Design your BB for Pacific War...

[Sardaukar]

What sort of features you'd have in BB if you'd be responsible to have it finished in Dec 1941 (takes years of time to complete one anyway) ? I'd like some features of Bismarck and lot of Iowa (even when later design). But main concern would be ability for modifications and speed without sacrificing armour protection. They achieved that in Bismarck (but by using quite uneliable engines) and of course in Iowa years later. (And no, I'm not Bismarck-fan, even though I think it was very fine design for utterly flawed doctrine (Kreutzer-krieg..Cruiser War where you use your surface ships as raiders against enemy convoys).

So...you have to design BB in 1938 to be ready for war in Dec 1941 for Japan, UK or USA. You can use a little hindsight like importance of CV and air threat. What kind of BB you'd design ?

[Raverdave]

Mine would have a 150 foot deck and hanger space for 75 fighters.[;)]

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Mine would have a 150 foot deck and hanger space for 75 fighters.[;)]

Shinano-fan ? [:D][:D][:'(]

[Mike Scholl]

I'll just take a North Carolina. Decent speed and protection, excellent main and secondary armament, and with enough deck space for a ton of AAA to be added to what's already carried.

[Sardaukar]

How about South Dakota class ? (one of my favourites)  USS South Dakota was launched in 7 June 1941 even when not operational until 1942. 

[Mike Scholl]

SoDak's are my favorite looking BB as well..., short, squat, and purposfull. But they are cramped and lack deck space compared to the North Carolina's. And up-gunning the AAA really requires deckspace.

[Sardaukar]

I think they do have larger percent of ship under heavy armour, though. It's trade-off anyway. If I recall right, Bismarck was relatively better armoured than most ships...at least according to this book:

http://www.panorstedt.se/templates/Agency/Book.aspx?id=41793

Most BBs had about 30+ % (32-37%) of area/space covered by heavy armour and IIRC, Bismarck had 42% without sacrificing speed. But those turbines were unreliable even when very effective for their size.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I think they do have larger percent of ship under heavy armour, though. It's trade-off anyway.

Mostly it was to enable the mounting of an internal, sloped armored belt rather than the North Carolina's exterior one. And like I said, the biggest single demand on WWII era ships was for increased AAA. SoDak's were built to such tight margins that they had to lose two secondary mounts to be equipped as flagships.

Bismarck's can really only be compared to the Iowa's or the Vangard. They didn't even try to meet treaty requirements so it's unfair to compare them with designs that did.

[Sardaukar]

Well..since countries cheated in Washington Treaty agreements, I think it's fair to include ships that are bigger than agreed. Thus, gloves are off, so to speak..[;)]

[Tiornu]

Bismarck was not well armored. Her main turret armor was penetrable at ANY range by ANY enemy battleship gun. How many of her peers shared that weakness? Almost the entirety of her hull above the waterline was penetrable by battleship fire at any range. It may be said that Bismarck was well armored, but that would apply only to medium or small shells, or large HE shells. In a battleship contest, she is not well protected. The armor deck slope behind the belt is nearly impenetrable at short range, but there's not much good in that. A large percentage of her waterline is armored, but given the modest height of the belt and the very low position of the armor deck, her percentage of protected buoyancy is nothing special. She has a nice, thick conning tower. Her steering gear, ironically enough, is well protected. But she would not be a top choice for me if I were to be in a battleship duel.

[Mike Scholl]

So in that case we should compare the "cheaters" only with each other? In that case, the Roma's lose; the Bismarck's win the speed prize, and the Yamato's everything else.

Seriously..., the Iowa's were what the US produced when the "gloves were off"..., and they blow the doors off the competition. If you are going to judge thing's with some degree of level playing field than you need to look at the competing designs on a value-per-ton basis. Obviously if I have almost 30% more tonnage to play with I should produce a ship 30% better than yours. On that basis I think the Bismarck loses out to the North Carolina hands down.

[Tiornu]

My pet project for a treaty battleship is one armed with nine 14in guns. A super-heavy shell design would provide shells weighing 1810 lbs--that's heavier than Bismarck's 15-inchers. I believe you could combine 30 knots with respectable armor in such a ship and have a well-balanced design.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Bismarck was not well armored. Her main turret armor was penetrable at ANY range by ANY enemy battleship gun. How many of her peers shared that weakness? Almost the entirety of her hull above the waterline was penetrable by battleship fire at any range. It may be said that Bismarck was well armored, but that would apply only to medium or small shells, or large HE shells. In a battleship contest, she is not well protected. The armor deck slope behind the belt is nearly impenetrable at short range, but there's not much good in that. A large percentage of her waterline is armored, but given the modest height of the belt and the very low position of the armor deck, her percentage of protected buoyancy is nothing special. She has a nice, thick conning tower. Her steering gear, ironically enough, is well protected. But she would not be a top choice for me if I were to be in a battleship duel.

