Best battleship post 1930

[sts-200]

Now consider two things. Firstly, obviously, which of these is the best combat ship one on one and why? You can assess this by what ships are available in 1941 and in a hypothetical 1946 when all are completed.

Secondly, what design represents the best value for money? Let’s not into whether battleships in general represent good value for money, no one cares about that since this is a theoretical exercise.

Combat ships:
in 1941 - KGV - excellent armour, fast, good AA (for the time), good fire control, adequate guns and good number of them. I think the results speak for themselves there.

Hypothetical 1946 - Iowa - Would cope with anything else on the list (although I suspect it would be close vs Yamato or Vanguard - for different reasons).
High speed, adequate armour, good guns & fire control, good AA.

Good value for money - much trickier.
I'd go for North Carolina - ready in time (well, in time for the Americans anyway). Well armed, adequately fast, adequate armour. Kept in service post-war.
The large hull makes them more practical for long-term use and upgrade. In an alternate 1960, where battleships are still relevant, I can see the South Dakotas being the "USN's R-class" - good ships when built, but built down to a price (or rather treaty), and therefore not capable of being modified as extensively.
Why not Iowa or KGV instead of NC?
Iowa - much more expensive, but relatively not that much better, costlier to run.
KGV - short range, and not individually a Yamato, Iowa or H-class killer; several systems would need costly upgrades in the long term (e.g. AC electrics, dual purpose AA, very high-pressure machinery).

 

[NHBL]

When judging these ships, I don't think it's fair to down rate Littorio over the range issue. In her intended environment, she didn't NEED long range. Ither concerns, sure, but not range.

 

[King Augeas]

However, HMS Duke of York still fired less than 70% of her possible output during this battle because of mechanical and "errors in drill" problems.

AIUI that figure is typical of extended shoots, even those not in Arctic storms.

 

[Dageraad]

Take into account the things a battleship can be expected to encounter from 1943 onwards:

- Aircraft
- Targets on land
- Subs
- Cruisers

Enemy battleships in a 1:1 situation? None.

All of the fast battleships can counter cruisers and are more than adequate for bombing inland.
So I want a good TDS, speed, AAA and I think Jean Bart had all of that.
If I take cost into account I prefer Vanguard

 

[Redbeard]

AIUI that figure is typical of extended shoots, even those not in Arctic storms.

Yes, I once saw some data on a USN BB prolonged practice firing (IIRC USS Idaho), the number of misfires certainly rised steeply as the number of rounds grew and - again from memory - to a level comparable to that of PoW and DoY in their prolonged engagement.

In the DoY case the heavy seas are very important however. Any machinery involving moving parts, incl. very heavy shells to be partially manhandled, becomes extremely tricky in heavy seas. On top of that I guess "tight fit" for flash protection in the KGVs very well could have increased problems from heavy seas (reports indicated that) - but again - if that could be kept inside the OTL output at North Cape - that was actually quite OK! And anyway the flash protection was there for a reason. The KGVs having not only the thickest and best armour, but also the best flash protection should add to their ranking. We just don't know very much about flash protection worked in WWII because very few modern ships were exposed to extensive shelling.

 

[Jukra]

Could the naval powers of WW2 have managed with less battleships - if spending in land-based aircraft or aircraft carriers is not taken into account? Spending on other surface ships - such as 8" or 6" cruisers or destroyers - is allowed?

 

[hipper]

from navweaps.com
During the early part of her action against Scharnhorst at the Battle of the North Cape on 26 December 1943, HMS Duke of York scored 31 straddles out of 52 broadsides fired and during the latter part she scored 21 straddles out of 25 broadsides, a very creditable gunnery performance. In total, Duke of York fired 450 shells in 77 broadsides. However, HMS Duke of York still fired less than 70% of her possible output during this battle because of mechanical and "errors in drill" problems.

from https://books.google.com/books?id=JRImDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA180
four of ten tubes having troubles

I know but given the weather was that a good or a bad performance, we’re 5nere any battleships that did better in similar weather conditions?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Duke of York still had problems in 1943

Not nearly as serious as Scharnhorst problems in 1943

Honestly all WW2 BBs had problems with their guns - but so much has been written about the British ships that every fault, not matter how trivial, has been written about ad nauseum while the reverse is true of other nations ships

KGV had zero issues for the first 30 minutes of the engagement vs Bismark - while you will be hard pressed to find any other ship that fired continuously for nearly as much time in WW2 other than another British ship and even then will be able to find very little data on problems experianced per tube per engagement etc

So it is very easy to critique the British warships and their performance because we know so much and have an embarrisment of data to trawl through while because so little is known of other nations warships and their performances in battle by comparison it is not as easy.

Also few nations had as many Battleship on Battleship enegagements as the RN so more focus is made on those engagements by the RN.

 

[fastmongrel]

I don't know why we are even discussing it everyone knows the best battleship ever was HMS Warspite

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I don't know why we are even discussing it everyone knows the best battleship ever was HMS Warspite

FACT!

 

[Jukra]

I don't know why we are even discussing it everyone knows the best battleship ever was HMS Warspite

It's only failure was that it did not get to become a museum.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

It's only failure was that it did not get to become a museum.

Not through lack of trying!

