Matrix Games Forums

I think I'd have gone for 10x 16" in 2 triple and 2 double turrets. 

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The operative word being "nearly".

you asked. They had to curb fire because of it. [:)]

Don't forget when saying the 16"/50 Mark 7 and Mark 6s performance  to the Japanese 18.1"/45 Type 94 that the US gun firied a proportionately much heavier shell (dubbed super-heavy). So the comparable penetration values were registered with this 20% "overweight" ammunition versus the Japanese gun's standard shell.

When the US Navy tested their own 18" weapon (18"/47 Mark A) with it's own super-heavy shell it was far superior in penetration to the 16" guns.

On the other hand it's quite true that except perhaps Yamato herself there was no other ship in existence that had any reasonable protection against either the 16"/50 Mark 7 or the 18.1"/45 Type 94.

I like the idea of getting more tubes of lower caliber, as the hit rates at distance averaged 1-3%.

So, between 3 triple 18", or 4 quadruple 14"... well, 16x 14" would be an awesome display of power, uh? At 3% hit rate, each salvo with 16 guns has 40% chance to hit, so every other salvo should hit (provided the other guy doesn't move around too much). With 9x 18", you have a 25% chance to hit on each salvo, so every 3rd salvo should hit.

Having said that, if the other guy is hit by a 18" and sinks, then the 18" is probably the best option But hit-wise, the 14" would be awesome.

Only two examples existed....Renown and Repulse. (The pre-dreadnought Brandenburg's i don't count as their middle pair of 11inch guns were of a smaller caliber than the primary 4 x 11's in the traditional fore and aft locations)

There were the three German "pocket battleships", which boasted 6 x 11-inch guns. (And yes, those counted as heavy guns at the time of their construction.)

ORIGINAL: herwin


The damage done by a penetrating AP hit was proportional to the cross-sectional area of the shell. The trade-off between sustained RoF and damage done at these calibres tended to favour the smaller calibre--ceteris paribus--but armour penetration, range, and accuracy tended to favour the larger calibres. YMMV.

I've neither heard nor used that expression since grad school. Sniff. Makes me feel old. Ah what the hell, I am old!

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

There were the three German "pocket battleships", which boasted 6 x 11-inch guns. (And yes, those counted as heavy guns at the time of their construction.)

The term "pocket battleship" was a phrase coined by the British press i believe. The Germans never considered them "battleships" and orginally labeled them "Panzerschiffe" (Armored ship). They were later rerated as CA's. With 3inch side armor, they were, however one wants to label them, very heavily gunned cruisers in reality.

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

I would go with 20" just to say I have bigger guns than you do [:D]

I like that approach. But then, shouldn't it be the one with the longest barrel? [;)]

Let's see how quickly this thread is going to detoriate now... [8D]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Actually it was the Germans who didn't have the experience and given their enforced holiday on battleship building they opted for a standard 4 x 2 pattern. This suited their fire control procedures anyway (they considered the arrangement optimal).

This was not a matter of inexperience, indeed Krupp believed they had invented ammunition handling arrangements for the Panzerschiff triple 280 mm turrets that were better than anybody else's and that enabled the firing cycle for the center gun to be as short as that of the wing guns. But the Navy was, since the coming of the Dreadnoughts, firmly convinced that twin turrets were better than triple turrets. That was practically an article of faith. If the broadside weight should become insufficient, they believed, it was better to switch to twin turrets of a heavier caliber than to use triple turrets. This was mainly a matter of concerns about ROF, cramped turret interiors, and putting too many eggs in one basket.
That the Reichsmarine went for triples everywhere was only because of a need to minimize displacement at any cost. As soon as the Versailles Treaty provisions could be ignored, no new project had anything but twin turrets, with the exception of the Scharnhorst class, and that only because the turrets were already in the pipeline. The ships were then scheduled to be converted to 380mm twins, and the 280 mm triples that became surplus by that conversion were planned to be used in new Panzerschiffe (the "Cruiser P" project), but follow-on ships were to have 280 mm twin turrets. As you may know, this planning was scrapped in favor of ships armed with 380mm twins ("Schlachtkreuzer O").

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The term "pocket battleship" was a phrase coined by the British press i believe. The Germans never considered them "battleships" and orginally labeled them "Panzerschiffe" (Armored ship). They were later rerated as CA's. With 3inch side armor, they were, however one wants to label them, very heavily gunned cruisers in reality.

