Actually, what they lacked most was an effective air defense system around their harbors....



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto



 

The German High Seas fleet wasn't terribly concerned about the competence of individual sailors.  They were concerned about the overwhelming numerical superiority of the British Grand Fleet.  And it wasn't the British who were bottled up, but the Germans.  The Grand Fleet could have left home at any time, there was simply no reason to.  Instead, they remained concentrated at Scapa Flow waiting for the Germans.

And the High Seas Fleet did try to whittle down the Royal Navy prior to Jutland.  The German battle-cruisers repeatedly bombarded the British coast trying to lure a cruiser force out.  Unfortunately, the Royal Navy had a good handle on the German code, and would send their battle cruisers after the Germans.  In fact the Battle of Jutland was supposed to be a similar operation, with the High Seas fleet in support of a battle-cruiser force trying to lure out the British.  Instead, the Grand Fleet sailed based on intelligence reports, and intercepted the Germans.

Doesn't do you much good to have big guns when your radar and fire control are outclassed.

It's hard to be overgunned when we're talking BBs.

The Yamato had the most firepower on paper.  The Missouri had the most effective firepower due to its superior fire control.

Yamato had the greatest displacement.

In a straight up battle, I would take the Missouri to defeat either of the other two ships 9 times out of 10.  The guns were capable of defeating the armor of either opponent, and the Missouri's superior fire control meant it could get hits first.

In short, the Iowa-class BBs were the pinnacle of battleship design and outclassed any and all others.

And you called me a 5 year old.

They were deployed as commerce raiders with orders to avoid RN ships.

I already quoted that and said when he took some damage, he ran into port.

I even quoted him saying that they must RUN into port.

Yes, but the DDs and tenders ain't got shit to do with this conversation.

It's about the BBs.  Yes, the others had the same fire control system.  So what, it is irrelevant to this conversation.

WRONG .
Read the article.

The US Navy deliberately did those tests at point blank range and 0 degree inclination so they would be guaranteed penetration ( a failure test using deformation and penetration to measure strength )
The author concludes that with the usual oblique impact angles and the 45 degree mounting of the plates, a US 16" gunned ship would not have penetrated at any range.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.htm

Bismark was NOT a pocket battleship. Go look up the term.

Was thinking more of the surface actions off Cape Matapan, but sure, even there the biplanes got their due.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Context is everything and you missed it.

 


 

The competence of the individual German sailor was easily on par with his British counterpart. Not sure where you're getting that.

If anything it was the British Admiralty, for all its faults, that made the Royal Navy what it was.

No radar on the Japanese ship.
Missouri probably could have taken both on at the same time and STILL won.
Axis ship's first clue that we were anywhere around would be when 16"AP rounds started dropping on them form high arc trajectories.
The chance of them getting an accurate shot off with optical systems at a ship that was BVR is negligible.

Nick

That isn't really true... The Yamato had various radars, including several for gunnery use. She also had a fire control computer which could work off the radar.

That said, both her radar, and the fire control computer were vastly inferior to ours, and would have had great difficulty making hits at distances that were, comparatively, easy for us.

I must also point out she took out some space aliens too....

A few on the ground, sure... The ship itself? No, she didn't... It just looked like she took it out... Justified building the most awesome weapon ever, though.

only at night and before radar.  Once radar equipped US BBs arrived the IJN didn't send anymore big ships down the slot.

Battle of the Bismark is a really cool story.....

It took a lot to sink that ship........I wonder if the Missouri could take that kind of pounding and stay afloat as long???

The Yamato big guns didn't have the range of the Iowa's main batteries.Combine, shorter range guns, poorer armor and about a 20% top speed disadvantage, yeah the Yamato was in trouble.  Bismarck even more so.  Bismarck was designed as a commerce raider and to run from RN and USN capital ships, accurately guessing that it wasn't a match for modern large battleships.

Except Hood was a leftover obsolete early WW1 design, with a major design flaw.

Increased storage for ammo and consumables would be worthwhile.



