last bit a good bit of Bisko's armoured belt was underwater.
Most Battleships belt are so it can protect against near miss shells that still hit.
Then you have the fact that she had around 4,000 tons of water sloshing around in her...
That much water would have any ship lower then normal.
IF you go to the Wiki page for the KVG class there is a great picture of the belt for the Howe. That shows just little of the belt is above water.
DragoLord19D
I ate a TARDIS but I'm still hungry!
- Location
- Ma Treasure Hoard (I ain't tellin' where it's at!)
