PDA

View Full Version : Battleships in game



JtD
09-13-2008, 02:50 AM
Out of curiosity I used the FB engine to set up a small surface engagement between Tirpitz and KGV. I tried to mirror the conditions of the Denmark straight and you know what happened? Nothing. Gunners set to ace, range 15km, and they wouldn't hit even once within more than one hour. So I reduced range to 5 km minimum, when they finally managed to hit each other.

Well, I guess I can save me a Jutland type scenario...I wonder why the same gunners that can blow a plane out of the air within seconds at a ridiculous range fail to hit a battleship sized target. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Btw, 1 Tirpitz beats 1 KGV, 2 KGV beat 1 Tirpitz. Damage model is ridiculous though, so I'm very happy to see Oleg comments that improvements are planned. If you ever wanted to see a KGV go 28kn with the bows almost under water, you have the chance to do so in this game. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

joeap
09-13-2008, 03:48 AM
"It's not a naval sim."

Ok damage models I agree should be improved but I don't think too much time should be spent on tweaking things for surface engagements which were after all pretty rare compared to air attacks.

Want something good for damage models, try SHIII.

JtD
09-13-2008, 04:34 AM
Oh well, I'm not asking for anything. I'm just stating that the accuracy of gunners is hilarious when compared with their accuracy against aircraft.

I'm hoping for SoW. Anti ships missions should be more realistic and that includes a somewhat more realistic and reasonable damage model.

With all that simplifications we have in FB, the outcome 2 KGV>1 Tirpitz>1 KGV is quite ok. Too bad there aren't more BB's.

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-14-2008, 01:21 AM
At the web site http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
the KGV class comes in at a conciderable disadvantage to the Bismark amd it's twin the Tirpitz.

Vinnie

leitmotiv
09-14-2008, 02:29 AM
The modeling of all aspects of ships in this game is so ludicrous I can't take the air-sea play seriously.

The real KGV class was substantially better armored than the Bismarck class. Where the KGVs fell down was in their very prone-to-breakdown quad 14" turrets which failed to the point of nearly disarming the Prince of Wales in the Denmark Strait action and KGV on 27 May 1941. Even Duke of York had quad turret breakdowns during its Dec 1943 action against Scharnhorst.

arthursmedley
09-14-2008, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:

Even Duke of York had quad turret breakdowns during its Dec 1943 action against Scharnhorst.

Quick book recommendation for you Leit. before I head off for breakfast;

'Arctic Conveys, 1941-1945' by Richard Woodman.
By Pen and Sword, isbn 1 84415 611 7.

Very good account of campaign, by convoy, very good research with political/high command commentary.

leitmotiv
09-14-2008, 03:07 AM
Many thanks, AS---ordering it up!

JtD
09-14-2008, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by Vinnie_Gumbat:
At the web site http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
the KGV class comes in at a conciderable disadvantage to the Bismark amd it's twin the Tirpitz.

Vinnie

Forget that article and don't open it anymore. It's comparing apples and oranges to start with and the author apparently fails to understand several important points in some designs. I'd also bet he is US American.

JtD
09-14-2008, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:

The real KGV class was substantially better armored than the Bismarck class.

Just as much as the Spitfire was a better plane than the Mustang. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I think you'd have a very difficult job in proving that statement, considering the huge differences in concept and design of the armor of these ships.

WTE_Galway
09-14-2008, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Oh well, I'm not asking for anything. I'm just stating that the accuracy of gunners is hilarious when compared with their accuracy against aircraft.

I'm hoping for SoW. Anti ships missions should be more realistic and that includes a somewhat more realistic and reasonable damage model.

With all that simplifications we have in FB, the outcome 2 KGV>1 Tirpitz>1 KGV is quite ok. Too bad there aren't more BB's.

Well the chances of surviving an attack on a capital ship in game are pretty good compared to real life.

I don't have time to look it up and get the exact quotes ... but there is an interview a few pages back with WWII USN veteran and when asked about strafing capital ships his comments were basically "You don't do any damage", "you generally lose 50% of your fighters" and finally "to survive an attack on a battleship you are not just good you are lucky"

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-14-2008, 05:49 PM
Disagree with that site if you like.
But there were no better battleships than the Iowa class. Bismark amd it's twin the Tirpitz
would have been little more than target practice
for a Iowa class ship or a South Dakota class.

