Favorite Battleship
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
I was wondering what they were thinking about with that arrangement; it seems that their primary concern was to protect the propulsion and navigation systems. Notice that there is nothing (published, anyway), covering the magazines, bridge, etc.
"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
Sorry! I really don't try to come off like I'm trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs - but it's like the little green guy said: "Do, or do not - there is no try." In my defense, I was confused by your original question: "Weren't the NoCal ships the first ones to drop the "all or nothing" armor principal?", and also by your later statement: "I had read that the NoCals were the first ships to dispense with this idea". I think my confusion on this point is understandable - though naturally I'm biased.Originally posted by rlc27
No, I wasn't implying that Iowa was built after WWII :rolleyes:
(gee, after all these years of study, I hope not!).
And now I'm about to do it again. Sorry, I guess it just comes naturally.What I was saying is that the navy seems to have gone to the 'nothing' approach after the advent of guided missiles; even aircraft carriers were armored right up till the end of ww2, but now it appears that even the heaviest ships carry *no armor at all,* with the exception of Kirov.
The US postwar-designed CVs, from Forrestal on, are so stoutly built (even beyond what would be absolutely necessary to stand up to the massive stresses on so massive a structure) that they might as well be armored. They'd be extremely hard to kill, short of a nuke (and even that would have to be big, or close, or both, to put them under).
I was confused because in the first post of yours that I read, you stated that "all or nothing" meant a choice between trying to protect the ship with armor (all), or trying to protect it so that it wouldn't be hit in the first place (nothing)--as if it was an evolutionary trajectory, however I was referring instead to the design scheme that you're talking about in this last post--that certain vital components are sufficiently protected but others are not at all. My original question was, weren't the NoCal's the first ships to have used the 'all or nothing' principal in their design? It appears that the answer is "si;" I double-checked my favorite sourcebook--the David Miller handbook "Warships of the World."
Woe is me! I'm so misunderstood!
Ahem.
What I meant was that as the lethality of weapons increased, and the fragility of critical equipment (particularly sensors and communications) also increased, even the heaviest armor was no longer capable of protecting vital systems. Postwar, the very same factors that had earlier driven designers to concentrate the thickest armor possible over the smallest area they could get away with led them inevitably to skip the "All" portion of "All or Nothing" - so new designs got "Nothing." Weight and volume were better spent on new electronics and other active defenses that might be able to protect a ship from being hit, since no amount of armor could keep the ship in the fight once it was hit.
Oh - and I still say Nevada was the first "All or Nothing" battleship.
More or less - Monitor probably could have punched through Virginia's armor, but her guns were a new design, and her captain was leery of using full charges of powder in them lest they blow up in his face.I realize that there was an earlier "cover everything" stage in armor design evolution--perhaps going all the way back to the Monitor & Co., weren't both those ships so well protected that all of the shot they fired at each other simply bounced off?
Ain't that the truth! And now, speaking of 3AM posts, I think it's past time to put this one to bed.--but I hadn't intended to go into a long history of ship armorBut I guess that's what's fun about these boards...
never know where something will lead.
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
Some days you're the bug.
And now I'm about to do it again. Sorry, I guess it just comes naturally. The US postwar-designed CVs, from Forrestal on, are so stoutly built (even beyond what would be absolutely necessary to stand up to the massive stresses on so massive a structure) that they might as well be armored. They'd be extremely hard to kill, short of a nuke (and even that would have to be big, or close, or both, to put them under). Wow, I did not know that. I'd always thought that the planes and electronic countermeasures were considered the CV's primary protections, but I guess it makes sense that their structure itself doubles as protection. Could it also be that certain compartments are protected from fragging by kevlar (that is classified?)
I knew that the ww2 era CV's were built with at least some armor, but then again, when you look at the likes of Essex-class carriers, it seems as if, with their 8" guns, the navy still wasn't quite sure whether they were building a cruiser or a new kind of ship. When I visited the Intrepid in NYC with my dad a couple of years ago, we both noticed how, if you replaced the 8"ers and cut off the flightdeck, what you have left basically stills has the profile, length, width, etc., of a cruiser. The point is, it would make sense if post-war designers designed the ships so that the structure itself served as armor--wasn't there a battleship that was famous for its pioneering design in that respect (can't remember which, but think it was US).
