The Landlubbers Battleship Thread - Now with 50% less cordite

[Urwumpe]

Jack Tars are of course also welcome. :lol: I just don't want to further hijack the screenshot thread

I read that the Vanguard, besides of his advanced (for the time) fire control system, had superb seaworthiness, that in NATO exercises proved far better than the celebrated Iowa class battleships. Only drawback, the very old main battery.

Obviously, a post WWII battleship was a waste of money and resources.

Yeah, possibly a result of using the older guns on a hull already designed for a different weight distribution. It had a very good meta-centric height, but was otherwise very similar to the Iowa class - similar length, similar beam, similar draft, similar displacement. But the Vanguard managed to get almost the same speed as the Iowa with only half as much propulsion power.

Really a great ship despite its quirks.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Digging the thread title.

I've found some of my pictures from the good old days. Maybe I'll scan a few in and post them here. Might have to blur some faces out to protect the not-so innocent.
Had to facepalm the other day when a guy here at work was talking about his boat, he was making repairs on his "gun whale". Frakkin' civilians I thought. Everbody knows it's pronounced "gunnal".



Them Romans, they are crazy ain't they?

 

[Fabri91]

Off-topic in the off-topic thread: "Those Romans are crazy" works especially well in Italian since it would be "sono pazzi questi romani", and if you put that in an acronym you get the good old SPQR. :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

Had to facepalm the other day when a guy here at work was talking about his boat, he was making repairs on his "gun whale". Frakkin' civilians I thought. Everbody knows it's pronounced "gunnal".

Them Romans, they are crazy ain't they?

Before thinking about the gunwale I would have wondered about a heavily armed maritime mammal ("Moby Dick II - Bigger, Badder, Whiter") and why it needs repairing.


.
.
.

Now, where is the gun whale avatar when you need one? :rofl:

 

[Graham2001]

Well, there are always the 'Tillman Battleships':

Tillman was a member of the Senate's Committee on Naval Affairs in the World War I era. Apparently, he grew tired of the Navy requesting ever larger battleships every year. He was also annoyed by the Navy's habit of building battleships that were significantly larger than Congress authorized. He therefore requested the navy to design "maximum battleships", i.e. the largest battleships that the Navy could practically use.

http://myplace.frontier.com/~wellsbrothers/Battleships/TillmanBB.html

 

[K_Jameson]

:rofl:

...

Returning on topic. We have mentioned the Iowa class. I feel fought about that class. Sometimes I wonder which "beast" really are. For a classic battleship, they are ridiculously fast; for a battlecruiser, are far too protected. Maybe they are the trait d'union between these two types of ships.

Anyway, most observers indicates the Iowas as the best battleships ever constructed. Maybe they are right; surely in respect to the excellent South Dakota class, Iowas have significant advantage in speed (5-6 knots) and in main battery (16 inch mark 7 instead of Mark 6) but the protection is virtually identical (some authors states, I don't know if rightly, that the armor is actually thinner than the published values) and the length of the hull is excessive.

In the words of Norman Friedman: "Ten thousand tons was a very great deal to pay for 6 knots."...

Maybe a better investment for the US Navy would have been continuing the production of the SoDaks or North Carolinas; with the cost of 4 Iowas they could have built 5 or 6 SoDaks (or 10 carriers....). Also the North Carolina design, that was longer than the South Dakota, could more easily allow some improvement in speed. I wonder if that classes can support the Mark 7 guns if needed.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, I think the speed was the big advantage of the Iowas there, it allowed them to keep up with the carriers, especially the later supercarriers.

 

[Linguofreak]

:rofl:

...

Returning on topic. We have mentioned the Iowa class. I feel fought about that class. Sometimes I wonder which "beast" really are. For a classic battleship, they are ridiculously fast; for a battlecruiser, are far too protected. Maybe they are the trait d'union between these two types of ships.

Anyway, most observers indicates the Iowas as the best battleships ever constructed. Maybe they are right; surely in respect to the excellent South Dakota class, Iowas have significant advantage in speed (5-6 knots) and in main battery (16 inch mark 7 instead of Mark 6) but the protection is virtually identical (some authors states, I don't know if rightly, that the armor is actually thinner than the published values) and the length of the hull is excessive.

