OOC - British BBs vs US BBs in 1940-1942

OK - presume US-UK conflict. Who wins the following in 1940:

USS Arizona, USS California, USS Arkansas and USS Maryland vs HMS Warspite, HMS Nelson, HMS Royal Oak and HMS Renown. Presume no airpower. However, do take into account normal escorts.

What about this in 1942: USS North Carolina and USS Washington vs. HMS King George V and HMS Anson.

Thanks.

Mike Turcotte
 
I don't know about the US ships being operated like that. They were usually paired up with their twin. Ex.: Arizona and Pennsylvannia, Oklahoma and Nevada, Tennessee and California. Arkansas is the odd man out because its twin the Wyoming was converted to a gunnery training ship.
 
I don't know about the US ships being operated like that. They were usually paired up with their twin. Ex.: Arizona and Pennsylvannia, Oklahoma and Nevada, Tennessee and California. Arkansas is the odd man out because its twin the Wyoming was converted to a gunnery training ship.

US vs. UK BB's and you're complaining about division assignments?!?

I am compelled to ask, however, how the OP picked those ships? Out of a hat?

I don't even know where to start with the first match-up, but I'd say the second would be somewhat weighted in the US's favor: the NCs have one less main battery tube than the KGVs, but fire a much heavier shell and fire rather faster in practice. The ships otherwise are fairly evenly matched (speed, displacement, armor, fire control, etc.).

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/U/s/US_16_45_Mk6_gun.htm
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/B/r/British_14_45_Mk7_gun.htm
 
Curious why you chose these particular ships (both sides)?

USS Arizona, USS California, USS Arkansas and USS Maryland vs HMS Warspite, HMS Nelson, HMS Royal Oak and HMS Renown

No airpower means escorts are used as scouts for the most part. The 2 fleets would pull up in WWI style battlelines. Nelson outclasses the armor protection of any of the American ships (benefiting from the lessons of designing the G3 and N3 classes), probably better gun technology than its opposite in the American line Maryland.

Warspite (all the QE2 class) were faster than any of the American BB's before BB55 (1941) when they first hit the water in WWI, so add to that the fact the British put a lot more effort between the wars keeping their ships upgraded and they have 2 units in this battle better than any on the American side.

Renown might be the weak man on the British side in a battleline. As a battlecruiser plunging fire (ala Hood v Bismarck) may be a big weakness for her.

Royal Oak, in armor, firepower, speed and technology is the only British unit that is equivalent to the top three American ships. She could hold her own again any of the three and probably make short work of the 12" gunned Arkansas.

This battle materially favors the British.
-------------------------------

Now the 2nd senario is much more even.

Both ship classes are about the same in speed and armor protection, technology is probably a wash too, in '42. Both ships were designed with protection designed against 14" shellfire, so the NCs' should hold up to the KGVs' gunfire better than the reverse. I'd give the American ships a slight edge for the 16" shell's superior chances of penetrating the KGVs' armor.

You can assume that the smaller 14" guns of the KGVs' have a slightly better rate of fire so if the British rangefinders and radars are on top of their game that day they might be able to keep things even.
 
You can assume that the smaller 14" guns of the KGVs' have a slightly better rate of fire so if the British rangefinders and radars are on top of their game that day they might be able to keep things even.

Check the links I cited - even in theory the Brit 14" had a 30 second cycle; exactly the same as the US 16". In practice the Brits had trouble meeting that rate for the quad turrets.
 
Actually, the US would have completed it's modernization program for it's WWI BB's by this time, while the completely obsolescent Revenge's, due to initial design faults, could not be modernized. This is why the RN wisely kept them out of harms way whenever possible.

The US WWI battleline all had the same problem: speed. For the British, only the Nelsons and Revenges were as slow. The QE's (slightly) and the Hood, and the Renown class, were faster. For the battlecruisers, much faster.

As posters have commented, the North Carolina's against the KGV's were a wash, except for the NC's rate of fire and firepower (16" v. 14"). As underwater study of the Bismarck showed, while the KGV's 14" shells may have scoured away much of the Bismarck's superstructure, it was the Rodney's 16" AP shells that penetrated the armor to cause such mortal internal damage.

