Comparison of different surface combat ships

[String]

I don't know a lot about the armament and defence of various cruisers and battleships involved in the PTO. Could anyone give a rough comparison between the different japanese and allied ship classes. I have heard that the allied CL's, especially the brooklyn class are much superior to japanese CL's. I also know about the superiority of the yamato and musashi (doh!) to all but the iowa BB's (maybe). However the different japanese and allied CA classes are a total enigma to me. I have noticed that the mogami class sports a large number of float planes and quite a few 8 inchers.. but if it has any benefit i don't know.

Also the japanese BB classes are rather unknown to me. I assume that they are better than the pre-war US BB's, but If i'm not mistaken then the KGV class and the south-dakota and Iowa classes are superior to all but the musashi and yamato?

so .. enlighten me

[Tiornu]

The armor for the large cruisers of the Japanese and American navies was laid out in accordance with wildly differing theories. The Japanese gave little protection to the main battery but protected large volumes of buoyancy in the hull. The Americans concentrated their armor in commendable thicknesses, including around the turrets and barbettes, but only a small portion of the hull had this protection. Note that these are generalities. The early US cruisers didn't have really thick armor anywhere (tinclads).
Japanese light cruisers are not comparable to American light cruisers, except for those of the Omahahahaha class. Machinery spaces had some armor, and that was pretty much it. But the large Brooklyns and Clevelands were armored almost like heavy cruisers. The Atlantas had fair protection commensurate with their size.
The large American cruisers from Brooklyn on all had face-hardened armor. The Japanese did not use face-hardened cruiser armor, and thus they did not design their 8in shells to deal with face-hardened armor. This was a potentially serious disadvantage.
As built, the old US battleships were better protected than Japanese battleships, especially the Kongos and Fusos. The exception would be the really old New Yorks and Wyoming, which were not good. However, all the Japanese battleships received armor upgrades between the wars. Protection for the magazines was, in some cases, remarkable. Not all the US ships were so treated, and even those that were did not get as much deck protection as one might like.
All the new American battleships were better than all the old battleships, but none of them matched the Yamatos, of course. KGV had very good armor for her vitals and buoyancy. Her main battery and steering armor, mediocre. Her conning tower, humorous.

[Tiornu]

The American 8in gun was better than the Japanese model, and its shell was better against face-hardened armor (not against homogenous armor, where the Japanese shell was also quite good). But Japanese AP shells were designed to assume straight trajectories underwater so that those falling short of the target could submarine into the enemy's hull below the waterline. They also had a powerful explosive, which sounds good, but it could often detonate prematurely before penetrating the armor. Combine that with the long fuze delays intended to help the submarining attacks, and you find a lot of Japanese shells that explode either too soon or too late.
The Baltimores had a super-heavy 8in shell that would have proved highly destructive if given a chance.
The American 6in gun could fire with extreme rapidity. The shell was very heavy, and it gave good penetration. Japanese CL-caliber shells are undistinctive.
American BB-caliber shells are generally better penetrators than their Japanese counterparts. KGV probably had the best 14in shells, though her guns were unreliable. The modern US battleships all had superheavy 16in shells, which were truly fearsome weapons. They rivaled (if not matched) Yamato's 18in shells.
The main offensive difference between the Japanese and Allies could be in the development of fire-control radars. This could be a big deal in battle.

[The Dude]

The large American cruisers from Brooklyn on all had face-hardened armor. The Japanese did not use face-hardened cruiser armor, and thus they did not design their 8in shells to deal with face-hardened armor. This was a potentially serious disadvantage

Say that to the crew of the Houston, Quincy and Vincennes

[The Dude]

the atagos and chokais were among the best interwar cruiser desgins

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: The Dude

Say that to the crew of the Houston, Quincy and Vincennes

That's not much of an argument, considering the Houston. Houston (along with HMAS Perth) were lost due to overwhelming numbers of Japanese ships. Even if they were uber-cruisers they still would have gone down.

Still, in defense of the New Orleans class cruisers, in the little fight they did put up, Quincy did knock out an 8" turret on Chokai with only two salvoes.

You have to understand, Savo Island (August 9 1942) wasn't so much a fault of the ships, but of the commanders. Had Captain Riefkoh of VIncinnes NOT mistook Mikawa's force for a friendly unit, the battle might have been much different.

[Tankerace]

Id would say early on, the Japanese and AMerican BBs are farly matched. In the 16 gun range, the Japanese Nagatos (2) have 8 16" guns, the same as the American Colorados. The Japanese battleships (minus Kongos) all have 12 14" guns, the same as the Tennessee(2), New Mexico(3) and Pennsylvanias(2). However, the Japanese are arranged in 6 twins as opposed to 4 triples. Salvo firing is better for the Americans, but the loss of 1 turret is less damning for the Japanese.