In the words of Norman Friedman: "Ten thousand tons was a very great deal to pay for 6 knots."...

Maybe a better investment for the US Navy would have been continuing the production of the SoDaks or North Carolinas; with the cost of 4 Iowas they could have built 5 or 6 SoDaks (or 10 carriers....). Also the North Carolina design, that was longer than the South Dakota, could more easily allow some improvement in speed. I wonder if that classes can support the Mark 7 guns if needed.

The Mark 7 was actually developed because of a miscommunication within the USN as to the guns that would be used for the Iowas. Initial plans, because of the extra tonnage available from no longer holding to the naval treaties, called for the 16"/50 Mark 2, but the actual designs drawn up had barbettes that were too small, assuming either the 16"/45 Mark 6 or a new design.

As for the value of the Iowas' speed, it was helpful for escorting carriers. Also, from the battle line engagements that were actually seen during the war, a classical Jutland-style fleet-on-fleet engagement was not to be expected. Pretty much every battleship engagement of WWII in any theater was a 2v1 or 3v1 engagement (with the exception of Surigao Straight, which was pretty much over before the battleships even engaged), which, in my view, makes speed of much greater tactical and strategic value than if capital ships are going to be engaging in lines of 10+ ships on either side.

 

[Urwumpe]

Pretty much every battleship engagement of WWII in any theater was a 2v1 or 3v1 engagement (with the exception of Surigao Straight, which was pretty much over before the battleships even engaged), which, in my view, makes speed of much greater tactical and strategic value than if capital ships are going to be engaging in lines of 10+ ships on either side.

And of course the Denmark Strait, which was 2 vs 2. And North Cape, which was 1 vs 5, this was the second last capital ship battle before Surigao Strait.

But yes, such huge engagements like Jutland never happened in WW2.

 

[K_Jameson]

As for the value of the Iowas' speed, it was helpful for escorting carriers.

A very "deluxe" carrier escort, if I may...

More smaller ships with a comparable AA battery and without the big guns could be a more economical choice. For the coastal bombardment role, the pre-war battleships were more than adequate...

I still think that the South Dakota was the more balanced US design. The investment for such 4 super-battleships was not justified towards the end of the war by 6 knots and a mere "carrier escort" role... IMHO

 

[Linguofreak]

And of course the Denmark Strait, which was 2 vs 2.

I was counting only the capital ships present, so 2v1.

---------- Post added at 16:33 ---------- Previous post was at 16:07 ----------

A very "deluxe" carrier escort, if I may...

More smaller ships with a comparable AA battery and without the big guns could be a more economical choice. For the coastal bombardment role, the pre-war battleships were more than adequate...

I still think that the South Dakota was the more balanced US design. The investment for such 4 super-battleships was not justified towards the end of the war by 6 knots and a mere "carrier escort" role... IMHO

Keep in mind that the carrier escort role did include defense against surface ships. Arguably Samar showed that even CVEs could defend themselves with minimal surface help when surprised by surface ships, but imagine a similar engagement at night, or in an area where the US did not enjoy air superiority.

 

[Urwumpe]

I was counting only the capital ships present, so 2v1.

Pardon, do you want to claim that the Prinz Eugen was not a capital ship? :facts:

 

[boogabooga]

Pardon, do you want to claim that the Prinz Eugen was not a capital ship? :facts:

Who brings a cruiser to a battleship fight?

 

[K_Jameson]

Pardon, do you want to claim that the Prinz Eugen was not a capital ship? :facts:

I've heard that the US Navy was pretty impressed by the Prinz Eugen when he tried it before Bikini tests and had considered to mantain it in active service; that idea was dropped only because of the problems with the ship's machinery.

Surely a beautiful and capable ship, with the bonus of the visual resemblance with the Bismarck, that in Denmark Strait was good for the Germans against the Royal Navy.

The ship today:

Oh and... what about the Bismarck itself? Opinions about that ship are strongly polarized even today. Some refers at it as a marvel, some others as a "sitting duck" and an mere enlargement of a WWI ship...