Bismark amd it's twin the Tirpitz were pretty good for their
time, the American ships were that much better than anything else afloat
including the Japanese monsterpiece, the Yamato.

Vinnie

WTE_Galway
09-14-2008, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Vinnie_Gumbat:

... the American ships were that much better than anything else afloat including the Japanese monsterpiece, the Yamato.

Vinnie

Ah yes ... but how many American battleships made it into outer space as the center piece of a famous anime cartoon series ?


http://www.1999.co.jp/dbimages/user/hobby/itbig/10062491.jpg

Daiichidoku
09-14-2008, 09:16 PM
wave-motion gun FTW!

JtD
09-14-2008, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:

Well the chances of surviving an attack on a capital ship in game are pretty good compared to real life.

When the Japanese attacked the RN battleships Prince of Wales and Repulse, escorted by 3 destroyers, they did most of this with only a handful of planes. For instance, in the second wave there were 9 planes, one of which was shot down, 3 of them damaged. If you recreate that in FB, with two PoW battleships, both set to rookie, one with a rate of fire of 1, the other one of 2 to mirror the smaller AAA battery of the Repulse, the average is all bombers get damaged and more than half gets shot down. If you set the gunners to ace, no attacking ac survives. Which is far off the real thing to start with. Yet the same gunners can't hit a BB at 10km distance, which makes the whole thing bizarre.

Buzzsaw-
09-15-2008, 12:18 AM
Salute

The Naval aspect of IL-2 is not the only problem area.

Vehicle combat is also full of glitches.

Some tanks which should be able to tear holes in others, are useless, and some Anti-Tank guns are worse.

For example the Soviet 45mm and German 37mm AT guns can't kill anything, not even early war tanks like the Czech 38T, or the T-40. Yet the little Japanese 37mm weapon, which was in reality little more than a low velocity infantry gun, can take out all kinds of tanks which should be invulnerable to its rounds.

Some artillery pieces fire into the ground instead of at enemy targets. Particularly bad in this regard is the US 105mm.

Curiously enough, one of the most dangerous artillery pieces is the Japanese 75mm, in reality an antiquated relic. It will take out Panthers quite easily.

But the real killers are the AA pieces, the 40mm Bofors is a tank killer par excellence.

How do I know? I run comparison tests on all vehicles and artillery I will be incorporating in a scenario. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As far as AAA settings are concerned, when you have a large number of ships in a task force, I usually set the AAA to a Rate or Fire of 4.0, which gives you a RoF 25% of what it is normally. (if you set the RoF to .5, you are doubling the normal RoF)

Of course, you also need to make sure you use the appropriate ship types for the year. Some '45 ships are loaded with flak guns, the later US destroyers are like light Cruisers in the number of 25mm they mount. Whereas the earlier US Destroyers, (the WWI Veterans) have very little AAA.

general_kalle
09-15-2008, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by Vinnie_Gumbat:
Disagree with that site if you like.
But there were no better battleships than the Iowa class. Bismark amd it's twin the Tirpitz
would have been little more than target practice
for a Iowa class ship or a South Dakota class.

Bismark amd it's twin the Tirpitz were pretty good for their
time, the American ships were that much better than anything else afloat
including the Japanese monsterpiece, the Yamato.

Vinnie

thats a pretty ricidoculs statement.
no proof whatsoever. Even the fact that Bismarck
fought two RN battleships/battlecruisers, won,
and kept afloat after countless hits by the RN

but we're talking history now not game where the discussion started so lets stop it here.

Buzzsaw-
09-15-2008, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by general_kalle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vinnie_Gumbat:
Disagree with that site if you like.
But there were no better battleships than the Iowa class. Bismark amd it's twin the Tirpitz
would have been little more than target practice
for a Iowa class ship or a South Dakota class.

Bismark amd it's twin the Tirpitz were pretty good for their
time, the American ships were that much better than anything else afloat
including the Japanese monsterpiece, the Yamato.