On a nuke powered vessel,  at-sea endurance is limited by human tolerance of being cooped up on board the stinking boat,

food supplies (always available via unrep), and consumables needed by other ship's systems.  Lubricating oils being a prime concern,

but also suitable for unrep.   (That's Underway Replenishment)



If you had a crew that never got cabin fever and wanted to stay on the boat indefinitely,  there's no reason that a nuclear powered

vessel would have to return to port at all until it needed nuclear refueling or something broke that could not be repaired at sea.



Or, underway replenishment of particularly heavy consumables wasn't possible.  



I have no idea if the 16" shells could be replenished underway.   Something tells me that it was probably something that would

only be attempted under calm seas and with the supply ship moored to the recipient,  and transferred by crane.



Certainly you wouldn't be replacing gun barrels at sea.  
 

Speed does in fact matter, one of the most important factors in a big gun shoot at sea.  If you are faster you can stay out of range of their guns, or close to get your guns in range (should you desire to do so).  If you have both a speed and range advantage you can stand off and pound the other ship to shit all day without any return fire getting to you.

Their guns weren't even radar controlled

LOL!!!
Got me laughing

Projectiles could be replenished at sea, but it wasn't a good way to make a living.  Probably done a few times to confirm it could be done.  Then only in an emergency.  Never had that much of an emergency.  

Barrels?  no.  

(BTW, I've un-repped in some really nasty nasty sea conditions.  I had the Conn and the CO was on the wing with me, and asked why I kept turning my head.  My answer was to the effect that I wasn't wearing glasses so the spray was freezing on my face and, not like the ice building up on his glasses.  Luckily the OTC was smart and decided that once we showed we could do it, everybody was to un-hook and open up.  No need to kill anybody or damage any ships in an exercise.)

So in actual fact, a war shot would have >>>>>pretty much<<<<< duplicated the test conditions.





Let's not forget the spalling factor.    



Spalling of the back side of the impacted plate would be dramatically lethal if it occurred AT ALL with an impact this big,

and if it were a heavy hit with heavy spalling,  it would likely wreck machinery in the turret and as for the crew inside it,

just think "red mist" and try not to let your mind's eye get too imaginative.



Spalling is difficult to predict, even today,  but from what little I've been able to read on it in the short time I've been searching,

it appears that spalling generally starts when the armor is indented by (very roughly) 25 percent of its thickness.      This is highly

variable from one armor type to another.    But it seems that the 25 percent figure is good enough as a basic indicator.



If we see (very clearly) that 26 inches of the plate type found on the Yamato turret face is completely perforated under conditions

simulating a real warshot (as described earlier) then you can presume that in order for the crew of such a turret to survive the impact,

then you'd need something in excess of 100 inches of armor (since the actual thickness required to stop a Mk 7 shell is as yet STILL

unknown, but it's sure more than 26 inches!) in order to contain the hit without spalling.





100 inches of armor...PLUS.   Armor more than eight feet thick.    



The ship would have to be huge just to have enough displacement to be able to float.  



What would the turrets weigh?   More than four times as much, to start!





So how much armor is needed to contain a Mk 7 shot? (Solid, non-explosive practice round)



I don't think anyone knows for sure.   I can't find any evidence that a single thickness of any armor plate ever yet tested has

actually stopped such a shot.  I'd sure like to see that data if anyone has it, though.





I'm interested in the answer so I'll do some searching.





CJ



 

Knowledge is power.

I read somewhere where the Yamato class, unlike the Bismarck or Iowa class, had limited transverse on her turrets.  Her hull purportedly couldn't handle the stress if she rotated them 90 degrees.  

I pick Iowa.  Faster than either Yamato or Bismarck.  The Iowas could turn like a DD too.  Better fire control radar than either Yamato or Bismarck.

Nope. They rotated just fine.

that was a problem the Brit battlecruisers had in WW1. Perhaps not fixed on the HOOD.