Surely it was beautiful.

---------- Post added at 07:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 PM ----------

Who brings a cruiser to a battleship fight?

Speaking of cruisers, I like the french Algérie. At the time, widely regarded as one of the best heavy cruisers in the world.

Even the Takao class was impressive...

---------- Post added at 08:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:51 PM ----------

I
Keep in mind that the carrier escort role did include defense against surface ships. Arguably Samar showed that even CVEs could defend themselves with minimal surface help when surprised by surface ships, but imagine a similar engagement at night, or in an area where the US did not enjoy air superiority.

I do not see the threat of this unlikely scenario, so relevant to justify the construction of such colossal battleships towards the end of the war...

Surely the Yamato class was even less justified, if we consider that with that steel and that money, Japan could build... How many? fifteen carriers?

 

[boogabooga]

Some of this discussion is based on hindsight.

Just because a surface force never surprised and decimated a major carrier task force in WWII, does not mean that it could not possibly have happened. On the contrary, I think the Battle off Samar demonstrated how vulnerable insufficiently escorted carriers were...Taffy 3 should have been destroyed and only an Japanese leadership failure prevented this. Basically, the US won the battle on a bluff.

It makes sense to me that they would protect the fleet carrier assets with powerful and well-designed battleships.

BTW, does anyone here play this:
http://nws-online.proboards.com/thread/335/rtw-rule-waves-information-downloads

 

[K_Jameson]

I don't say that carriers shouldn't be escorted... only that Iowas was unnecessary in the second half of the war. As strategically important they was, a larger number of smaller ships could be a choice even more... strategical if we count the number of the carriers that must be protected. We must remember that the South Dakota class, and also the North Carolina Class, was so powerfully armed that can beat virtually every Japanese surface ship without the need of the Iowa. And they can outmatch the speed of every IJN battleship with the only exception of the Kongos. I don't think that US needed the Iowas against the Kongos!

 

[boogabooga]

Yamato/Musashi ?

 

[Linguofreak]

Pardon, do you want to claim that the Prinz Eugen was not a capital ship? :facts:

With 8 inch guns and a 3 inch belt, not even by WWI standards. Her tonnage was borderline capital ship by WWI standards, and I think technically so by treaty standards, but was solidly in cruiser territory by WWII.

 

[K_Jameson]

Yamato/Musashi ?

I talked about the Kongo because of its speed.

Sure, Yamatos were a threat. In a one-to-one engagement surely a South Dakota or a North Carolina would be in deep trouble against it. But IJN had only two of them. If we imagine, let's say, three SoDak against a single Yamato...

We must remember that even the broadside of a South Dakota or a North Carolina was only slightly less powerful than the Yamatos and both was way more accurate at long range than the Japanese ship. And against Yamato shells, Iowas haven't a decisive advantage in protection over SoDaks.

 

[Urwumpe]

I talked about the Kongo because of its speed.

Sure, Yamatos were a threat. In a one-to-one engagement surely a South Dakota or a North Carolina would be in deep trouble against it. But IJN had only two of them. If we imagine, let's say, three SoDak against a single Yamato...

We must remember that even the broadside of a South Dakota or a North Carolina was only slightly less powerful than the Yamatos and both was way more accurate at long range than the Japanese ship. And against Yamato shells, Iowas haven't a decisive advantage in protection over SoDaks.

Well, if you then include the fact, that Japanese Radar was pretty primitive and the US fire control way more integrated, the chances look much worse for the Japanese ships. I doubt a Yamato could have the first hit on any US battleship.

And the first hit in a fight of heavy-weight boxers like old battleships are, could always be the decisive hit. Even if the battleship does not sink before its opponents ammo runs out (like happened for sinking the Bismarck), it is doubtful the ship could ever return to service with such massive damage.

I would sure love to see a realistic simulation there of the various battleships that does not oversimplify the ships, so some kind of comparison is possible. Most simulations I see for example always treat bow or stern of a battleship as equally well protected as the rest of the whole front or half of a ship. In reality, those structures have been very weak and often decided the battle.