Vinnie

thats a pretty ricidoculs statement.
no proof whatsoever. Even the fact that Bismarck
fought two RN battleships/battlecruisers, won,
and kept afloat after countless hits by the RN

but we're talking history now not game where the discussion started so lets stop it here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you need to take a look at this webpage, which has a very detailed and researched analysis of which was the best Battleship afloat.

And it wasn't the Bismarck or the Yamato. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Make sure you click on the 'detailed information' link.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-15-2008, 01:14 AM
Even forgiving it's poor radar and the fact that
all Battleships were nothing more than targets for carriers....
The Bismark was already severly outclassed when it was launched.

The South Dakota class of BB was it's contempoary and blew
Bismark away on all counts. Not even close here folks.
The Iowa class was more modern and had greater firepower with vastly superior radar.
Iowa's 16" guns fired heavier projectiles at higher velocities than the South Dakota's 16" guns
giving it a huge range advantage over any of them except maybe Yamato.

Bismark's claim to fame is the potential it had to do massive damage
to the convoy system.

Bismark facing an Iowa would be like a Sherman tank facing a Tiger
in a open field duel, 1 on 1.
A lucky shot might end both fights in favor of the underdog. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
But the likely outcome is obvious.

Vinnie

leitmotiv
09-15-2008, 03:53 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:

The real KGV class was substantially better armored than the Bismarck class.

Just as much as the Spitfire was a better plane than the Mustang. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I think you'd have a very difficult job in proving that statement, considering the huge differences in concept and design of the armor of these ships. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suggest you take a look at Dulin and Garzke's (both professional naval architects) volume on Allied battleships of WWII. Not only did the British class have a wider main belt with thicker armor and thicker deck armor, but the quality of British armor plate was rated the best in the world at the time. In a gunnery battle, the KGVs trumped the German ship in protection by anybody's standard. The German ship's system of armoring was ideal for preventing catastrophic damage resulting from close range encounters with cruisers in poor visibility, but would not have been as efficient in a long-range duel against a battleship. Since British capital ship doctrine was to close to decisive range, 10,000 yards, as quickly as possible, the difference between the two classes' armoring systems became academic---at this range both classes were vulnerable to catastrophic damage from big gun hits. During the 27 May 1941 battle, Bismarck was unlucky in that Rodney landed the first decisive salvo in the contest which took out both Bismarck's forward turrets and destroyed her foretop (primary) director rendering the ship gun fodder for the ensuing close-range shootout.

Kurfurst__
09-15-2008, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The modeling of all aspects of ships in this game is so ludicrous I can't take the air-sea play seriously.

The real KGV class was substantially better armored than the Bismarck class.

The KGV class was actually one of the worst armoured Battleships of its era... virtually no CT armour, very little turret front armour, the belt is thick but it can be rather easily penetrated even at long ranges and it has nothing behind it to stop the carnage etc. The protected area of the citadel was small, torpedo defence inadequate... It had good deck armour, but considering the huge leaks in its defence scheme, it is anything but well protected. From the practical viewpoint though the thicker KGV deck armor did not give it any practical advantage - WW2 naval engagement ranges meant that Bismark's deck protection scheme provided aduquate protection, too - whereas the vulnerability of the KGV's vertical armour was a very real concern.

Actually its a real shocker how the RN could up with something this poor after the Dreadnought, the superb Queen Elisabeth etc. classes..

leitmotiv
09-15-2008, 07:38 AM
As usual, you firmly shove your boot in your mouth and confess your heroic level of ignorance with each post. It's exhilarating to watch!

Kurfurst__
09-15-2008, 08:07 AM
Sorry mate but I don't take critique to seriously if it comes from a no-life internet nerd who spends all his day playing the pompous smartazz, pretending that he has a single idea of the things he talks about.

Keep entertaining yourself. That's what your life is about, after all.

JtD
09-15-2008, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by Vinnie_Gumbat:
Even forgiving it's poor radar and the fact that
all Battleships were nothing more than targets for carriers....

Yes, you can forget that as in the whole 2nd world war, only 2 battleships were sunk at open sea by carriers, the Yamato and Musashi, one in late 1944 the other in early 1945.


The Bismark was already severly outclassed when it was launched.

Not true, at the time of her launch she was the ship most capable of the task later given to her. With the exception of the French Richelieu maybe. The North Carolina and South Dakota designs came 1-2 years later in the war.