The WW1 German battleships and battlecruisers were very tough. They focused more on protection then the British did, and also used lots of watertight compartments. They also figured out the problem of the magazines blowing up, when a German sailor gave up his life to save his ship. This showed, in the battle of Jutland when the Brits had trouble sinking a German battlecruiser.

As I understand it, Bismark was just an improved WW1 German design. This would give it a bit of a headstart over Brit WW1 era ships.

Realistically the German navy had no chance of contenting control of the ocean surface with the Brits in ww2. Hence surface raiders.

18.1 inch.  They were slower to fire & didn't perform noticeably better than the Mark 7s on the Iowas.

Nothing "pocket" about the Biz, but she was poorly laid out and prone to disabling from combat damage.

Uh, what?

Turret faces fabricated for the third Yamato class, Shinano.   They weren't used because she was completed as a giant carrier.

The battleships were not useless.  They filled the role of a "fleet in being", and tied up enormous amounts of American and British assets that otherwise would have been prosecuting the war.

The quality of the German navy in WW1 was first class. They based their navy on the Royal Navy, and had some technical and perhaps tactical advantages (better ship protection, and they trained for night fighting, for example). These did not make up for the weight of force they faced, and their only hope was to engage part of the Grand Fleet.

The Brits gained advantage as the war went on, in part due to the fact that the Germans were bottled up, and they had free run. This gave them a significant advantage in intelligence and logistics, as well as aiding moral. Late war I think the Brit navy did have a huge moral advantage, so much depends on the date; early the Germans may have been better "pound for pound", but late they certainly were not.

Before the war ended the Brits were using prototype carriers to launch attacks on the Germans.

Sank 10 days after commissioning.

It would have easily handled the Fuso and Kongo classes - so long as the Japanese could be restrained from slinging those Long Lances around - as the class had a torpedo defense scheme in name only.

Disclaimer: I'm going off of memory here, so I might be off a bit.

It wasn't to guarantee penetration, it was to guarantee a hit. That way they didn't need to put the armor plate 20 miles out on the Potomac River and fire all day trying to hit a relatively small section of armor plate.  The actual pieces of armor they were shooting were rather small. This was so they could test different velocities/angles.

So what they did was place the armor plate close to the gun and then use reduced charges to simulate the velocity the projectiles would have at long range. The normal muzzle velocity of the 16"/50 was about 2400 to 2500 feet per second. The tests in that link had an impact velocity of 2,000 and 1,700 feet per second. That last velocity probably equates to about 18 nautical miles of range.

Now look at the angle of impact "oblique angle." You can see it was less than 1 degree. That's to represent an armor plate set at 45 degrees and an AP shell descending at about the same angle.

Those velocities and angles weren't chosen by accident. They Navy was testing what they believed to be representative of ranges and trajectories likely to be found in combat.

Now pay attention to the projectile used. They used AP rounds that were Blind, Loaded, and Plugged (BL&P). AP rounds had explosive charges. The test rounds did not. They were loaded with some sort of inert material, probably sand, that simulated the weight and density of the explosive filler without the benefits of an explosive.

Still, with the last test, even though the round didn't fully penetrate, it still holed the armor. Now imagine what would have happened if it had an explosive charge too. Spalling would have most likely occurred making the turret an very unpleasant place to be.

And that was the thickest part of the Yamato-class' armor!

They used color marking dyes and optical range finding.  Even with a very well drilled and skilled crew, that system has some massive drawbacks and limitations.

basically the above 2 statements.

the yamato had size but her fire control systems were far inferior to the other 2 ships in questions. also the 18in guns on the yamato class ships, while big were lower velocity than the 16in MK7 guns the iowa class carries. the biggest problem though with the yamato class ships was the armor. both the quality and thickness as well as the placement. first of all. no way around it. the yamato class was under-armored for a ship it's size. also the japanese military doctrine of the time was to close with the enemy and engage at closer range so the armor on deck was very thin since little thought was given to plunging artillery fire and attack from aircraft. really the yamato class is a good reflection of japanese military doctrine at the time. they were set up with much more though given to the offensive role as opposed to the defensive role. put plainly, on a 2 way shooting range the yamato wasn't survivable worth a damn. this is visible in other pieces of japanese military hardware such as the mitsubishi zero. very maneuverable and well armed but effectively no armor.