Were this a discussion thread based on the two fleets bringing in their total battleline, I see real problems for the British. Unless they disengage, using their superior speed. If they face the USN in a standup fight, it becomes a matter of armor and firepower. With that, the US wins. Though it will be very bloody.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Interesting choices for the ships. I can't imagine the USN pairing them up this way, but...

The USN guns have better anti-armor performance across the board (i.e. 14" vs. 14" ) but the WW I/1920s RN ships are faster and the Nelson has better armor (at least at first glance, Nathan Okan's work indicates something a bit different) so the Old Fellows would be a reasonably interesting thought exercise.

The 1939-41 designs, the U.S. ships win in a walk, assuming everyone in on their game. FAR more powerful guns, a somewhat better armor scheme (although not what the follow on South Dakotas could boast) roughly the same speed. The difference is that the U.S. ship's armor is proof against the RN 14" gun (it was designed to be proof against the USN 14/50" Mark 11 Mod 5, which had better performance than both the RN 15"/42 Mark I and the 16"/45 Mark I and absolutely dwarfed the 14"/45 Mark VII on the KGV) while the RN ship is a balanced design meant to withstand hits for its own guns, not the 16"/45 Mark 6 of the North Carolinas.

There are always the fortunes of war that have to be considered, not to mention the impact of escorts on the main enagement (as the captain of the Hiei could tell you, if he hadn't been killed by an 8" shell from the San Francisco off the 'Canal) but the smart money would be a repeat of the Washington vs. the Kirishima.
 
There are always the fortunes of war that have to be considered, not to mention the impact of escorts on the main enagement (as the captain of the Hiei could tell you, if he hadn't been killed by an 8" shell from the San Francisco off the 'Canal) but the smart money would be a repeat of the Washington vs. the Kirishima.

For a second there I thought you were talking about some IJN BB raid on the Panama Canal that I was unaware of. One glorious second...
 

NothingNow

Banned
The US WWI battleline all had the same problem: speed. For the British, only the Nelsons and Revenges were as slow. The QE's (slightly) and the Hood, and the Renown class, were faster. For the battlecruisers, much faster.

As posters have commented, the North Carolina's against the KGV's were a wash, except for the NC's rate of fire and firepower (16" v. 14"). As underwater study of the Bismarck showed, while the KGV's 14" shells may have scoured away much of the Bismarck's superstructure, it was the Rodney's 16" AP shells that penetrated the armor to cause such mortal internal damage.

Were this a discussion thread based on the two fleets bringing in their total battleline, I see real problems for the British. Unless they disengage, using their superior speed. If they face the USN in a standup fight, it becomes a matter of armor and firepower. With that, the US wins. Though it will be very bloody.

Actually, about that speed issue, is that as much of a problem? USN BBs could hold top speed for far longer than RN BBs (or just about anything else really) could. Even if the RN contingent runs, the American Ships could just end up running them down and forcing an engagement. Not the best idea, or the sanest, but a possibility.
 
Why compared four old and painfully slow USN battelships, who all badly needed a major refit, to a mixed British force, with one ship that is far more superior than all of the opposing forces? HMS Nelson had little to fear from the US Battleline, as her level of protection was post Great War experiences and far more advanced than any of the first generation USN "All or Nothing" Ships and certainly outmatching the weakly protected pre-"All of Nothing" ships. (Wyoming and Texas classes)

In the unlikely scenario of a clash between these eight ships, the reconstructed HMS Warspite was better suited than the unrefitted Maryland and California, while only the already refitted New Mexico's could have stand up against her in concept. The refitted Arizona was proppably the Best of this USN quartet, being upgraded and uparmored before 1940. Even HMS Renown had been compeltely reconstructed and uparmored, with especially thicker deckarmor, (4.5 inch, compared to just a thin 3 inch on USS Callifornia and Maryland. Arizona had 5 inch, after reconstruction and Arkansas can be ignored as she was too old already, to be os any value.)

