Old Nameless vs. Tirpitz.

Status
Not open for further replies.

sharlin

Banned
The German designs always looked very purposeful and powerful. Even if they were not good ships (see their entire light cruiser effort) they managed to make a good looking ship that seemed to ooze power.

The French and Italians looked racy whilst this Littorrio was a show girl about to raise her skirt with that aft turret above her rear decking.

The RN ships tended to look stately, even the Nelrods had a stately presence about them imo whilst as you said Cal the USN looked very workman like.
 
This gives KGV more protective stayingpower, mainly due to a heavier deck (of somewhat stronger steel, compared to US B-type Armor).

Both the KGV and SD used Class A (face hardened) armor for their belt armor. However, the SD belt armor was inclined at ~19 degrees from vertical making it effectively thicker for penetration purposes. The SD also had 1.25" external plating that 'may' have been thick enough to decap armor piercing projectiles, especially at oblique angles.

The SD only used Class B (non-face hardened) armor for the turret faces (18"), horizontal armor, and other minor locations.

The KGV was better armored for the type of short range battles likely to be fought in the North Sea, but the SD was not substantially inferior. However, in terms of offensive power, the 2700 lb 16" shell of the SD was superior to the 1590 lb 14" of the KGV at most any battle range.
 
However, in terms of offensive power, the 2700 lb 16" shell of the SD was superior to the 1590 lb 14" of the KGV at most any battle range.

It's certainly superior if your shells are hitting armour that the 2700 lb can penetrate but the 1590 lb cannot. Elsewhere, if both penetrate or if neither penetrate, then the 1590 lb may be more effective because it has (AFAIK) a larger burster charge. If you take the example of Denmark Straits, then no shell hit on POW or Bismarck hit heavy armour, while a larger burster charge presumably helped POW's diving hit that exploded against Bismarck's torpedo bulkhead. When Kirishima was sunk, the action was at ranges short enough that both types of shell would have penetrated her armour easily. In both cases however, the differences in effects may have been very minor, of course.

Of course, penetrating armour is the main job of an APC shell, but heavy armour is only a small area of a battleship, and both shells would disable a FC position, and possibly also a turret, even if they don't penetrate. I wonder how the 16" shell for the Lion-class would have compared with the US one.
 
Both the KGV and SD used Class A (face hardened) armor for their belt armor. However, the SD belt armor was inclined at ~19 degrees from vertical making it effectively thicker for penetration purposes. The SD also had 1.25" external plating that 'may' have been thick enough to decap armor piercing projectiles, especially at oblique angles.

The SD only used Class B (non-face hardened) armor for the turret faces (18"), horizontal armor, and other minor locations.

The KGV was better armored for the type of short range battles likely to be fought in the North Sea, but the SD was not substantially inferior. However, in terms of offensive power, the 2700 lb 16" shell of the SD was superior to the 1590 lb 14" of the KGV at most any battle range.


One other important factor would be the abbility to score hits fast, whcih SD cannot, having slower fireing guns, compared tot he 14 inch weapon of the British ship. (It was not the gun that gave troubles on the King George V class, but the combination of ammunition handling procedures and the complexity of the quadruple turrets.) In theory the 14 inch/45 Mk.VII had a ROF of 2.5 rounds a minute, compared to the 1.5 of the 16 inch/45 Mk 6. of US origin. That would mean a KGV could hose between 200 to 250 shells in five minutes at a target, to roughly 141 at the most of the US ship in the same timeperiod. That will make a difference in then propability of scoring a hit.

Also of significance to undersstand is the poor gunneryperformance of the early war period of US Battleships, while their British consorts had better scores at this time (primarily due to two years fighting a war already, gaining experience.) USN BB's only were fitted with state of the art gunnerycontrol and radars for firecontrol in the later part of 1944. Before that time, their performance was poor at best. (Only USS Washington actually scored hits on a moving target with main calliber guns. SD and Massachusetts failed to do so, though the later did hit the stationary target at Cassablanca.) King George V class ships scored hits on three occasions on a moving target, twice in severe whether conditions of the North Atlantic.