The South Dakota class of BB was it's contempoary and blew Bismark away on all counts. Not even close here folks.

No, the SD was not a contemporary, not more than the Fw 190A was a contemporary of the Bf 109E. The SD was considerably slower than the Bismarck class and it therefore does not "blow it away on all counts".


Bismark's claim to fame is the potential it had to do massive damage to the convoy system.

I think it is more the way she fought the Hood and was sunk.

JtD
09-15-2008, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

I think you need to take a look at this webpage, which has a very detailed and researched analysis of which was the best Battleship afloat.

As pointed out above, that website is quite a bit off. Factual errors and questionable interpretations with some US bias in it hardly make it a good site to visit.

JtD
09-15-2008, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:

I suggest you take a look at Dulin and Garzke's (both professional naval architects) volume on Allied battleships of WWII.

Done that.


Not only did the British class have a wider main belt with thicker armor and thicker deck armor, but the quality of British armor plate was rated the best in the world at the time. In a gunnery battle, the KGVs trumped the German ship in protection by anybody's standard.

That depends on what you want to achieve with the protection. I claim that a KGV would not have stood up to the shelling the British did with the Bismarck. At the ranges employed there, it is totally possible that a projectile would penetrate the main belt and explode in a main magazine with catastrophic result. Something that was not possible with the Bismarcks design. So if, as you claim, the British ship was substantially "better" armored than the German ship, it should not perform worse, should it? It is not the quality or thickness or wideness of the KGV belt I question, which by all accounts was excellent. It is the comparability of the different concepts you do, which I reject. Both had there strenght's and weaknesses. In analysis of the types of damage and fights that happened in WW2, the German concept was very good.


The German ship's system of armoring was ideal for preventing catastrophic damage resulting from close range encounters with cruisers in poor visibility, but would not have been as efficient in a long-range duel against a battleship.

It was designed to prevent catastrophic damage at the most likely combat ranges, not limited to bad visibility or to cruiser guns. IIrc, there was not a single long range duel in WW2 that resulted in one of the combatants being sunk. In all fights that resulted in a loss of a BB to gunfire, minimum distances were less or about 10 miles.

JtD
09-15-2008, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

The KGV class was actually one of the worst armoured Battleships of its era... virtually no CT armour, very little turret front armour, the belt is thick but it can be rather easily penetrated even at long ranges and it has nothing behind it to stop the carnage etc. The protected area of the citadel was small, torpedo defence inadequate...

That is not quite true. The belt armour in particular was a strong point in the design of the KGV. For instance, it was about 2 meters wider than the Bismarck's belt and of course it was better at keeping shells from entering the ship at all, owing to the higher thickness & quality of the belt. As already said, owing to the different design KGV wasn't as good as the Bismarck in keeping short range shots out of the magazines (and machinery). Nonetheless, the advantages are there and cannot be disregarded.

The protected citadel on the KGV was rather large and, as opposed to almost all other Allied battleships, the KGV had considerable protection outside of the citadel.

The main weakness of the KGV is that the amount of the armor was not very efficiently used. Given the limit of 35000ts they were supposed to be built at, armor was applied rather generously.

Kurfurst__
09-15-2008, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

The KGV class was actually one of the worst armoured Battleships of its era... virtually no CT armour, very little turret front armour, the belt is thick but it can be rather easily penetrated even at long ranges and it has nothing behind it to stop the carnage etc. The protected area of the citadel was small, torpedo defence inadequate...

That is not quite true. The belt armour in particular was a strong point in the design of the KGV. For instance, it was about 2 meters wider than the Bismarck's belt and of course it was better at keeping shells from entering the ship at all, owing to the higher thickness & quality of the belt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like said above, the problem with the KGV's belt design was that it just did not work, even though it was relatively thick. The armored belts job was to keep the shells out of the citadel, and out of the vitals. In reality, even the thick belt was simply unable to keep out the shells at practically all combat ranges from the citadel and the vitals.

The 38 CM C/34 firing PSGR. M. K. L/4,4 was capable of entering the citadel at 23 800 yards with big chunks of metal flying around into the machinery; heavy spalling could occur out to 27-28 000 yards; and the shell was capable entering the magazines in an effective state as far as 20 800 yards; as there was nothing standing in the projectiles path, once it went through the belt - kaboom.