In terms of firepower, the British 15 inch gun was more advanced and harder hitting them the US 14 inch gun of pre-1940, due to the much lighter 1400 lbs shell still in use, prior to the comming of the "super heavy shell". The British 15 inch shell had excelent pentrating capabilities and did show that in wartime on several occasions, while also reliable, in the meaning that the burster did work properly, unlike many USN, IJN and German shell's)

The most serious advantage in the British ships was their superior speed, compared to the only 20 knots at best of the US battleships, as the refitted Arizona was bulged and her speed was 20 knots after refit, while the unrefitted Maryland and Callifornia were in need of an engine refit and certainly could not make more than 20 knots anymore. Arkansas too was too old and propably could not even reach 18 knots at flank speed, mostly due to the added weight after her refit in the 30's.

Only the HMS Royal Oak was slow at 21 knots at best, as she was refitted in the mid 30's, with additional deckarmor, but not new engines. HMS Nelson had been refitted, but was still capable of 23 knots, as was the refited HMS Warspite, while HMS Renown, always the battlecruiser she was, could easily do 29 knots. This meant the following: The US battleline was depending on the will of the British to engage, while herself could not force up any action.
 
Why compared four old and painfully slow USN battelships, who all badly needed a major refit, to a mixed British force, with one ship that is far more superior than all of the opposing forces?

I suspect its something to do with his timeline, which as the USN facing off in 1940 against the RN+IJN+KM+RM

Unfortunately his PoD is so early (1918) that new construction is likely to be very different from OTL (so the second half of his question is basically irrelevant). The first one makes more sense as all 8 ships would still be around.
 
Every time a question like this arises, US-wankers trot out the super-heavy shell as if it's some kind of magic panacea. In reality the development of these shells was a classic illustration of the tactical naivety of the American navy: it was seriously believed that lines of battleships would engage at ranges greater than 25,000 yards [/i]and that significant numbers of hits would be obtained[/i]. In practice such hits were as rare as hen's teeth - only two in the whole of WWII, and those achieved more by luck than judgement. Of course the USN made uncorroborated claims of straddles at huge ranges, but these are on a par with the achievements of USAAF bomber-gunners in shooting down the whole Luftwaffe several times over. Actually the super-heavy shells were notably inferior to standard shells up to 20,000 yards due to poorer belt penetration and longer time-of-flight (leading to fewer hits), and this is the sort of range at which the great majority of hits will occur.

The USN also showed its naivety in believing that it would be possible to sink enemy battleship by gunfire alone, whereas the British (having vastly more combat experience) saw gunnery as a means to cripple the enemy prior to finishing him off with torpedoes. In the event the British approach proved to be the correct one: apart from Bretagne and Hood every dreadnought sunk in WWII was finally either scuttled by its crew or torpedoed. For example, even the very lightly-armoured Hiei and [/i]Kirishima[/i] proved impossible to sink with guns alone, and were scuttled when they came under air attack.

Of course, you could make a case that the IJN showed a similar naivety in constructing Yamato and Musashi, and I sometimes think that the unrealistic approaches demonstrated by the two Pacific navies stemmed from an excess of Mahan - they looked at the neat lines of ships depicted in the illustrations to his books and thought that was how future naval wars would be conducted.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well, the OP asks specifically about BB vs. BB engagements, which means you have to look at the performance of the guns. The "US-wankers" look at the OBJECTIVE data (something that is generally a good idea) and note that the data shows "X" performance against standardized criteria at various ranges and compare that to the performance of other guns and come up with an math based answer. This takes out thinks like the hyper-egos of advocates for any side. Math simply doesn't care.

It is true that most BB that were sunk in WW II were finished off by torpedoes. That does not begin to indicate that they were all actually "killed" by the torpedo that sent them to the bottom. The pitiful drifting hazard to navigation which had previously been a object of great pride to its fleet, be it the Bismarck or Hiei was often reduced to that state by shellfire that destroyed gun turrets, rent hulls, and slaughtered crewmen. This was the case for the USN and the RN.