That is quite correct. However, "Panzerschiff" was also an exercise in semantics as literal translation of the French term for battleships, "Cuirassé" (literally: the armored one), because it delicately sidestepped answering the question if this were battleships or cruisers. The ships were cruisers in the traditional meaning of the word; the intention of the treaty had probably been to force Germany to build something like the old coastal armored ships. They had 280 mm guns because that was the armament the Treaty prescribed for those ships.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The operative word being "nearly".

you asked. They had to curb fire because of it. [:)]

But still won. What I was looking for was an action that had to be broken off due to ammunition shortage on either side.

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

Only two examples existed....Renown and Repulse. (The pre-dreadnought Brandenburg's i don't count as their middle pair of 11inch guns were of a smaller caliber than the primary 4 x 11's in the traditional fore and aft locations)

There were the three German "pocket battleships", which boasted 6 x 11-inch guns. (And yes, those counted as heavy guns at the time of their construction.)

The DKM was not limited to 8" in heavy cruisers--non-signatory to the various naval treaties. The pocket battleships were replacement for pre-dreadnought battleships; hence the calibre. However the turret layout was inefficient.

The Renown was found to be a very efficient carrier escort. The gun calibre tended to overawe potential opponents.

One question. Big guns calibers are 16", 18" and then 20". Weren't odd calibers tried or even considered? Why there wasn't any 17" guns (for example)? Problems in manufacturing, testing, design? Not enough gains from increasing that caliber a single inch?

ORIGINAL: BShaftoe

One question. Big guns calibers are 16", 18" and then 20". Weren't odd calibers tried or even considered? Why there wasn't any 17" guns (for example)? Problems in manufacturing, testing, design? Not enough gains from increasing that caliber a single inch?

Actually, the Japanese calibre was 18.1" (460 mm). The next Japanese one up was 510 mm. They had also built a 480 mm battleship gun for testing.

ORIGINAL: herwin

Actually, the Japanese calibre was 18.1" (460 mm). The next Japanese one up was 510 mm. They had also built a 480 mm battleship gun for testing.

I was rounding, for the sake of simplicity.

Your all using the US 16" guns the Japanese 16" guns prob couldnt penetrate the Iowa making 3*3* 18" a better choice amd fpcis on speed so you can keep them at 28K yards..

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Your all using the US 16" guns the Japanese 16" guns prob couldnt penetrate the Iowa making 3*3* 18" a better choice amd fpcis on speed so you can keep them at 28K yards..

Yes, but Iowa's didn't exist at the time of Yamato's design. You can't plan for a ship you know nothing of. One can assume that the Japanese designers did take into account that given Yamato's design armor it was a safe bet other ships could and would carry as much armor protection thus requiring a heavier gun to over-come it.

Yamato laid down in 1937...
Iowa laid down in 1939...

Forgetting what we know, and looking strictly at the history of the designs, Yamato was not planned as an Iowa killer, and the Super Yamato's would have been laid down before the first Iowa saw action, had they not been cancelled. If the Japanese got the Iowa spec's before hull completion of the Super Yamato's, they might have been able to change to a 4 turret layout, but in reality, they probably would have remained a 3 turret layout.

Just my $.02

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Your all using the US 16" guns the Japanese 16" guns prob couldnt penetrate the Iowa making 3*3* 18" a better choice amd fpcis on speed so you can keep them at 28K yards..

Arguably cannot penetrate, but then again there are examples of arguably invulnerable armor being defeated. More to point, even a 14" detonating in a ship will disable a lot of things, as South Dakota found out against Kirishima. One or two 14" most probably will not sink right away a ship that is protected against 16", but will do wonders to disable its fighting ability -- and then there are no ships invulnerable against torpedoes.

My personal opinion, the armor of the Iowas is overrated. The rationale is simple: they have much higher speed and much stronger firepower when compared with boats of similar displacement (say Vanguard, Richelieu, Vittorio Venetto and Bismarck). There is no magic, so something has to give, and armor is what remains.

The way I see it, the battle winning advantages the Iowas have are the superior radar control, firepower and speed; I'm not sure I'd add armor to that.

I always thought that the Iowa's long unarmored bow area was a major weak point of that design.  A large caliber shell hit forward of the #1 turret would create a lot of damage to a fairly narrow area of the hull, and suddenly Iowa's speed advantage is gone.  IIRC the protected areas on Iowa were as well armored as a SoDak's, but there were a lot more unarmored areas to worry about.

they have much higher speed and much stronger firepower when compared with boats of similar displacement (say Vanguard, Richelieu, Vittorio Venetto and Bismarck

Iowas had about 10000t more displacement than Vanguard, Richelieu, Vittorio Venetto and Bismarck. In another words almost 20% more, roughly the same difference between Yamato and Iowa.