The longest hits ever recorded in a WW2 naval battle occured at 26 000 yards, and it only occured twice... typically engagments and hits occured around 20 000 yard and less..

On Bismarck the belt was pierced at even longer ranges, but the major difference was that there were very substantial, additional layers behind it which stopped any round fired at any distance from it; there were also additional armored bulkheads right behind the belt that caught the fragments and pieces of metal flying around, localising the damage. At the same time, Bismarcks deck, while inferior in thickness, in practice it was sufficient level of protection at practical battle ranges - 25 000 yards and below.


Originally posted by JtD:

As already said, owing to the different design KGV wasn't as good as the Bismarck in keeping short range shots out of the magazines (and machinery). Nonetheless, the advantages are there and cannot be disregarded.

What advantages..? The problem illustrated above is that KGV couldn't really keep out damage to the magazines and machinery even at long ranges.


Originally posted by JtD:
The protected citadel on the KGV was rather large and, as opposed to almost all other Allied battleships, the KGV had considerable protection outside of the citadel.

KGV was just about avarage in this respect; the citadel run at 59% lenght of the ship, this is slightly less than the North Carolinas at 60%, though more than the rather oddly armoured Rodneys at 53%, and more than the Richeliues at 54%; though in the case of the Richeliues, its somewhat uncomparable as they only had two turrets, with four guns each (and actually working http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

In comparison with Bismarck, the KGV's citadel size is smaller (59% vs. 70% on Bismarck), as is the amount of armor carried. The KGVs were divided into 21 watertight comparements, but only 10 of those were protected by the citadel; on Bismarck there were 22 watertight comparments, and no less than 17 were inside and protected by the citadel - no wonder it was such a beast to sink. 12 600 tons of armor grade steels were used for the KGV, and while the number for the Bismarcks were 17 500 tons.


The main weakness of the KGV is that the amount of the armor was not very efficiently used. Given the limit of 35000ts they were supposed to be built at, armor was applied rather generously.

I agree it was not very efficiently used. The main problem seems to be that overall for the ship's size very little armor was utilized - the KGVs carried the least armor compared to all their 1930s contempories, actually even less than the smaller Nelson/Rodney - and they tried to make up for that by arranging the whole armor into one thick layer; unfortunately, even if thick it was still not thick enough to provide sufficient protection without any other backing.

JtD
09-15-2008, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Like said above, the problem with the KGV's belt design was that it just did not work, even though it was relatively thick. The armored belts job was to keep the shells out of the citadel, and out of the vitals. In reality, even the thick belt was simply unable to keep out the shells at practically all combat ranges from the citadel and the vitals.

The 38 CM C/34 firing PSGR. M. K. L/4,4 was capable of entering the citadel at 23 800 yards with big chunks of metal flying around into the machinery; heavy spalling could occur out to 27-28 000 yards; and the shell was capable entering the magazines in an effective state as far as 20 800 yards; as there was nothing standing in the projectiles path, once it went through the belt - kaboom.

Unless I am mistaken, penetration figures you give are for an armor plate perpendicular and vertical in the flight path. However, naval combat usually involves quite a few angles, for instance, in the battle of the Denmark straight, the British forces were closing at an angle of about 30?. If you take that into consideration, and also the fact that the belt was somewhat inclined along the magazines, the penetration figures for the German 38cm gun are considerably reduced. In the above example, the magazines are now save against an intact shell penetration down to something like 5 km, the machinery still good down to about 9 km. (I'm reading this off a chart, which isn't that precise with the given parameters. But it's also using German face hardened armor as armor material, so I'm probably on the save side.)

Also, in addition to the belt the magazines were protected by the torpedo bulkheads in the lower region and after the tds upgrade also in the upper region, which would be sufficient to stop splinters from partial penetration or damage to the belt. Therefore, while it is possible for a 38cm projectile to penetrate the belt and cause catastrophic damage at a rather long range, it is not likely to happen.


What advantages..? The problem illustrated above is that KGV couldn't really keep out damage to the magazines and machinery even at long ranges.