The OP itself is, of course, flawed in that it removes aircraft from any consideration, as well as ignoring the escort forces (frankly, I would LOVE to discuss the impact of escorts, especially in this scenario, in a 1940-42 engagement, although the attraction of the Big Boys is what draws the interest). Nevertheless, if one wants to answer the OP, BB guns are what need to be looked at, not the capacity of either side's destroyers or cruisers (which, BTW, would be a simply lovely argument).

BTW: If a certain European navy hadn't been so sure that 25,000+ yard hits were a non-issue there would be one fewer artificial reef off the coast of Norway.

Every time a question like this arises, US-wankers trot out the super-heavy shell as if it's some kind of magic panacea. In reality the development of these shells was a classic illustration of the tactical naivety of the American navy: it was seriously believed that lines of battleships would engage at ranges greater than 25,000 yards [/i]and that significant numbers of hits would be obtained[/i]. In practice such hits were as rare as hen's teeth - only two in the whole of WWII, and those achieved more by luck than judgement. Of course the USN made uncorroborated claims of straddles at huge ranges, but these are on a par with the achievements of USAAF bomber-gunners in shooting down the whole Luftwaffe several times over. Actually the super-heavy shells were notably inferior to standard shells up to 20,000 yards due to poorer belt penetration and longer time-of-flight (leading to fewer hits), and this is the sort of range at which the great majority of hits will occur.

The USN also showed its naivety in believing that it would be possible to sink enemy battleship by gunfire alone, whereas the British (having vastly more combat experience) saw gunnery as a means to cripple the enemy prior to finishing him off with torpedoes. In the event the British approach proved to be the correct one: apart from Bretagne and Hood every dreadnought sunk in WWII was finally either scuttled by its crew or torpedoed. For example, even the very lightly-armoured Hiei and [/i]Kirishima[/i] proved impossible to sink with guns alone, and were scuttled when they came under air attack.

Of course, you could make a case that the IJN showed a similar naivety in constructing Yamato and Musashi, and I sometimes think that the unrealistic approaches demonstrated by the two Pacific navies stemmed from an excess of Mahan - they looked at the neat lines of ships depicted in the illustrations to his books and thought that was how future naval wars would be conducted.
 
in 1940 I give the RN a decided advantage. For one thing, the RN has a decided tonnage advantage as far as the ships picked are concerned, and although 3 of the US BBs are pretty well protected, the Arkansas was obsolete 20 years before 1940 and is too slow to get away, too weakly protected to survive and lacks the hitting power to penetrate vital areas on any of the RN ships except the Renown (maybe). In addition the British escorts, if we go with 1930s era destroyers and cruisers, have better doctrine (especially in regards to destroyer tactics... which the US didn't really master until 1943 in the Solomons historically) and British cruisers, unlike American ones, have torpedoes. The Maryland would deal out a lot of damage with its 16 inch guns, and so would the Arizona and California with their 14 inch guns (and all three have pretty good protection) and might take out the Renown and the Royal Oak, but I think the Nelson and Warspite are decidedly superior to their opposite numbers in the battle line.

The North Carolinas though are superior to the King George V class in firepower (especially in secondary armament) while the US Phoenix class cruisers are outstanding cruisers and the American Fletcher class destroyer is an outstanding destroyer design. In a night action (the most likely situation where no aircraft are around) I still give the RN an edge in tactical doctrine, but depending on the timeline, the US Navy learned very quickly and any night action would resemble the bloody fighting off Guadalcanal.

Both sides are hammered severely, but the superior damage control techniques and design of the American ships (which took amazing amounts of punishment at times and still limped home) would mean more of the American cripples make it home compared to the British cripples.

In all I rate the British better in doctrine (early in the war especially), but the Americans were the world class in damage control and did a better job in getting damaged ships home. In firepower the Americans have a substantial advantage in gunnery in 1942, but the RN have better torpedoes and know how to use them better (although the Japanese of course were the world class in that). The American ships are better protected and more likely to survive a night action brawl at close range than the British ships. Overall then a slight US advantage in 1942
 
Interesting choices for the ships. I can't imagine the USN pairing them up this way, but...