"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
I got one that wasn't listed on your list. Correct me if I am wrong.
Didn't the HMS Rodney have 10 x 16" 45 caliber main guns. She was extremely slow and actually obsolete, but she is credited with getting the first hits in the final confrontation with the Bismarck. I don't think she would have gotten my vote because of her ungamely appearance and I have never been a fan of the quad gun turret, it just looks ungamely.
On the post concerning the use of heavy armor in todays warships. The Nimitz class carrier still has armor around vital areas such as the reactor rooms and below deck control areas. I think I read somewhere that the still have a small but considered affective torpedoe belt. I know they are double hulled below the waterline. The Nuclear powered Cruiser USS Longbeach had 1" armor plating main deck and below. The last true heavy cruiser ever built at 17,400 tons.
On the SS-N-19, according to Jane's weapons system the bird flys between Mach 2 and 2.5 and the warhead is capable of penetrating upto 17 cm's of Plate armor, so it may take a couple to take down the Iowa's The Iowa class biggest weakness in modern combat would be the modern naval torpedoe which is designed as a water displacement weapon like a bottom influence mine, (USS Princeton hit during the Gulf War). which negates the belt armor protection the Iowas had. There AAW defense systems were also weak knee'd but a little money could have corrected that. The biggest reason for their final demise is cost of operation. Big fuel guzzlers without a lot of bang for the buck. Imho
One more interesting thing, that might make a good poll. Which reference is the best. David Millers, warships 1860 to the present or Norman Pulmar's Janes Fighting Ships (released on a yearly basis and very expensive!) I kinda favor Janes fighting ships myself but that is because of the 20 years I spent wearing U S Navy Blue. There was a copy at just about every command I was stationed at.
Didn't the HMS Rodney have 10 x 16" 45 caliber main guns. She was extremely slow and actually obsolete, but she is credited with getting the first hits in the final confrontation with the Bismarck. I don't think she would have gotten my vote because of her ungamely appearance and I have never been a fan of the quad gun turret, it just looks ungamely.
On the post concerning the use of heavy armor in todays warships. The Nimitz class carrier still has armor around vital areas such as the reactor rooms and below deck control areas. I think I read somewhere that the still have a small but considered affective torpedoe belt. I know they are double hulled below the waterline. The Nuclear powered Cruiser USS Longbeach had 1" armor plating main deck and below. The last true heavy cruiser ever built at 17,400 tons.
On the SS-N-19, according to Jane's weapons system the bird flys between Mach 2 and 2.5 and the warhead is capable of penetrating upto 17 cm's of Plate armor, so it may take a couple to take down the Iowa's The Iowa class biggest weakness in modern combat would be the modern naval torpedoe which is designed as a water displacement weapon like a bottom influence mine, (USS Princeton hit during the Gulf War). which negates the belt armor protection the Iowas had. There AAW defense systems were also weak knee'd but a little money could have corrected that. The biggest reason for their final demise is cost of operation. Big fuel guzzlers without a lot of bang for the buck. Imho
One more interesting thing, that might make a good poll. Which reference is the best. David Millers, warships 1860 to the present or Norman Pulmar's Janes Fighting Ships (released on a yearly basis and very expensive!) I kinda favor Janes fighting ships myself but that is because of the 20 years I spent wearing U S Navy Blue. There was a copy at just about every command I was stationed at.
Ask General Eisenhower if he wants me to give it back. -General George S. Patton when being told of a message that he was not to take Mesina, Sicily.
The reason I like the David Miller is that it's portable, and it's not expensive, and it has all the details laid out; I do like Jane's as well but have found the quality of their various publications varies.
As for why Rodney wasn't included, originally this poll was going to be about ships that *could* be in UV given the theatre and historical timeframe...but with subsequent polls it's gotten to be a bit bigger.
As for why Rodney wasn't included, originally this poll was going to be about ships that *could* be in UV given the theatre and historical timeframe...but with subsequent polls it's gotten to be a bit bigger.