True that. Bismarck was made for flawed Cruiser-War concept, but still had more weight allocated to armour protection than others (42% IIRC). Thinner protection spread larger vs. thicker with less coverage was the dilemma for designers those days before CV power was realized. I do like powerplants of Bismarck for their power to weight ratio..but they were somewhat unreliable as usual with new concepts.

With hindsight, she'd been fine for USN in Pacific War.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

My pet project for a treaty battleship is one armed with nine 14in guns. A super-heavy shell design would provide shells weighing 1810 lbs--that's heavier than Bismarck's 15-inchers. I believe you could combine 30 knots with respectable armor in such a ship and have a well-balanced design.

I believe the AP rounds for the Bismarck's 15" guns weighed in at about 2,000 lbs. From the overall damage reports (especially from PoW) a significant number appear to have been duds.

problem with higher speeds is they require hull length and/or large boosts in hp..., both of which cost extra tonnage. and one of which stretches the area needing armor. High speed is probably overrated in most cases. Ships rarely use it due to the fuel consumption; except for Carriers launching and landing A/C and DD's (notorious fuel-hogs) zipping about on screening duties.

[Sardaukar]

I think what WWII BB in Pacific need is high *cruise speed*, not necessarily high top speed.

[Tiornu]

Bismarck was made for flawed Cruiser-War concept, but still had more weight allocated to armour protection than others (42% IIRC).

One of the strange things about the Bismarck project is that there was no clear mission intended for the design. The head of the KM Fleet Dept wrote c1938 that he could find no documentation specifying an intended role for Bismarck, Scharnhorst, or Hipper. I believe the Germans were simply building battleships for the sake of building battleships.

I do like powerplants of Bismarck for their power to weight ratio

I think the prime virtue of the Bismarck class was its mobility: good speed, satisfactory sea-keeping, and sufficient range.

I believe the AP rounds for the Bismarck's 15" guns weighed in at about 2,000 lbs. From the overall damage reports (especially from PoW) a significant number appear to have been duds.

Bismarck's shells weighed 800kg. Probably three of these hit PoW. One passed through the compass platform where the thickest plating was 1in. This would have been enough to trigger the shell's fuze, but the shell would have been long gone before it exploded, and in fact, it did not explode while aboard PoW. One shell hit a crane and exploded normally. The third shell landed short, tumbled wildly underwater, and entered PoW's hull nearly backwards. This was a dud, but we don't have enough information to blame a faulty shell; the extreme violence of the tumble might have interfered with any shell's fuze action. One other shell of unknown caliber passed through the superstructure without pursting on board, much like the compass platform hit. On the other hand, I think all of the hits by Prinz Eugen showed a flawed performance.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

Bismarck was not well armored. Her main turret armor was penetrable at ANY range by ANY enemy battleship gun. How many of her peers shared that weakness? Almost the entirety of her hull above the waterline was penetrable by battleship fire at any range. It may be said that Bismarck was well armored, but that would apply only to medium or small shells, or large HE shells. In a battleship contest, she is not well protected. The armor deck slope behind the belt is nearly impenetrable at short range, but there's not much good in that. A large percentage of her waterline is armored, but given the modest height of the belt and the very low position of the armor deck, her percentage of protected buoyancy is nothing special. She has a nice, thick conning tower. Her steering gear, ironically enough, is well protected. But she would not be a top choice for me if I were to be in a battleship duel.

So the Bismarck's non-penetrated hull (as discovered by underwater observation few years ago) was due to swift closing of British ships (and thus them firing in flat trajectory that completely riddeled the Bismarcks superstructure but failed to penetrate the hull)?


Leo "Apollo11"

[wdolson]

Coming into this thread a little late. If it was 1938 and I knew what was most needed in the upcoming war, I would cancel all BB projects not currently under construction and dedicate all capital ship yards to building fast fleet carriers.

If the US had 6 new CVs working up when Pearl Harbor happened, the Pacific War would have been much shorter.