The USN guns have better anti-armor performance across the board (i.e. 14" vs. 14" ) but the WW I/1920s RN ships are faster and the Nelson has better armor (at least at first glance, Nathan Okan's work indicates something a bit different) so the Old Fellows would be a reasonably interesting thought exercise.

The 1939-41 designs, the U.S. ships win in a walk, assuming everyone in on their game. FAR more powerful guns, a somewhat better armor scheme (although not what the follow on South Dakotas could boast) roughly the same speed. The difference is that the U.S. ship's armor is proof against the RN 14" gun (it was designed to be proof against the USN 14/50" Mark 11 Mod 5, which had better performance than both the RN 15"/42 Mark I and the 16"/45 Mark I and absolutely dwarfed the 14"/45 Mark VII on the KGV) while the RN ship is a balanced design meant to withstand hits for its own guns, not the 16"/45 Mark 6 of the North Carolinas.

There are always the fortunes of war that have to be considered, not to mention the impact of escorts on the main enagement (as the captain of the Hiei could tell you, if he hadn't been killed by an 8" shell from the San Francisco off the 'Canal) but the smart money would be a repeat of the Washington vs. the Kirishima.

I'm sorry, CalBear, but that is not what Nathan's tables say at all.
The 16" with heavy shell is indeed a better penetrator, but the KGV's have thicker armour (going into the issue of is it also better armour is a new can of worms I'll leave for the moment)

Nathans tables show that the 16" would penetrate a KGV at about 25,000 yards
The British 14" would penetrate at around 31,000 yards (the 15" a bit further).
In practice, this means that unless the RN has brought Warspite anyone who gets a hit is going to get a penetrating hit :)

Interestingly, the British 14" shell has a bigger bursting charge than the heavy 16"...whether this equates to more damage gets, well, complicated!! (probably more, faster, smaller splinters against fewer slower bigger ones...). The RN _may_ have an edge here as their shells did explode pretty well in WW2, most other navies had problems with going off after penetrating thick armour.

What this means in practice is that its a lottery :) Whoever gets the first useful hit (either penetrating or on something critical like the radar or director) is going to have a huge advantage. Basically its too close to call.
 
OK - presume US-UK conflict. Who wins the following in 1940:

USS Arizona, USS California, USS Arkansas and USS Maryland vs HMS Warspite, HMS Nelson, HMS Royal Oak and HMS Renown. Presume no airpower. However, do take into account normal escorts.

What about this in 1942: USS North Carolina and USS Washington vs. HMS King George V and HMS Anson.

Thanks.

Mike Turcotte

Both matchups favor the Americans to some degree, the first probably more so than the second, assuming simple meeting engagements.

One

(I'm pretending Royal Oak is still afloat in her condition as of the night before Prien put her on the bottom in '39.)

Maryland is a rough match for Nelson. (Maryland probably has an edge because most of the Royal Navy's BBs and BCs were rather decrepit in 1940, including Nelson).

California is clearly superior to Warspite, although Warspite was recently and throughly rebuilt and so doesn't have Nelson and Royal Oak's issues in that regard.

Arizona is clearly superior to Royal Oak, and in considerably better condition.

Arkansas is the weakest ship present. Repulse is probably somewhat more effective than Royal Oak due to her recent rebuild, but still not even with Arizona.

The United States squadron is actually marginally faster (!) because both fleets are limited to the speed of their slowest ship and Royal Oak could likely no longer make even the designed 21 knots in 1940. I suppose the British could divide into a fast group of Warspite and Renown and a slow group of Nelson and Royal Oak but dividing forces in face of an equal enemy seems like a poor tactical decision. The USN is also more maneuverable, with the tight turn radius of the standards (unless Arkansas drags that down? I think she's in line with it but don't know her all that well).

The United States squadron is, save Arkansas, much better protected against torpedoes, although I'm not sure how much that matters.

Overall throw weight weakly favors the British, due to the presence of the small and really old Arkansas, but the American line is far better protected against shellfire with their "all-or-nothing" armor on all save Arkansas vs. only Nelson with that level of protection for the Royal Navy.