"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
According to Friedman's US Aircraft Carriers:Originally posted by rlc27
I knew that the ww2 era CV's were built with at least some armor, but then again, when you look at the likes of Essex-class carriers, it seems as if, with their 8" guns, the navy still wasn't quite sure whether they were building a cruiser or a new kind of ship.
Protection:
Flight Deck/Gallery Deck -- none
Hangar Deck -- 1.5in
Protective Deck(s) -- 1.5in
Belt -- 4in-2.5in (508x10ft)
Bulheads -- 4in
Conning Tower -- 1.5in STS top, 1in STS side of pilot house
Steering Gear -- 2.5in
The text says this is basically armored against light cruiser (6in) gunfire.
Also, they carried 5"/38, not 8" guns. Lex and Sara did carry the 8", though.
When I visited the Intrepid in NYC with my dad a couple of years ago, we both noticed how, if you replaced the 8"ers and cut off the flightdeck, what you have left basically stills has the profile, length, width, etc., of a cruiser. The point is, it would make sense if post-war designers designed the ships so that the structure itself served as armor--wasn't there a battleship that was famous for its pioneering design in that respect (can't remember which, but think it was US).
If you're saying what I think you're saying, you're right. The Midways were the first class where the flight deck was the "strength" deck, that is, essential to keeping the ship together. You could basically cut off the flight deck of the earlier ships and still go sailing around.
edit: whoops, Midway, not Forrestal as the first class with the flight deck as the strength deck...
I love it when a plan comes together.
Now I did not know *that*. While I was at the Intrepid I bought this book they had on sale in the gift shop--and it shows a cutaway of the ship as originally constructed. It really does look like a cruiser with a flightdeck, and if you consider the USN's penchant for refitting cruisers as A/C's--well, that's definitely something interesting.
I wonder if, like the Nipponese navy with the Shinano (I think?) the USN ever considered building an A/C on a battleship's hull? Perhaps there was no need considering the industrial output of the US naval shipyards?
I wonder if, like the Nipponese navy with the Shinano (I think?) the USN ever considered building an A/C on a battleship's hull? Perhaps there was no need considering the industrial output of the US naval shipyards?
"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
Originally posted by rlc27
Now I did not know *that*. While I was at the Intrepid I bought this book they had on sale in the gift shop--and it shows a cutaway of the ship as originally constructed. It really does look like a cruiser with a flightdeck, and if you consider the USN's penchant for refitting cruisers as A/C's--well, that's definitely something interesting.
Now I'm not implying that anyone ever thought about cutting off the flight deck and sailing around, but its just illustrates that as you say, the flight deck is very lightly built on top of the hangar deck.
I wonder if, like the Nipponese navy with the Shinano (I think?) the USN ever considered building an A/C on a battleship's hull? Perhaps there was no need considering the industrial output of the US naval shipyards?
Friedman, pg 190 again (good book, pricey though)
"Light carriers were not the only hulls considered for carrier conversion during the President's carrier panic. A BuShips reference sheet shows a preliminary study of Alaska-class conversions (six hulls under construction or on order) of 3 January 1942 and even a premilinary study (June 1942) of an Iowa-class conversion, although a 12 June note stated that the conversion would not take place. At about the same time the conversion of a Baltimore-class heavy cruiser full was also considered. The original Saipan design would have been similar, although it would have been built from the keel up as a carrier. The Alaska-class conversion was particularly attractive, given the close afinity between that design and the one of the Essex. Compared with an Essex-class conversion (XPav: conversion? huh?), the Alaska-class conversion would show about 10 percent less aircraft capacity due to a shorter flight deck. That is, the heavily armored Alaska was both shorter and lower int he water, with three fulld decks rather than four, a different of 11 feet in freeboard to the main deck. Cruising radius was 12,000 rather than the 20,000 nautical miles at 15 knots. Moreover, the large cruiser (XPav: Not a battlecruiser! Hah!
) had inferior underwater protection (a triple sking rather than the carrier's layers of protective compartments) because so much of her displacement had gone into protection against shellfire. BuShip expected to reduce that belt armor from 9 to about 4.5 inches, but even so could provide only two elevators and no hangar-deck catapult; about a thousand tons of ballast would be required. The lengthy delats inherent in such a project made it impractical, and work stopped on 7 January 1942."That answer your question?
I love it when a plan comes together.