The Landlubbers Battleship Thread - Now with 50% less cordite

[K_Jameson]

The size and weight of the projectile does not really equate to armor penetration, velocity and AP cap density is more important (See: Newton)

We must say another thing: different velocity means different trajectory.
A flat trajectory means that the shell has more chances to pierce the belt, but the belt is a relatively small target; in turn the shell has more probabilities to bounce on the armored deck.
A more rounded trajectory is quite the opposite, with more chances to penetrate the deck, and hence, under some circumstances, the 406/45 of NoCal and SoDak is better than the celebrated 406/50 of Iowa.

 

[Urwumpe]

We must say another thing: different velocity means different trajectory.

Of course. And a faster projectile can travel a more shallow trajectory at the same range.

 

[K_Jameson]

A coprehensive analysis of the infamous "Yamato vs. Iowa" confrontation.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-think-Iowa-would-have-been-able-to-defeat-Yamato

 

[Urwumpe]

A coprehensive analysis of the infamous "Yamato vs. Iowa" confrontation.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-think-Iowa-would-have-been-able-to-defeat-Yamato

And that even without accounting for the poor internal ballistics of the Yamato guns.

Though I have to say: If the 1921 shells of the British had been the best in the world, something magical must have happened after 1916, where they had been the best allies of the Germans. The shells tended to explode already on impact, because the Lyddite explosive filler used was shock-sensitive. The later Shellite mixture of only 70% Lyddite was less shock-sensitive, but still more shock-sensitive than the German TNT filled shells.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

From the article

And USS Iowa has the legs of Yamato easily. In her sea trials, Yamato achieved a maximum speed of 27.4 knots. That's impressive for a ship of Yamato's enormous weight, but unfortunately USS Iowa is capable of 33 knots. Not only that: in 1968, Iowa's sister ship USS New Jersey achieved a top speed of 35.2 knots, which she sustained for six hours! That, by the way, is still the world record speed for a battleship.

In 1989 while aboard the USS New Jersey transiting the Straites of Malaca... A 'small boy' in the Indian Ocean reported a medical emergency (crew member in cardiac arrest). NJ broke the speed limit inside the Straite and proceeded into the IO at 36 knots (so said the skipper from the bridge) with 7 of 8 boilers lit. Capt Tucker had the Master at Arms secure all weatherdecks 04 level and below. If anyone were to fall over they'd be goners (beat to death by the ships wake maybe) Once the other ship was in Helo range we slowed down a bit (to a leisurely 30 knots).

Eating on the mess decks meant you needed hearing protection, the Chiefs Mess was double hearing protection. That ship was casting an impressive rooster tail. I may have pictures packed away, I'll look once this outage is over.

 

[K_Jameson]

Frankly I find really difficult to believe that New Jersey was capable of 36 knots... and without all the boilers lit! I think the personnel of the ship has slightly exaggerated her performance for the sake of drama.

Four more knots may mean nearly double of the horsepower... impossible (in my understanding).

Another bedtime story is that my personal favourite, the North Carolina (only her, not the sister Washington), during one of her overhauls, has had the machinery greatly upgraded with her top speed increased at 30+ knots.

 

[Urwumpe]

Four more knots may mean nearly double of the horsepower... impossible (in my understanding).

Well, the required power to drive the same propeller at 36 instead of 32 knots is about 142% of the power at 32 knots.

Not really impossible for a warship which has some boilers extra and those boilers being capable of a few psi more steam pressure. Measured according to Wikipedia was really 35.2 knots - with a lightly loaded Iowa, not deep in the water. The Iowa hull was designed for a optimal performance at 34.9 knots.

 

[K_Jameson]

Sorry, I'm still skeptical.

IMHO a battleship with nearly the speed of a destroyer is something that belongs to the realm of fantasy.

 

[Urwumpe]

Sorry, I'm still skeptical.

A battleship with nearly the speed of a destroyer is something that belongs to the realm of fantasy.

A fast battleship with the speed of a slow destroyer. :lol:

A rather slow Gearing class with comparable technology as the Iowa has a documented top speed of 36.8 knots (Designed for 34 knots). The French Fantastique class reached 45 knots in WW2.

The Iowa really has a very hydrodynamic hull compared to other ships of WW2.

 

[Andy44]

My dad served aboard Shangri-La, an Essex class carrier, during the 1960s. According to Wikipedia that ship's max speed was 33 kts. My dad told me that during one exercise they kicked her in the butt so hard they briefly made almost 38 kts. The ship was vibrating so bad he thought the paint was going to shake off the bulkheads.

Was that an exaggeration? Maybe.

He did say they couldn't sustain it for long and that there was some minor damage due to the vibration. But like the Iowas, Essex class was the state of the art at the end of WWII, and after the angle deck refits the Essex class was fully modern into the 60s, and was superseded only by the need for bigger flight decks to handle jets like the A6, F4, and F14.

So I'm willing to believe that American naval engineers in the 1940s were outdoing themselves. It also wouldn't surprise me if the Navy was being deliberately conservative with published speed ratings.

Shangri-La in 1970:

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, it was no problem to get a Marder tank to 120 km/h as well....

 

[K_Jameson]

The Iowa really has a very hydrodynamic hull compared to other ships of WW2.

For sure.
I must admit that they managed to create a very sleek and effective hull, even without radical designs (for the time) as the bulbous bow of the Yamato.

For the record, the 27.4 knots of the Yamatos, to me, are as impressive as the 32 knots of the Iowas, given the displacement of these behemoths. And Yamato was also very agile for his size. Some sources reported it as actually more agile than Iowa, with a smaller turning radius.

