The Landlubbers Battleship Thread - Now with 50% less cordite

[Linguofreak]

Another limitation is that a single lucky shot can knock out half of your main armament. That was a concern in the design of the french Dunkerque class (in that case, the concern was that a lucky salvo can knock out the entire main battery. This is why the two quadruple turrets are so spaced).

With the main guns distributed on more turrets, this event is less likely.

This is actually related to what I call the "Seydlitz Problem". Seydlitz lost two adjacent turrets with their crews at Dogger Bank not because of a lucky hit, but because the crew of the hit turret panicked when a turret fire started and opened a door that lead to the other turret and the magazine the two turrets shared. The fire spread into the magazine and the other turret, leading to a turret fire in the other turret that destroyed it and its crew as well. By a miracle, combined with more stable German powder, better powder packaging, and better handling, only a few charges in the magazine lit, and the fire did not spread through the magazine. This gives a fairly good description of the event: http://webpages.charter.net/abacus/news/jutland/18/CHAPTER 18.htm

So the "Seydlitz Problem", then, is that of how, when magazines are shared between turrets, to ensure that turret crews never think that their best escape route from a turret fire is through passages that lead to the magazine or the other turret.

 

[K_Jameson]

What do you expect? Something like: I wouldn't have designed this one? :lol:

Or: Hitler was really nuts, wasn't he?

Or: German admirals can be found in wikipedia, when you search for "Incompetence".

Not my intention to be rude...

aircraft carriers should have had a higher priority because Germany had NONE.

absolutely true!

I am not really defending the Bismarck here, it was a greatly overrated ship with many stupid design flaws, build at a time when aircraft carriers should have had a higher priority because Germany had NONE.

Few ships generate discussions as the Bismarck (and the Tirpitz). I've two books in which two historians states diametrally opposite judgments: one that Bismarck was, actually, an enlarged Baden battleship, with all his inherent flaws. The other, that was a superb ship, the best of the treaty battleships (although it was substantially larger than allowed by the treaty itself), even better than the South Dakotas (in my view, the real champions of the treaty battleships).

 

[Urwumpe]

Few ships generate discussions as the Bismarck (and the Tirpitz). I've two books in which two historians states diametrally opposite judgments: one that Bismarck was, actually, an enlarged Baden battleship, with all his inherent flaws. The other, that was a superb ship, the best of the treaty battleships (although it was substantially larger than allowed by the treaty itself), even better than the South Dakotas (in my view, the real champions of the treaty battleships).

I tend to the former position there. It wasn't a really good battleship design and you can easily find evidence in the short career of the Bismarck and the rather symbol career of the Tirpitz. For example the decision to have special anti-aircraft secondary artillery was not just a big reduction in available firepower, the fire control of those special guns was really bad - no aircraft was ever hit by those guns.

 

[K_Jameson]

I also think that the Bismarck wasn't the formidable machine someone speak about. But I tend to be less severe than you; my idea is that was primarily bad utilized rather than bad realized. The amount of punishment he suffered at his last battle before sinking (still with the flag up and the engines working) was impressive.
Frankly, besides of the anemic AA protection (a problem partially corrected on the Tirpitz), I don't see catastrophic flaws but I would glad to repair my ignorance.

On the other hand, the Littorios (that were supposed to be more advanced ships) fared far worse in battle. Littorio itself was de facto sunk with torpedoes at Taranto. And all the ships of the class had so many deficiences that I don't know where begin to list it: their "superb" 381 guns were absolutely unable to hit something, and the barrels had a very short useful life because of the high muzzle velocity. In battle configuration, they was surely slower than the offical 30 knots, because of the deprecable Italian practice to make the test runs underweight (on the other hand, Bismarck should have some margin over his official 29 knots speed). The range was hilarious. The Pugliese underwater protection never worked as planned. The AA guns was too ammassed and suffered mainteinance problems. And so on.

 

[Urwumpe]

The amount of punishment he suffered at his last battle before sinking (still with the flag up and the engines working) was impressive.

Well, that was already a feature of WW1 ship designs in Germany, hardly something too impressive. Just look at Derfflinger or Seydlitz after the Battle of Jutland:

German ships traditionally traded firepower and speed for armor protection and survivability.

 

[K_Jameson]

Impressive damage.

German ships traditionally traded firepower and speed for armor protection and survivability.

This is particularly true in the case of the Scharnhorst class. A little known detail is that the belt armor on these ships was actually thicker than on the later Bismarck class.

 

[K_Jameson]

What about the Alaska Class? Alaska and Guam.

Variously classified "heavy cruisers", "battle cruisers", "large cruisers" and sometimes, not without fantasy, "battleships". Surely beautiful, but I've never understood the meaning of these two "things". The fun fact was that, even as carrier escort, their use was proven nearly as costly as the Iowa class battleships.

 

[Urwumpe]

What about the Alaska Class? Alaska and Guam.