the bismarck, by US standards fell somewhere between a battleship and a heavy cruiser. this doesn't detract from the fact that it was still a very dangerous ship. yes it had the smallest guns of the 3 ships in question however they were high velocity and the round they fired were well designed and could pierce  surprisingly thick armor. also they main battery was the fastest to reload of the 3. I think that the bismarck never really gets due credit. not because of the ship or it's crew but more that hitler really didn't know to properly utilize a navy.

which brings us to to American Iowa class ships. the iowa class as most here know carried 16in main guns, which had a range of 23-26 miles depending on what round was being fired. the iowa class is easily the most refined of the 3 ships in question and has by far the most advanced fire control system of the 3 ships. also the armor on the iowa class ships was well laid out, more than thick enough and also laid out in a much more sensible, logical manner than that of the yamato class.


as for which one I think would come out on top in a fight against the others? iowa class. I say this for a a few reasons.
1. while the yamato had very large guns, the fire control system they were mated to was inferior and the guns them selves were much less accurate than that of the other 2 ships. so basically the yamato class wouldn't be able to put it's rounds on target effectively and would be knocked out fairly easily due to it's lack of armor. 3. the bismarck would have a hard time piercing the iowa's class' armor unless it either got a lucky shot on one of the less armored areas of the ship or was able to close and engage at close range. make no mistake though. any of these ships up against one of the the others would have been a serious slugfest. not a cakewalk for any of them.

Out of the 3 given, I vote the Missouri

A political decision by Hitler, whose decision to go to war before Plan Z was fully implemented limited the ability of the Kriegsmarine to confront the RN.  Raeder knew that the RN would not be able to consolidate enough of their (mostly elderly) capital units in the North Atlantic to confront a relatively large German surface force.  Unfortunately the British and French response to the Polish invasion scuttled Raeders plans.  When Raeder did deploy heavy surface units in late 1939 and early 1940 Hitler's confidence was badly shaken by Hans Langsdorffs handling of the GRAF SPEE at the River Plate and the generally poor performance of German ships during the Norway campaign, with the previously noted exception of the sinking of the GLORIOUS.  This created the crisis between Raeder and Hitler, leading to the direction to limit heavy surface unit operations and ultimately to Raeder's being forced to resign.  





The reality is that, ship for ship, the Kriegsmarine units were superior to their RN counterparts.  In every case of a surface action involving those units, RN victory was only achieved by use of overwhelming numbers.  In the only case where relatively even strength surface units faced each other, Bismarck came out the victor.



ETA- Those who have studied modern Battleships probably know who Steve Skelley is.  Other than Steve's unfortunate link to the IOWA explosion, he is/was regarded as one of the premier experts on Battleship gunnery by folks at NSWCD Dahlgren.  I am fortunate to be able to say I know Steve well, and was lucky enough to be assigned to the same CPO mess with him during his tour as Combat Systems Department LCPO on THEODORE ROOSEVELT.  Steve and I have many discussions on this same subject, and he firmly believed the 16/50" guns on the IOWA's was the pinnacle of Naval artillery.  He would be sitting in the mess, hunched over a sheet of paper, scribbling madly when I would plop down across from him with a cup of coffee and ask him what he was working on, assuming it was something related to the Department.  No, as a mental exercise he would be writing out the full ballistics table of an Italian 15/50" gun from a ROMA class battleship.  The guy is amazing.  Unfortunately Steve does not venture onto the Internet, even to this day, otherwise I would have pointed him to this thread.  Rest assured, Steve would confirm the IOWA's as the victor in any engagement with a YAMATO or a BISMARCK.





 

Iowa in almost every case. Them Bismark then yamamoto slightly behind Bismark.

This is Yamamoto:


This is Yamato: