I like it, sounds like a Super Deutschland PBS. With fewer turrets you can make them better protected so that Rodney can't get a repeat, but also, bear in mind Rodney was hitting an already disabled ship. Improve torpedo protection, especially for the props and rudder, plus make it 35 knots capable, with long range, no point mulling about in the RN's backyard.For an ATL Bismarck class, could a 2 X 4-15" gun design have made a better ship that OTL 4 X 2-15" gun design? I know of the historical theory that made them go the route they did, as well as the historical fact that the theory was wrong (2 turrets disabled by 1 hit, from HMS Rodney, IIRC), but what changes would result from my posited redistribution of main armament?
Bismarck had a 175mm upper belt and end belts going fore and aft that I believe were around 3" thick. Against battleship shells, both are pretty useless, as Prince of Wales demonstrated by piercing that fuel tank at Denmark Straight.How much redistribution are we talking about here?
Thanks. I like the idea of "pushing the envelope", and going with a maximized main armament layout. As has been mentioned, the Germans going with the Quad turret would take some doing, and this would need some careful attention in order to 'get it right'. As for the engines, the TED does look intriguing, and a 4 shaft design might well be in order, but how to get 35 kts is beyond me.I like it, sounds like a Super Deutschland PBS. With fewer turrets you can make them better protected so that Rodney can't get a repeat, but also, bear in mind Rodney was hitting an already disabled ship. Improve torpedo protection, especially for the props and rudder, plus make it 35 knots capable, with long range, no point mulling about in the RN's backyard.
Shouldn't that be cubic foot? Or are we talking a certain specific thickness of steel here?
Can anyone, in simple terms, explain what happened, what with the Rodney taking out the turret mechanism for turning two turrets with one hit (assuming, of course, that I even understand that correctly, lol))?
There are also improvements to be made to the armor scheme. The turtle-deck layout should be left alone, as the designers did have an appropriate rationale for it, but the upper and end belts should have been deleted, which frees up weight for other areas.
I'm not sure about the upper belt, but the waterline belt extensions were a reasonable idea, based on the assumption that maintaining buoyancy and hence speed was a good idea and noting the possibility of close-range engagements in poor visibility in the North Sea with British destroyers and light cruisers in pre-radar days. The Germans had to face a quite different threat environment to the British and particularly the Americans, and the armour scheme is rational. The lack of development from WW1 ideas seems to represent the fact that, when designed, the battle area appeared to be the same as that in WW1.
Agreed, to a point. Like I said, the turtle-back deck layout was quite rational for the kind of gun battle the designers expected Bismarck to get into. I still find the end belts rather pointless (seriously, cruisers and destroyers are far more likely to shoot at the upperworks than the ends of the ship), but the upper belt represents the larger weight penalty anyway, so... Eh.I'm not sure about the upper belt, but the waterline belt extensions were a reasonable idea, based on the assumption that maintaining buoyancy and hence speed was a good idea and noting the possibility of close-range engagements in poor visibility in the North Sea with British destroyers and light cruisers in pre-radar days. The Germans had to face a quite different threat environment to the British and particularly the Americans, and the armour scheme is rational. The lack of development from WW1 ideas seems to represent the fact that, when designed, the battle area appeared to be the same as that in WW1.
Considering at the ranges that battle was fought at American 8" guns could punch through over ten inches of armor, I don't think All or Nothing would have helped her all that much.They Ignored 'All or Nothing' and wasted a lot of armor over areas that would really do nothing, protection wise.
Why do you think the USN and RN adopted All or Nothing?
It made sense after looking at WWI combat results. All thinner armor did was activate the fuze on incoming shells
That's what was learned from Jutland.
WWI armor scheme in Hiei allowed her to be crippled by USN 8" gunfire
They Ignored 'All or Nothing' and wasted a lot of armor over areas that would really do nothing, protection wise.
Why do you think the USN and RN adopted All or Nothing?
It made sense after looking at WWI combat results. All thinner armor did was activate the fuze on incoming shells
That's what was learned from Jutland.
WWI armor scheme in Hiei allowed her to be crippled by USN 8" gunfire
Considering at the ranges that battle was fought at American 8" guns could punch through over ten inches of armor, I don't think All or Nothing would have helped her all that much.
A little detail: The USA put "All or Nothing" armor into place well before Jutland, starting with Nevada. Through the treaty era, the USA had 12 All or Nothing ships, compared to two for Britain, none for France, IIRC, and only a very few for Japan, if any.
Regarding Hiei, she was a rebuilt battlecruiser classified as a battleship. A battleship with all or nothing armor would have rejected the US 8" shells; most genuine battleships had 12" or more of armor.
And how many new battleships were built after the WT?
Dunkerque class was also All or Nothing
Hiei, as I posted above, had just enough armor to get that 8" AP to explode, rather than passing thru, like the 16" and 18" thru the Tincans of Taffy 3
Quite a few were built, but I specifically mentioned the treaty era. After the treaty, there were new battleships: 10 American, 4 Italian, 6 British, 4 French, 4 German, and only 2 Japanese-and some weren't even completed until after the war.
Hiei was a severely obsolescent ship, but was what Japan had.
You missed the point I was trying to make, which is that at such close range 8" AP is getting through her 8" main belt, which means something vital's gonna get wrecked.But 8" AP would pass thru unarmored areas without the burster going off. 3-4" just is enough to get the fuze to activate.
Much more damaging than an 8" hole thru the ship
Also, Yamato was an All or Nothing design. The incremental ships were all pre-Treaty. And compartmentation was certainly not a weakness in either design. Oh, and I find myself wondering how much more armor the Yamato class needs.And how many new battleships were built after the WT?
Dunkerque class was also All or Nothing, as were the larger Richelieu
So all the Allied ships would be All or Nothing from that point on, as were the Italian
Hiei, as I posted above, had just enough armor to get that 8" AP to explode, rather than passing thru, like the 16" and 18" thru the Tincans of Taffy 3
Germans and Japanese were still thinking WWI, to their detriment.
more compartments and pumps/DC control was the future, with more armor for machinery and magazines
Rudders and screws are an inherent vulnerability in any ship at all. They're all together in one fairly concentrated portion of the ship, so a good hit there, and anyone is in bad shape. Triple screws make it worse, for the reasons already mentioned.
Were the triple 11" gun turrets the same guns and turrets on both the Deutschland-class and the Scharnhorst-class's?Regarding turrets, incidentally, Germany's built triple 11" turrets, and twin 15's (Badens) so triple 15's shouldn't be too bad.
Yep, that link goes along way to explaining how things got so badly messed up for the Nazi navy, lol. My POD {If/When I ever get around to starting an ATL}, removes this problem, as well as many others like it.The biggest single factor, however, is the design environment for Germany's World War II ships that's been mentioned earlier. No matter what good concepts, I think they'd get ruined by the mindset of the time.