She beached herself off the Cornwall coast on the way to the Scrap Yard and had to be dismantled in situ - Spiteful to the last

To be fair she was utterly ruined from several decades of very hard use and one direct hit from a Fritz X as well as some near misses didnt help matters

She would not have made a good museum ship IMO - she would probably trip visitors and make them get lost, upset children etc - she was built for war not peace and never cared for the odds - ie faking a Rudder issue at Jutland just to stay in the fight a bit longer

 

[fastmongrel]

It's only failure was that it did not get to become a museum.

She had more holes than Blackburn Lancashire

 

[Dynasoar]

Have just discovered this technically fascinating thread. Earlier posts discussed the comparative effectiveness of various main turret guns at a specific range, with angle of entry (along with projectile weight) being a significant parameter. If the target is not at the limit of range, and a (near) vertical deck impact is desired for maximum penetration, a family of higher trajectories certainly exists. What am I missing? And how does higher muzzle velocity become a disadvantage?

Dynasoar

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Have just discovered this technically fascinating thread. Earlier posts discussed the comparative effectiveness of various main turret guns at a specific range, with angle of entry (along with projectile weight) being a significant parameter. If the target is not at the limit of range, and a (near) vertical deck impact is desired for maximum penetration, a family of higher trajectories certainly exists. What am I missing? And how does higher muzzle velocity become a disadvantage?

Dynasoar

A heavier shell with a relatively high velocity requires a more complicated / higher quality gun or as in the Italian case a gun that wears out very quickly - like 100 or so shots which requires a return to port and barrel replacement

For example the 16" guns which shot a relatively light 16" shell at high velocity on HMS NelRod were only marginally better than the 15" Green boy shells on the other 13 Battleships and Battlecruisers of the then British fleet

 

[b0ned0me]

If the target is not at the limit of range, and a (near) vertical deck impact is desired for maximum penetration, a family of higher trajectories certainly exists. What am I missing?

IF i understand your question correctly, you are missing that battleships are armed with guns not howitzers. Why that is I am not 100% certain but would guess a combination of:
- High-angle recoil unkind to ships structures
- flight time + arc of lofted shells complicates firing solutions against a moving target, especially when fired from a rolling/yawing platform

 

[Ato]

IF i understand your question correctly, you are missing that battleships are armed with guns not howitzers. Why that is I am not 100% certain but would guess a combination of:
- High-angle recoil unkind to ships structures
- flight time + arc of lofted shells complicates firing solutions against a moving target, especially when fired from a rolling/yawing platform

High Angle fire to bypass the thick belt armour of enemy battleships, and instead engage the much thinner deck armour was a solution that several navies pursued. The US an UK in particular put a signficant amount of development post WWI into increasing the elevation of the guns on thier battleships to try and increase thier lethality.
However not much came of it as by the time that the systems designed to exploit this were deployed in combat a much more effective way of attacking this weak spot was being employed. Aircraft.

 

[Jukra]

Not through lack of trying!

She beached herself off the Cornwall coast on the way to the Scrap Yard and had to be dismantled in situ - Spiteful to the last

To be fair she was utterly ruined from several decades of very hard use and one direct hit from a Fritz X as well as some near misses didnt help matters

She would not have made a good museum ship IMO - she would probably trip visitors and make them get lost, upset children etc - she was built for war not peace and never cared for the odds - ie faking a Rudder issue at Jutland just to stay in the fight a bit longer

IMHO, the damage would make her even better museum, as she would clearly have been no showcase, but worn out from both World Wars. But this speculation is unfortunately 70 years too late!

 

[Md139115]

The usefulness of a battleship has also got to be judged in its employment. The RN rarely hesitated to commit a vessel to battle; sending Warspite up the fjords to Narvik when they were infested with destroyers, Revenge was positioned at Plymouth to interdict convoys and carried out a lengthy bombardment mission against Cherbourg. PoW engaged and crippled Bismarck, smashing open her bow, lowering her speed and piercing her fuel bunkers. King George V and Rodney hunted down the wounded Bismarck and dispatched it - even as they ran their own fuel bunkers empty. Again and again the Queen Elizabeths sortied from Alexandria, Malta and Gibraltar, with the result that the Italian battlefleet's immense capability was never properly utilised for fear of Cunningham and Sommerville. Renown ran down Scharnhorst and Gneisenau off the Lofoten Islands, and in the most hideous conditions, fought a gunbattle, hilariously outgunned against two better-armoured opponents and sent them scuttling back to Wilhelmshaven with damage from shell and sea alike. Then of course there was the fateful battle at North Cape, where Robert Burnett's cruisers tore at Scharnhorst's flanks, harrying her until Duke of York ran her down, crippled her and left her a blazing wreck for the torpedoes of the cruisers and destroyers.

If we are to judge a battleship by its employment, where daring, courage and cunning bled and bruised an enemy, then I fear that no fleet equal the Royal Navy, working with elderly equipment, low in numbers compared with the many foes ranged against them. With the cities of Britain blasted and burning, her industries long-neglected, the Royal Navy delivered final victory in battle, fighting with such commitment, professionalism and sheer bloody stubbornness as has rarely been equalled. The toll of this 'victory' is a horrific one that we all well know - shells, torpedoes and nature itself do not easily differentiate between man and child.

He says, as “Land of Hope and Glory” plays in the background...

 

[jsb]

a family of higher trajectories certainly exists. What am I missing?

Very few heavy guns can elevate to use them as they would be over 45deg would they not?
+

- flight time + arc of lofted shells complicates firing solutions against a moving target, especially when fired from a rolling/yawing platform