One thing I do not know about the Montana class... Since it wasn't restricted to Panamax, did they beef up the armor belt considerably? They could have, with the only downside being reduced speed.

Most US Battleships were designed with armor that were proof against their own guns.  The Iowa's were fast battleships, but a little light on the armor.  Battlecruisers were closer to heavy cruisers when it came to armor.

Yes. It would have had armor proof against the 16/50, with  her speed reduced to 28kts.

That's exactly what they did.  Less speed, more armor/guns.



 

This thread could stand a pic

Here's Wisconsin at sunset.

I really wish they would ballast the Iowas down to their proper waterline. They look goofy riding so high.

I know they upped above-deck armor and such... Wasn't sure about the waterline/etc for torpedo resistance... Would make sense to.

Yes. But it is a stupid metric. It should be designed to defeat the threat, not itself.

----

You're gonna need a shitload of ballast.

I agree.

I remember sometime after the Falklands a reporter interviewed an Iowa captain and asked what he would do if his ship were hit with an Exocet missile?  The captain replied he would call out sweepers. The reply was lost on the reporter.

It makes sense if you presume that the enemy's arms and armor are equal to yours.



But when you KNOW you have superiority,  no, it doesn't make much sense.



Being fast enough to dictate the terms of battle is an advantage that is difficult to overstate.  Speed is life.



CJ





 

 


 

The US fleet had a major advantage in surface radar that allowed precise ranging and fire control.  The problem that existed, especially during the naval engagements around Guadalcanal, is that the commanders were not up to the task in using the technology to their advantage.  Yes, we got some deadly barrages on target at night with a few vessels but the problem was the task force commanders let the range close or allowed the enemy to slip past a tactically disadvantaged point before firing.  By then, the IJN ships let loose their long lance torpedoes and traded shots with the US fleet.  Those engagements were within 5000 yards and no armor is going to stop a shot fired that close.  One commander, Callahan I believe, drove his ships single file between two columns of Jap vessels before firing.

They actually built bigger locks to go on the Canal - but the war prevented installing them, IIRC.

They topped out at 28 knots - compared to the Iowa's 33+.

I know it was slower, and that it had added armor. My question was more specifically about its armor/belt below the waterline... Something limited on the Iowa class due to panamax, but not limited on the Montana class.

The US Navy was still figuring out radar at Guadalcanal.  Was it the Washington that had their surface search radar mounted wrong, so it was blind to the rear?

The South Dakota took a pounding and lived.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-092.htm



http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/BB57/1942DamageReport/GuadalcanalDamageRpt.html


Hotel Yamato's gunnery skills seemed to be lacking in the Battle off Samar.

It was mounted in front of a structure so that it was blind in about a 60 degree arc to the rear.  Lee was a hell of a commander and used his radar and fire control to devastating effect and actually opening up on the enemy from 18,000 yards.  The engagement did get pretty close though.  I found it quite disturbing that Halsey replaced 2 commanders that had actual knowledge and experience with radar with those that didn't.  Also, after observing the enemy fleet on radar no commander used their destroyers to any degree in making torpedo runs before opening fire while the Japanese used theirs at first notice of enemy vessels.

That's an amazing read. Thanks for the links.

The Montana had a dual main belt armor protection scheme.  I dont have Friedman's book in front of me, but I did find a picture online that illustrates the armor protection in a cross-cut of the hull where the engine room was:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016715.jpg

The main belt is the solid black along the exterior of the hull.  Running along the interior of the hull would be an additional belt of armor that was 8.5" at its thickest.

The Montana would most definately have been a formidable ship.  Thicker armor than the Iowa's, 3 more 16" guns, longer caliber secondary armament, even more room for A-A guns (20 & 40mm).  

Also, if memory serves, a montana class type of machinery layout was later used for the Midway class aircraft carriers (1st carrier not capable of transiting the Panama Canal)

Hard to tell.  They probably functioned as torpedo bulges, but I believe that it was standard USN practice to have torpedo bulges serve dual purpose as fuel/water ballast bunkers as well.

Those bulges are part of the TDS (torpedo defense system) and have void and liquid filled zones arranged to absorb underwater explosion damage and mitigate its effects. I have a diagram somewhere comparing several BB cross sections, and it makes it easier to see the differences and also why the Montana and North Carolina system are better than the Iowa/South Dakota system. The Iowa system wasnt bad, but its belt extended down to the triple bottom and there was some concern that a large enough explosion could cause the bottom of the armor to tear away from the bottom of the hull in that area. Yamato's TDS was in fact pierced by arial dropped torps that were well within its designed resisitance yield, but that was due to poor quality steel and joint work and possibly a lack of liquid filled compartments.

I think the whole hull, minus armor - at least the exterior below what would have been the weather deck on the BB.

The Alaska class supposedly had similar machinery to the Essex class carriers.

They had the same machinery.

Do I get TASM? I'll screw it up a bit with 8 Harpoons. If I can somehow knock out its directors for the 16" guns, I can close to 5" (which is superior on the Tico given the better gun) and SM-2 range and pummel the upperworks to the point it becomes NMC. I doubt I could sink her, but she'd be out of the fight. Give me TASM, and I won't even close to 5" range.