Variously classified "heavy cruisers", "battle cruisers", "large cruisers" and sometimes, not without fantasy, "battleships". Surely beautiful, but I've never understood the meaning of these two "things". The fun fact was that, even as carrier escort, their use was proven nearly as costly as the Iowa class battleships.

Well, if you are thinking traditionally, they make sense, but history shows the error there.

A modern battleship would maybe be something like a huge mix between cruise missile silo, drone control ship and AEGIS cruiser. Maybe even as large as a carrier. The role changed a lot... from the pride of the fleet, to an artillery support. And today, you would need something powerful enough to be targeted with the carriers, but also powerful enough to create an exclusion zone around a carrier fleet by itself. Even when weather makes it hard to let aircraft operate.

 

[K_Jameson]

A modern battleship

A drawing found on web:

Alternate-history Yamato. Survived the war, mantained in service and refitted with contemporary weaponry and electronics.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well a bit strange to use Russian weapon systems in a Japanese battleship. :rofl:

 

[Linguofreak]

What about the Alaska Class? Alaska and Guam.

Variously classified "heavy cruisers", "battle cruisers", "large cruisers" and sometimes, not without fantasy, "battleships". Surely beautiful, but I've never understood the meaning of these two "things". The fun fact was that, even as carrier escort, their use was proven nearly as costly as the Iowa class battleships.

The story I've always heard is that they were designed specifically in response to the Scharnhorsts and Deutschlands. (Apparently there were rumors of a similar Japanese class floating around as well).

I'd classify them as heavy cruisers in a hypothetical world with no naval treaties and everybody building Yamato-sized battleships, and as battlecruisers in the world they were built in, with most existing capital ships (especially those owned by likely opponents) being WWI-era ships, with tonnages, armaments, and armor typical of the era.

 

[K_Jameson]

Well a bit strange to use Russian weapon systems in a Japanese battleship. :rofl:

Yamato/Kirov :lol:

 

[boogabooga]

What about the Alaska Class? Alaska and Guam.

Variously classified "heavy cruisers", "battle cruisers", "large cruisers" and sometimes, not without fantasy, "battleships". Surely beautiful, but I've never understood the meaning of these two "things". The fun fact was that, even as carrier escort, their use was proven nearly as costly as the Iowa class battleships.

Conventional wisdom seems to be that they were a cruiser capability for a battleship cost.

 

[K_Jameson]

Their main battery was surely the most powerful ever mounted on a cruiser (if we don't consider the Hood a cruiser). But the armor was too light for a surface confrontation with a true battleship, especially on the belt. Anyway, surely they looked very modern.

 

[Urwumpe]

Their main battery was surely the most powerful ever mounted on a cruiser (if we don't consider the Hood a cruiser). But the armor was too light for a surface confrontation with a true battleship, especially on the belt. Anyway, surely they looked very modern.

Well, being too vulnerable is pretty dangerous. I would also rate it as battlecruiser or maybe even "pocket battleship" like the Graf Spee. Much stronger than the opponents it has to face, much faster than the opponents it can't defeat.

 

[Andy44]

Have to admit, though, the Alaska class was a classical beauty looks-wise.

 

[K_Jameson]

Yeah surely beautiful ships.
They had to be also comfortable: larger than some battleships (they was twenty meters longer than the North Carolina class!), with a simple armor scheme that takes little room, and with good nautical properties.

But also ships as the South Dakota appears with a very modern look. They was only a little stubby because of the short hull.

---------- Post added 03-05-17 at 05:18 PM ---------- Previous post was 03-04-17 at 08:33 PM ----------

Here, a comparison between famous battleship classes, to declare the "champion".

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

So bad that my favourite, the North Carolina class, is not featured, but the South Dakota is there, and the two classes are not so different. The outcome is not so surprising regarding the winners (Iowa and SoDak classes), but an odd result is that Richelieu is considered far better than anything else in the European theatre (Bismarck included, obviously). What do you think?

 

[Urwumpe]

Here, a comparison between famous battleship classes, to declare the "champion".

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

So bad that my favourite, the North Carolina class, is not featured, but the South Dakota is there, and the two classes are not so different. The outcome is not so surprising regarding the winners (Iowa and SoDak classes), but an odd result is that Richelieu is considered far better than anything else in the European theatre (Bismarck included, obviously). What do you think?

As US friendly as a Tom Clancy novel.

Especially the bad rating in armor protection for the Bismarck shows that the guys didn't really want to be serious.

 

[K_Jameson]

Although not a great fan of the Iowa, I find difficult to contest that her and SoDaks was the best of the lot. And with a considerable margin.

A Yamato with better damage control, guns control and radar (and a less idiotic way of use) could have been the best of all, but history talks differently.

Yeah probably regarding Bismarck the guy was severe. But that armor was not so thick, even in respect to the previous Scharnhorst class. In fact, you can barely define it "all or nothing".

 

[Urwumpe]

Yeah probably regarding Bismarck the guy was severe. But that armor was not so thick, even in respect to the previous Scharnhorst class. In fact, you can barely define it "all or nothing".

Doesn't matter. What matters is: Does it work? And it sure overperformed.