Crew quality and commander quality are big variables, and luck bigger still. However, the Americans do have a clear material edge.

The battle likely ends with the British retiring after getting the slightly-to-somewhat worse end of a shootout, with neither side losing more than one ship at worst, with minor to severe damage to the others.

Two

Similar to the first, this is a slight American edge. The British have much fewer problems with the condition of their ships this time around, and the American edge in protection is less pronounced, but it is still there and the Americans also have a firepower edge. Speed is roughly equivalent. American ships by late 1942 started having the killer radar fire control sets - the USN is a relatively heavy favorite in a night fight for this reason later in the year, less so earlier or by day. Everything earlier said about crew, command, and luck applies.

Overall, slight edge to the Americans under most circumstances, and either side would have to be pretty lucky to sink an enemy battleship before action is broken off.
 
It should be noted that the the USN line only had USS Arizona as an effective ship, due to the complete lack of refit in both Maryland and Callifornia, who even had not been bulged yet. Arkansas was refitted and bulged in the 30's, but not much of an asset, being too old and with 18 knots at best in clean conditions far too slow. Arizona was reconstructed and uparmored in the 30's, as were the two Nevada's adn Pennsylvania and more importantly the compeltely reconstructed New Mexico's. So the newest BB's of Tennessee and Maryland Classes, or the Big five, were not up to new standards yet and therefore pretty weak in terms of protection, espoecially against plunging fire, as their decks were just the original 3 inches onlu and not the post refit 5 inch. Any shell bigger than 8 inch could easily get through at a steel angle.

On the opposing side, All British ships, including Royal Oak had been uparmored, except Nelson. Royal Oak had been refitted in the mid 30's and got her armored deck increased to 4.5 inch thickness over magazines, but still maintained her original powerplant, giving her not much more speed than the 21 knots credited to her (had been 22 knots after launch, due to lack of added beam due to the bulges.) HMS Warspite had been mentioned before and was certainly up to modern standards already in 1940, as was HMS Renown, as both had 4.5 inch to 5 inch deckarmor after refit, making them quite good protected against 14 inch shellfire witrh the 1400 lbs standard AP shell of the US line. The 16 inch guns of Maryland might prove a bit more difficult, but she carried only eight and would be checked by the 16 inch gunned Nelson on her turn. HMS Nelson had been upgraded partly with an engineopverhaul in the late 30's and coudl easily steam at 323,5 knots again, compared to her slower sister, who was denied such a refit, as war started in 1939 OTL. Nelson also outranged all USN ships of the period, as her guns could elevate to 45 deg, compared to 30 deg on the US ships.

Al, in all the weakest USN battleships were in terms of protection the Callifornia and Maryland, who had the same deckstrength as HMS Hood, although placed differently. (Hood had two thin decks of 1.5 icnh each, and the USN ships a single deck of 3 inch.) None would survive plunging fire for long, which made HMS Nelson a big advantage in the British line, as she could provide that sort of firesupport. HMS Warspite and HMS Renown had been provided with new firecontroll and certainly would bring in their weight as well, leaving only HMS Royal Oak to continue to use her somewhat older pattern of firercontroll. Against this only USS Arizona could do a littlebit, although even she lacked the new types of firecontroll needed to save her from a punishment.

In a regular condition, the British had the upperhand in speed, due to their three ships capable of outpasing the USN ships, none of whom faster than 20 knots anymore. (the denied enginerefit on the two most modern ones was going to pay here.) This would mean the British could choose the moment of the engagement and certainly would do so under their own terms. Then the longer ranged British guns would come in to play and would certainly mean the destruction of the USN fightingforce, as the 15 inch and 16 inch British shells all could defeat all US armor at most ranges, while the 12 inch and 14 inch guns of the USN line could not. So the USN force was incapacitated by her own lack of investment prior to this scenario, as budgetary reasons had denied the needed upgrading. (parhaps swap Callifornia and Maryland for New Mexico and Mississipi would be a better solution.)
 
Top