Blind luck to shoot one down.

Thought about it some more, I don't need TASM.
I'll just attack the BB at night and jam their radars with my SLQ-32(V)3. Pound the crap out of it with SM-2 then 5" and run away before daylight breaks.

WW2 AA would need to be lucky, very lucky to kill a modern cruise missile. I think we only shot down one or two Ohkas.

TASM is not a fielded system.  SM-2 lets the CG engage from just inside the radar horizon.  Even though the warhead isn't that large, the missile is still supersonic on impact.  It won't sink the BB, but it can cause problems for antennae, stacks, and anyone exposed topside.

Why no,Harpoon though?

Does the CG have a 60 for OTHT?

I was assuming an initial salvo of Harpoons.

Well some of that is more a comment on the quality or lack thereof of our surface running torpedoes compared to the Japanese, especially in speed and range.  Why run our DDs into a kill zone before they could even get to launch range?

I've always wondered why they didn't send some submarines down there to take out the shelling ships.  We knew where they were coming to, we knew about what time they would be there and once they opened up they would be easy targets.  Plus even the hint that they were there would have caused some additional counter-measures that would have greatly complicated the missions, more ASW forces, anti-sub maneuvering

That Pic IS NOT of the Wisconsin in the foreground.

For one million worthless internet trivia points, anyone know why?
































If you guessed because that would be a shot of the Bow from Kentucky, who had its bow cut off to repair Wisconsin you are right!  


Just some worthless trivia on the two unfinished Iowa class boats

Here is also what the Illinois and Kentucky were slated to end up as:

RIM/Terrier/Tartar and Polaris carriers making them a BBG.  



http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016625.jpg

Next time you ask a trivia question at least give somebody a chance to answer! I could have looked smart for a small second there.

I'll take Iowa class BBs for $1000 Alex...more of them are still floating.

A little bit on armor protection:

My understanding is that the Iowas were designed with thick enough armor to be proof against their own 16"/50 guns, but only when firing the lighter of two available AP shells, though it would be armored against the older 16"/45 gun.  The South Dakota class was designed to be armored against it's own 16"/45 guns, and the North Carolina class was originally supposed to be armored against it's own main batter of 14" guns, but after construction had started there was a switch of 16" guns (which the ship was designed to accommodate) without an upgrading of the armor.

In any case, if your armor is thick enough to protect against the enemy's guns.  And I think we did quite well at that.

The Yamato class (two ships) had 18" guns, the Nagato class (two ships) had 16" guns, but neither of those weapons matched our 16"/50 guns on the Iowas, and the Nagato's 16" guns didn't quite match our 16"/45.  The remaining Japanese battleships, and some of them were "battleships" rebuilt or reclassified from battle cruisers, were armed with 14" guns.

The German battleships included two (Bismarck, Tirpitz) with 15" guns and several other ships in various classes with 11" guns.  Bismarck and Tirpitz had excellent fire control, and maybe their guns would have been powerful enough to punch holes in the Washington and North Carolina, as those ships were originally armored against their own planned 14" guns, but I understand that Bismarck and Tirpitz themselves were lacking in armor protection and using an older scheme of incremental armoring rather than "all or nothing" armor.

And yes, incremental vs "all or nothing" armor makes a big difference.  When somebody is shooting a 16" gun at you, having armor designed to stop shells that are 8" or smaller is worse than having no armor at all - The fuses in the shells will be activated, they will penetrate the armor, and detonate inside.  An unarmored structure will simply allow AP shells to pass right on through through without detonating - there won't be enough resistance to trigger the impact fuse.
(See: Sou-Dak & Washington vs. Kirishima - Sou-Dak took multiple hits to the superstructure which simply passed through.)

I would say that our ships were quite well armored when compared against their opponents.




Honestly, I don't have a clue if Ticonderoga could actually sink a battleship with it's missiles.  As was mentioned before, one of the Iowa-class captains suggested he would simply call out the sweepers if his ship was struck by a missile.

Having said that...The secondary battery, AA battery, fire control, bridge, pretty much everything not protected by the main armor belt or the main battery's turret armor, would be very vulnerable.

Even if a Ticonderoga class couldn't actually sink a 1945 era Iowa class, it could do enough damage by pummeling the ship with it's array of missiles to render the Iowa completely useless as an instrument of war.


Personally, I wouldn't mind building a few modern battleships, to provide fire support should we ever need it, and act as a giant floating missile platform.
Picture a nuclear powered Montana class ship, with a more consolidated and boxy superstructure, AEGIS radars, only a single aft turret instead of two, both 20mm CIWS and RAM missile launchers for anti-missile defense, and as many VLS launcher cells as you can possibly cram into the hull.

Yes, it would be expensive, but it would also be a great way to say "FUCK YOU!" if we ever wanted to park it off somebody's coast and pound the crap out of them en-mass......I'm looking at you North Korea!