The advantage that the belt could defeat projectiles completely at medium battle ranges instead of allowing them to do some but no critical damage. I'd rather have a shell break up on the side of the ship than explode inside.

And the advantage of a wider belt. For instance, the Bismarck's belt extended only 1.6 meters below the waterline. In the Battle of the Denmark straight, Bismarck was hit just below the belt, and the shell exploded against the torpedo bulkhead. The caused a boiler room to flood which was lost for the remainder of the operation. With the wider belt of the KGV, the shell would have detonated against the lower edge of the belt with no serious consequences to the ship.

Personally, I prefer the general concept of the German armor layout, because I agree with the general idea that it is impossible to keep the heavy shells completely out anyway. But there is no way to say that the KGV's belt was bad as such. In some cases better, in some worse. As with every comparison of a complex system.


KGV was just about avarage in this respect; the citadel run at 59% lenght of the ship, this is slightly less than the North Carolinas at 60%, though more than the rather oddly armoured Rodneys at 53%, and more than the Richeliues at 54%; though in the case of the Richeliues, its somewhat uncomparable as they only had two turrets, with four guns each (and actually working http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

One would normally give the citadel length as a percentage of the waterline, which would give the KGV slightly more than 60%. This is on the top end for the ships of the era that employed an all or nothing armor scheme, the North Carolinas being the only one with a longer citadel. All other designs had a shorter or just as long citadel. The Scharnhorst, Bismarck and Vittorio Veneto cannot really be counted because of the different armor philosophy.

edit: I just checked that and it seems citadel length for the KGV was only about 56% CWL. That of course is just mediocre.


...The main problem seems to be that overall for the ship's size very little armor was utilized - the KGVs carried the least armor compared to all their 1930s contempories, actually even less than the smaller Nelson/Rodney...

Actually, the KGV's were the best armored British ships so far, carrying more armor in displacement % than any other British ship before. The only British ship to carry more total armor in tons was, surprise, not the Nelson class but the Hood.

92SqnGCJimbo
09-15-2008, 12:28 PM
all i will say is this.

which was the only nation to stick to the washington/london treaties?

trying to compare apples and oranges, it cant be done considering different ships were made for different jobs/ countering different classes of ship.

JtD
09-15-2008, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by 92SqnGCJimbo:
all i will say is this.

which was the only nation to stick to the washington/london treaties?

No nation did. The only ships laid down under the regulations of the Washington treaty to not exceed 35.000ts standard displacement were the Nelson, Rodney, Dunkerque and Strasbourg, but both the British and French exceeded the 35.000ts limit with their later designs.

joeap
09-15-2008, 01:18 PM
Good grief, battleships didn't fight one on one duels anymore than tanks did.

steiner562
09-15-2008, 02:31 PM
Come on gents can we leave the personal abuse out ?,thanks.

92SqnGCJimbo
09-16-2008, 03:51 PM
ok jtd.. ill clear that up.

i did mean early war, around the time being discussed here (up to around 42). france kinda doesnt count for obvious reasons.

JtD
09-17-2008, 09:06 AM
I don't catch your drift. If you want to be clear, then say something don't ask. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The way you ask now, Japan would be the only correct answer, as they didn't built any battleships prior to contracting out of the treaty.

All other nations bound by the treaty violated them by 1937 at latest by laying down ships with a standard displacement >35.000ts.

Blutarski2004
09-17-2008, 10:41 AM
It's impossible to compare BISMARCK and KGV in any meaningful way. Although both designs were originally based upon the 35,000t standard displacement treaty basis, things emerged FAR differently with the ships as completed. BISMARCK's design tonnage was increased [IIRC] in 1937, early enough to incorporate substantial design alterations and improvements before her launch in 1939. KGV was completed and launched as a 35,000 ton design.

BISMARCK commissioned in Aug 1940, with the following tonnage figures:
Standard Displacement: 41,673 tons
Full-load Displacement: 49,136 tons

KGV's tonnage figures, AFTER early war modifications made upon lapse of the treaty, were:
Standard Displacement: 37,155 tons [est]
Full-load Displacement: 42,245 tons

British designers, I'm sure, would have dearly loved to have an additional 10-15 pct of tonnage to play with. To give an idea of what that would mean, the full-load displacement of the USS IOWA was 56,270 tons, 7,000 tons greater than that of BISMARCK and approximately the same difference as existed between BISMARCK and KGV.