So pound for pound the KGV was a better investment, as it did do what it was supposed to do, while SD did not make worth its money. This shipdesign could have been better when more ballanced with either fewer 16 inch guns, or a smaller main gun, which both would have made it a more ballanced design anyway and propably a more powerful one at the same time, as saved weight could have been used to uparmor her to more European levels. (Her main armored deck of maximum 5.3 inch was about the thinnest of all post Washington holliday designs, as the British and French had 6 inch and the Itallians even 6.5 inch.) Also a good thing to do on a redisign was to remove the internal inclined belt and fit something simmilar as on the South Carolina's on her, which had a bonus of creating both more internal space and easier acces to the main belt in case of need for repairs.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
It's certainly superior if your shells are hitting armour that the 2700 lb can penetrate but the 1590 lb cannot. Elsewhere, if both penetrate or if neither penetrate, then the 1590 lb may be more effective because it has (AFAIK) a larger burster charge. If you take the example of Denmark Straits, then no shell hit on POW or Bismarck hit heavy armour, while a larger burster charge presumably helped POW's diving hit that exploded against Bismarck's torpedo bulkhead. When Kirishima was sunk, the action was at ranges short enough that both types of shell would have penetrated her armour easily. In both cases however, the differences in effects may have been very minor, of course.

Of course, penetrating armour is the main job of an APC shell, but heavy armour is only a small area of a battleship, and both shells would disable a FC position, and possibly also a turret, even if they don't penetrate. I wonder how the 16" shell for the Lion-class would have compared with the US one.


Navweaps.com shows the 2,700 pound Mark 8 with pretty much a massive advantage in armor penetration (anywhere from 20-30%) over the 2,375 pound RN round. The RN round did have a larger bursting charge.
 
One other important factor would be the abbility to score hits fast, whcih SD cannot, having slower fireing guns, compared tot he 14 inch weapon of the British ship. (It was not the gun that gave troubles on the King George V class, but the combination of ammunition handling procedures and the complexity of the quadruple turrets.) In theory the 14 inch/45 Mk.VII had a ROF of 2.5 rounds a minute, compared to the 1.5 of the 16 inch/45 Mk 6. of US origin. That would mean a KGV could hose between 200 to 250 shells in five minutes at a target, to roughly 141 at the most of the US ship in the same timeperiod. That will make a difference in then propability of scoring a hit.

Also of significance to undersstand is the poor gunneryperformance of the early war period of US Battleships, while their British consorts had better scores at this time (primarily due to two years fighting a war already, gaining experience.) USN BB's only were fitted with state of the art gunnerycontrol and radars for firecontrol in the later part of 1944. Before that time, their performance was poor at best. (Only USS Washington actually scored hits on a moving target with main calliber guns. SD and Massachusetts failed to do so, though the later did hit the stationary target at Cassablanca.) King George V class ships scored hits on three occasions on a moving target, twice in severe whether conditions of the North Atlantic.

So pound for pound the KGV was a better investment, as it did do what it was supposed to do, while SD did not make worth its money. This shipdesign could have been better when more ballanced with either fewer 16 inch guns, or a smaller main gun, which both would have made it a more ballanced design anyway and propably a more powerful one at the same time, as saved weight could have been used to uparmor her to more European levels. (Her main armored deck of maximum 5.3 inch was about the thinnest of all post Washington holliday designs, as the British and French had 6 inch and the Itallians even 6.5 inch.) Also a good thing to do on a redisign was to remove the internal inclined belt and fit something simmilar as on the South Carolina's on her, which had a bonus of creating both more internal space and easier acces to the main belt in case of need for repairs.


Lets hope RN BB shot better than their Cruisers...

"five British cruisers belonging to Admiral Tovey’s 7th cruiser squadron suddenly appeared out of the dark Eastern horizon. They had left Alexandria on the 27th covering convoy AS 1 with destination Port Said from Greek waters. Fire was opened at approx. 18.000 meters range and they kept this up till Espero was finally sunk by HMS Sydney after 5.000 rounds had been fired by the British cruiser squadron. It took almost an hour before Espero received its first hit and the uneven fight lasted for almost two hours. In the meantime Espero’s maneuvers, smoke-laying and return fire had let the two other destroyers off the hook, they escaped unscathed to Benghazi to proceed to Tobruk the day after. 47 survivors from Espero were taken in hand by Sydney which had to break off the rescue effort due to approaching Italian aircrafts. Captain Baroni went down with his ship and was posthumously awarded the Military Gold Medal for Valor – the highest Italian award. An interesting side-effect of this skirmish was that the cruisers HMS Gloucester and Liverpool had to abort their escort mission to return to Alexandria to replenish their ammunition stock and due to a general lack of 6-inch ammunition in the Eastern Med fleet all Malta convoys had to be postponed for two weeks."

