HMS Warspite:
You have written:
“The solution would be to have South Dakota
replaced by a more experienced British Battleship of the King George V class, which had proven to be an equal at least to a Bismarck Class ship. The King George V class was more heavily armored and had guns capable of inflicting serious damage, besides being more accurate.
No South Dakota class BB ever had scored hits on a moving target in WW2, although having had the opportunity to do so on two occasions. (Savo Island and Cassablanca) OK, USS Massachusetts scored a few hits on a stationary Jean Bart, but that is not a seabattle, but a firesupport operation for landings. King George V class ships scored hits on moving targets on three occasions, during the only three times they did face an opponent at sea. (Bismarck 2x and Scharnhorst.)) That is 0% SD and 100% KGV in scores.”
And:
“The point was that the King George V class scored a 100% combateffectivenes in Capital ship vs capital ship encounters, scoring hits on three out of three occasions. Battleships do have the advantage over cruisers though in being more stable gunneryplatforms with a beamier length to beam ration than a slender build cruiser.
British gunnery conrol in th early war years was simple, but effective, before radar made a big jump in reliability. It was mainly the level of training that
made the Royal Navy have the upperhand in these years, compared to most other navies at that time.”
Is this accurate?
- The first encounter of a KGV w/ a Bismarck Class ended in defeat of the KGV, disabled, making smoke, and fleeing. In the only other encounter, the KGV advanced only w/ the company of another battleship, when the Bismarck was already at reduced speed, no maneuvrability, and had been hit by the other battleship. It’s thus clear, isn’t it, that the KGV Class had not “proven to be an equal at least to a Bismarck Class ship”? Your statement appears to be an exaggeration.
- South Dakota Class only encountered enemy capital ships twice. In the first encounter, Massachusetts hit and sank a maneuvering destroyer and hit a stationary battleship, all just a month after its shakedown cruise, thus similar to Prince of Wales when it encountered Bismarck. In the second, a temporary electrical malfunction unrelated to battle damage disabled South Dakotas guns, and it was only then damaged. It was not inaccuracy that caused this latter failure to score hits.
- In the third instance of a KGV encountering a capital ship, it was a battlecruiser w/ shorter-ranged guns that Duke of York encountered, battering the enemy while mostly out of range itself?
- Lastly, you’ve written that the RN had gunnery advantage at least until 1944. Did it? Bismarck and Prinz Eugen hit Hood and Prince of Wales multiple times while all four were underway, obliterating Hood, and disabling Prince of Wales. German gunnery was at least equal to that of British gunnery. And Scharnhorst hit Duke of York, though w/ smaller calibre guns, while it was being hit. Again, German gunnery was not lacking. And if RN gunnery was relatively capable due to training, then wouldn't Hood's gunnery have been particularly capable? It wasn't, though, was it? Wasn't it rather poor, particularly for such an established ship? Wasn't Bismarck's and Prinz Eugen's superior? Also, I'd mention that the USN's oldest battleships didn't seem to have any problem obliterating moving battleship targets during the battle of Surigao Straits - at night!
I conclude that you have a number of inaccuracies in your review statements.