The battleship still captures the imagination today. The big guns on a battleship are larger bore than just about any land based gun ever built. A few German guns were bigger, but they had very limited use. Leopold (aka Anzio Annie), one of the most famous was only 280mm, which is only around 11 inches.

Japan had a tremendous capital tied up in big battleships that saw very limited use. The Musashi, which almost broke the back of Japan's economy, only fired her main batteries once in anger. And that was at TBF Avengers. She never got within sight of an Allied ship.

The Yamato had a similarly useless life. She was only used for her intended purpose once in the Battle Off Samar where she and other battleships attacked a group of escort carriers. The largest American surface ship to oppose them was a destroyer. Hardly an even fight. Tactically it was a victory, of course, strategically it was a disaster. It achieved virtually nothing in the end.

I only count three times battleships squared off against one another in WW II. In all of them aircraft played a significant role. In the sinking of the Bismark, a Fairey Swordfish jammed the rudder, and sighting reports helped the RN catch the Bismark. In the battleship dual off Guadalcanal, aircraft from Guadalcanal finished off the cripple the next day. At Surgio Strait, no aircraft took a direct role, but extensive and good quality sighting reports allowed Ollendorf to position his forces in the best possible ambush with catastrophic results for the Japanese.

Sexy as battleships were, the best use of the shipyards for the US would be to accelerate the Essex program, or at minimum, build more Yorktowns. If Japan had used the steel that went into the Yamato class on Shokakus, they could have had 4-6 new carriers by mid-42. The Shokaku's were probably the peak of development. They were tougher than any other class, and had a very large capacity. The Unryus (sp?) were essentially copies of the Hiryu, which was cheaper to build, but nowhere near as tough or as large.

Bill

[Tiornu]

The Bismarck wreck shows about three large-caliber hits on the main belt, all of which appear to be penetrations. Bismarck's main belt did not provide a whole lot of protected freeboard, and she was very low in the water by the time of the final duel. Considering the rough seas, a trjaectory to a main belt hit would be a rarity, especially by the time Rodney closed to tater-throwing range.

I only count three times battleships squared off against one another in WW II.

Renown vs the Twins. Bismarck (twice). North Cape. 2nd Guadalcanal. Casablanca. Dakar (twice?). Calabria. Surigao. Mers el Kebir. Probably more.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Coming into this thread a little late. If it was 1938 and I knew what was most needed in the upcoming war, I would cancel all BB projects not currently under construction and dedicate all capital ship yards to building fast fleet carriers.

If the US had 6 new CVs working up when Pearl Harbor happened, the Pacific War would have been much shorter.

The battleship still captures the imagination today. The big guns on a battleship are larger bore than just about any land based gun ever built. A few German guns were bigger, but they had very limited use. Leopold (aka Anzio Annie), one of the most famous was only 280mm, which is only around 11 inches.

Japan had a tremendous capital tied up in big battleships that saw very limited use. The Musashi, which almost broke the back of Japan's economy, only fired her main batteries once in anger. And that was at TBF Avengers. She never got within sight of an Allied ship.

The Yamato had a similarly useless life. She was only used for her intended purpose once in the Battle Off Samar where she and other battleships attacked a group of escort carriers. The largest American surface ship to oppose them was a destroyer. Hardly an even fight. Tactically it was a victory, of course, strategically it was a disaster. It achieved virtually nothing in the end.

I only count three times battleships squared off against one another in WW II. In all of them aircraft played a significant role. In the sinking of the Bismark, a Fairey Swordfish jammed the rudder, and sighting reports helped the RN catch the Bismark. In the battleship dual off Guadalcanal, aircraft from Guadalcanal finished off the cripple the next day. At Surgio Strait, no aircraft took a direct role, but extensive and good quality sighting reports allowed Ollendorf to position his forces in the best possible ambush with catastrophic results for the Japanese.

Sexy as battleships were, the best use of the shipyards for the US would be to accelerate the Essex program, or at minimum, build more Yorktowns. If Japan had used the steel that went into the Yamato class on Shokakus, they could have had 4-6 new carriers by mid-42. The Shokaku's were probably the peak of development. They were tougher than any other class, and had a very large capacity. The Unryus (sp?) were essentially copies of the Hiryu, which was cheaper to build, but nowhere near as tough or as large.

Bill

All well and good...., except that that was not the question posed! Of course, neither was all this nonsense about the Second World War's "most overated" Battleship, so perhaps you can be forgiven for not noticing the title of the thread.