From: http://www.comandosupremo.com/war-in-the-med-part-7-the-first-month-air-and-sea.html/7

Cruisers are not Battleships, of course. But the RN was not a club of one shot one kill wonders...
 
Lets hope RN BB shot better than their Cruisers...

"five British cruisers belonging to Admiral Tovey’s 7th cruiser squadron suddenly appeared out of the dark Eastern horizon. They had left Alexandria on the 27th covering convoy AS 1 with destination Port Said from Greek waters. Fire was opened at approx. 18.000 meters range and they kept this up till Espero was finally sunk by HMS Sydney after 5.000 rounds had been fired by the British cruiser squadron. It took almost an hour before Espero received its first hit and the uneven fight lasted for almost two hours. In the meantime Espero’s maneuvers, smoke-laying and return fire had let the two other destroyers off the hook, they escaped unscathed to Benghazi to proceed to Tobruk the day after. 47 survivors from Espero were taken in hand by Sydney which had to break off the rescue effort due to approaching Italian aircrafts. Captain Baroni went down with his ship and was posthumously awarded the Military Gold Medal for Valor – the highest Italian award. An interesting side-effect of this skirmish was that the cruisers HMS Gloucester and Liverpool had to abort their escort mission to return to Alexandria to replenish their ammunition stock and due to a general lack of 6-inch ammunition in the Eastern Med fleet all Malta convoys had to be postponed for two weeks."

From: http://www.comandosupremo.com/war-in-the-med-part-7-the-first-month-air-and-sea.html/7

Cruisers are not Battleships, of course. But the RN was not a club of one shot one kill wonders...


To my knowledge Sir John Tovey commanded the homefleet, not the Mediteranean Fleet in WW2 from 1940 to 1942. 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 gunneryconrol 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.
 
I'm sure some British officers wanted that, but they may not have had a choice if things developed suddenly.

As to the Pacific? That's a different argument, and we could fight it all day, but I'd rather not.

The best sorts of development would be Tripitz being damaged, or destroyed by (Norwegian) sabotage, or the later OTL X-Craft attack, as the germans would not do much more with their few remaining large navalships. USN, or Royal navy heavy units would not be able to do much in the Fjords, as they were severely at risk in the minefields, controlled by superior Luftwaffe forces in the air and U-Boote lurking around at any time. If a battleship had to be sunk at sea then, it would be an allied one, as the Tirpitz would sit her time out in her Fjord.

By the way, the King George V class vessels were in refit during the early summermonths of 1943, which is why the pair of USN BB's were temporarily loaned to the Homefleet, together with USS Ranger and the cruiser USS Tusculosa. They were under the command of Admiral Tovey, flying his flag on HMS Nelson at that time, with HMS Rodney forming the main force in Scapa Flow. Rodney was almost in a static status, due to her decaying engines. The US squadron was junior under his command, so he could deploy it the way he feeled free to do so. Tovey was a close contact of Churchill, so likely cautious and not willing to take too many risks, as he also was aware about the scheduled plans for a year later at Normandy, which did not demand too many unneeded risks at sea in seemingly glamereous adventures. His successor Sir Bruce Fraser was at the time his second in command.[/QUOTE]
 
Warning
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?

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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.
 
Last edited:

SsgtC

Banned
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?

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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.
Necrophilia is bad. Please don't necro old threads. Especially 5+ year old ones
 
If the Tirpitz had been fully worked up with a clean bottom and undamaged machinery with a lull load out of AP shells that worked, , things would probably have been even. It would all depend upon fate or luck. Who ever got in the first nasty hits would probably win. It would have been an interesting engagement. How far it would have gone and who might have won is something we will never know for sure. Perhaps that is fortunate. Lots of brave sailors on both sides would have died.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
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?

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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.
Please don't click through the dead thread warning notice to pick a fight in a FIVE YEAR OLD thread (or any thread with the warning banner activated).

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top