 

[Urwumpe]

For the record, the 27.4 knots of the Yamatos, to me, are as impressive as the 32 knots of the Iowas, given the displacement of these behemoths. And Yamato was also very agile for his size. Some sources reported it as actually more agile than Iowa, with a smaller turning radius.

Yes, it had reported a smaller turning radius, but that is no important quantity, since also important is the speed at which this was measured.

Also, how much list a ship can take is an important quantity, since this limits how extreme maneuvers can be executed. A ship that permits more list during operations, can be turned at higher speeds at smaller turning radii.

 

[K_Jameson]

It also wouldn't surprise me if the Navy was being deliberately conservative with published speed ratings.

Surely was conservative when he had to say that in NATO exercises, Iowa was defeated by Vanguard and her WWI guns... :lol:

---------- Post added at 07:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 PM ----------

So, Iowa was capable of at least +2 knots over the specs; Bismarck +1... We Italians are the only idiots capable of a -1 with the Littorio class... :rofl:

 

[Urwumpe]

Surely was conservative when he had to say that in NATO exercises, Iowa was defeated by Vanguard and her WWI guns... :lol:

You mean, like blaming the Germans for cheating when their submarines did not get detected before the end of a NATO maneuver? :lol:

The USA hired a Swedish submarine with Swedish crew in 2005 to find out how this happened. :lol:

---------- Post added 03-28-17 at 10:06 AM ---------- Previous post was 03-27-17 at 09:33 PM ----------

Regarding the topic of the thread: Wikipedia mentions that today is the 120th anniversary of Ernst Lindemanns birth, the captain of the Bismarck (Not related to Till Lindemann)

 

[K_Jameson]

I've mentioned the Littorio class above. Scarcely efficient, but beautiful indeed:

---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 PM ----------


An italian site proposes a really in-depth analysis of a confrontation between Littorio and Bismarck. Despite the superior protection and firepower of the Italian battleship, the German wins hands down, principally because of his better gunnery and far bigger range. Thoughts?

 

[Urwumpe]

An italian site proposes a really in-depth analysis of a confrontation between Littorio and Bismarck. Despite the superior protection and firepower of the Italian battleship, the German wins hands down, principally because of his better gunnery and far bigger range. Thoughts?

I can't really disagree there.

Especially I find the Littorio in details designed too brave... like stacking the main fire directors on top of each other, so a single hit can destroy both. And the stacking order of shell rooms and powder handling rooms was also British WW1 standard failure.

Also, didn't the Littorio also use the infamous Italian Pugliese torpedo armor?

Otherwise the differences are rather small. The Littorio and the Bismarck had about equal speed in theory, its not unlikely the Littorio could keep up there, despite being powered down in real service. The Littorio had one gun more, but the guns had been very similar. The Littorio gun barrels had been two calibres longer, and had 30 m/s higher muzzle velocity, but the ranges, impact angles and impact velocities had been almost the same. One dangerous limitation there is the very low barrel life of the Littorio, it can fire the lowest number of shells of any WW2 battleship, with just 120. Luckily, Its rate of fire was also lower than the Germans, with 45 seconds per shot. The Bismarck could fire in practice over three shots per minute, but in its short real battle, this was reduced to just one shot per minute.

Its close, but I think the Italian design had a few more weaknesses there that could be exploited. The sinking of the Roma also suggests that the protection systems of the Littorio class had not been the best in reality, just two well-aimed guided bombs had been enough to kill it. The Italia had been badly damaged by a Fritz X that just passed through it and exploded outside the hull.

 

[K_Jameson]

Also, didn't the Littorio also use the infamous Italian Pugliese torpedo armor?

Very good in theory, but pratically effective only in a narrow area at center ship, the only site where the diameter of the absorber cylinder is adequate for the job. Not really a good system if it demands to the enemy to hit exactly in the only area in which it works well... :lol:

The Littorio and the Bismarck had about equal speed in theory, its not unlikely the Littorio could keep up there, despite being powered down in real service.

Despite the official specs, Bismarck was actually faster, with a margin of one/two knots over Littorio. Roma, on the other hand, with the redesigned bow, in theory could bridge the gap (or at least reach the speed expected on paper...)
Even more important, Bismarck can sustain his top speed much longer than Littorio.

 

[Urwumpe]

Very good in theory, but pratically effective only in a narrow area at center ship, the only site where the diameter of the absorber cylinder is adequate for the job. Not really a good system if it demands to the enemy to hit exactly in the only area in which it works well... :lol:

AFAIR, the true weakness of this armour was that it acted as some sort of lens for the explosion because the designers misunderstood the theory, so the forces acting on the torpedo bulkhead had been focussed and much stronger locally. Instead of absorbing the energy, the tubes inside simply guided the shocks around.

 

[K_Jameson]

Really a "shot trap".
Nevertheless, in the maximum diameter area, the system can work in theory. In reality... well, three torpedos were enough to sink Littorio at Taranto...

---------- Post added at 10:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ----------

Anyway...
Determining the efficiency of an underwater protection can be a tricky exercise. Sometimes theory and practice don't match. For example, the underwater protection of the Yamatos was ever deemed as faulty, but Musashi absorbed the astounding amount of nineteen torpedoes before sinking, let alone the seventeen bombs (Yamato itself went down with less punisment, but because American pilots learnt the tactic of striking only one side of the ship, to facilitate the capsize). I doubt that even the mighty Iowa could absorbe this amount of punishment before meet the ocean floor.
On the other hand, at Guadalcanal, the North Carolina, at the time the most advanced battleship... in the world, i guess, was struck by a single torpedo (and not a Type 93 Long Lance), and went through some trouble before regaining the formation at 26 knots. Not really a serious threat (list and flooding were corrected in a matter of minutes), but I wonder how she would behave with a multiple hit as the aforementioned Littorio.