The 4 Kongos have 8 14" guns, which is less than the Nevadas' 10. However, the Kongos are faster, though the Nevada and Oklahoma are better protected.

However, as the war progresses, any advantage by the Japanese is erased. Where the Japanese get 2 Yamatos, these are easily countered by the 4 South Dakotas and 4 Iowas, to say nothing of the 2 North Carolinas, plus the WWI era New Yorks(2) and Arkansas which arrive in '45. With all this happening, your main change is that the Ise class loose 4 14" guns if you convert them.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Tiornu
All the new American battleships were better than all the old battleships, but none of them matched the Yamatos, of course.

Bologna.

[Tankerace]

I can't see the Japanese BBs being better than the Arkansas, New Yorks, or Nevadas*. Now, from the Pennsylvanias on they were better.

On the Nevadas, I'll single out Oklahoma. Her Triple Expansion engines were a liability in 1941.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Tiornu
All the new American battleships were better than all the old battleships, but none of them matched the Yamatos, of course.

Bologna.

I agree pastamaker. Great big slow firing, too big to use, waste of resources. They don't even look right. Kinda like a bad sculpture. Yamato class were basically just huge phallic symbols for the sexually self conscious and penis obsessed little guys to parade around on and take pictures of. "You see, Maline! Mine bigga than you! And Loy Acuff is a bad singa!"[:D] Would have been better just keeping their women in purposely undersized wooden shoes and not defrocking in front of all those white women who tend to giggle at daggers when used to colt long barrels. Hell, they still hunt Bluefin Tuna and Walrus for their mythical "enhancement properties."[:'(]

[DrewMatrix]

When you talk about ships, don't get hypnotized by shell weight or armor. Fire control and accuracy and damage control are enorumously important, and enormously better in the US ships, particularly the later ones.

US ships could sail in loops (to throw off the enemy's aim) and still hit a target. Nobody else even tried training like that. US ships by the late war are not just using radar to tell if someone is out there, but using the radar to target their main batteries.

(Now he ducks while everyone throws rotten fruit)

[tsimmonds]

Probably the biggest difference between the two navy's cruisers is that almost all of the Japanese CAs and CL mounted twelve or more of the 24" Type 93 torpedo, plus reloads. These were powerful, fast, and had extremely long range, and although it is arguable that having large amounts of high explosive and volatile propellant lying around essentially without protection was not especially good from the standpoint of survivability, these weapons could be fearsome when properly used. Of the US CAs and CLs, only the Omahas and the Atlantas mounted TTs during the war.

[Tiornu]

"Say that to the crew of the Houston, Quincy and Vincennes "
Houston was a tinclad.
In fact, Vincennes, Quincy, and Astoria provide a good illustration of this issue. None of them had face-hardened armor, and (I believe) all of them suffered penetrations of turret faceplates. When Boise took a hit on her face-hardened turret faceplate, the Type 91 shell did nothing to the faceplate but carve a little notch.

"I can't see the Japanese BBs being better than the Arkansas, New Yorks, or Nevadas"
I didn't say the Nevadas were inferior.
The previous classes had a large gap between their main belt armor and their armor decks. That's bad. And they couldn't fire past 24,000 yards or so. That's bad too. Arkansas was still using WWI-era soft-cap shells. More bad.

"Fire control and accuracy and damage control are enorumously important, and enormously better in the US ships, particularly the later ones."
The USN disagreed with you. They found Japanese FC systems almost as good as their own. The radar factor, of course, leans entirely in the Allies' favor.

"US ships could sail in loops (to throw off the enemy's aim) and still hit a target. Nobody else even tried training like that."
Neither did the Americans. What few people realize is that the new American battleships didn't even have their complete FC systems in place until 1943. The whole steaming-in-circles thing was simply an excercise with no wartime application to tactics.

"Probably the biggest difference between the two navy's cruisers is that almost all of the Japanese CAs and CL mounted twelve or more of the 24" Type 93 torpedo, plus reloads."
None of the light cruisers carried more than eight tubes, and it bears mentioning that not all torpedoes were Long Lances. Some CL didn't even have 24in tubes. You mention the shipboard hazard of the Type 93, and as far as CA are concerned, these caused almost as much damage to the Japanese as to the Allies.

[Ron Saueracker]

I can't believe my comment did not draw flak from Japanese Yamato fanboys!

[herbieh]

Just finished reading the book, Requiem for the battleship yamato
Nice ship, what a waste
But lets face it, with out air cover, after 43 battleships days were numbered.

Ive always wondered how long a single iowa class bb would last under 3 waves of 100 aircraft.
Could we do that with the editor?