JtD
09-17-2008, 11:23 AM
The KGV was completed at 38061 ts. Bismarck at 41673 ts. That's less than a 10% difference. The New Jersey was completed at 49657 ts. That's just short of 20% more than Bismarcks displacement. These numbers are standard displacement.

Full load displacement was not limited at all, your comparison therefore irrelevant. Nothing hindered the KGV design to carry the same 8000+ts fuel the Bismarck and Iowa did. It carried 5000ts less than the German and the US design, which resulted in the huge gap between the full load displacement in the Bismarcks and the KGV's designs.

To your point that the ships cannot be compared, a Bismarck class as fast as the KGV class would have been of about the same displacement. Which makes them comparable, however pointless that may be.

p.s.: I now made a mission loosely resembling the Jutland battle. It looked pretty nice, until the British sunk the first ship in the German line and the remaining 21 German ships rear ended it one by one. Decisive British victory. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Blutarski2004
09-17-2008, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
The KGV was completed at 38061 ts. Bismarck at 41673 ts. That's less than a 10% difference. The New Jersey was completed at 49657 ts. That's just short of 20% more than Bismarcks displacement. These numbers are standard displacement.

..... Dulin and Garzke disagree with your tonnage figures for KGV, as do D K Brown, and Oscar Parkes.



Full load displacement was not limited at all, your comparison therefore irrelevant. Nothing hindered the KGV design to carry the same 8000+ts fuel the Bismarck and Iowa did. It carried 5000ts less than the German and the US design, which resulted in the huge gap between the full load displacement in the Bismarcks and the KGV's designs.

..... Again, Dulin and Garzke disagree with your assertion, stating that KGV's maximum full-load tonnage was stability restricted.



To your point that the ships cannot be compared, a Bismarck class as fast as the KGV class would have been of about the same displacement. Which makes them comparable, however pointless that may be.

..... Perhaps, perhaps not. I am not a naval architect, so cannot dispute your assertion with complete confidence. On what grounds do you base your claim? All I can point out is that an increase in speed from 28.5 kts to 30 kts would require a power increase of something on the order of 17 percent.

JtD
09-17-2008, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... Dulin and Garzke disagree with your tonnage figures for KGV, as do D K Brown, and Oscar Parkes.

As if there has ever been an unanimous agreement to a certain number. The number I wrote is the one making most sense and can be found in Tarrants KGV book, Raven/Robert British battleship books and in Dulin and Garzkes Allied battleships of WW2.

edit: Actually 38031ts, sorry. But I think you were referring to 37000 <-> 38000 anyway.


..... Again, Dulin and Garzke disagree with your assertion, stating that KGV's maximum full-load tonnage was stability restricted.

I don't think you got me here. Of course you cannot squeeze 8700ts of fuel into a design that can take 3700ts. However, there was no (legal or technical) reason to limit the design to 3700ts fuel capacity when it was under work.


..... Perhaps, perhaps not. I am not a naval architect, so cannot dispute your assertion with complete confidence. On what grounds do you base your claim? All I can point out is that an increase in speed from 28.5 kts to 30 kts would require a power increase of something on the order of 17 percent.

The average maximum speeds attained on trials were 27.9 knots for the KGVs and 30.4 for the Bismarcks. Very simply put, you'd need another 10 meters length in the midship section full of machinery to achieve the extra speed.

Blutarski2004
09-18-2008, 06:27 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
As if there has ever been an unanimous agreement to a certain number. The number I wrote is the one making most sense and can be found in Tarrants KGV book, Raven/Robert British battleship books and in Dulin and Garzkes Allied battleships of WW2.

edit: Actually 38031ts, sorry. But I think you were referring to 37000 <-> 38000 anyway.

..... The KGV tonnage figures I quoted were for the date 1939. as I was trying to make her situation chronologically consistent with BISMARCK.



I don't think you got me here. Of course you cannot squeeze 8700ts of fuel into a design that can take 3700ts. However, there was no (legal or technical) reason to limit the design to 3700ts fuel capacity when it was under work.

..... There was a "legal" reason. The KGV design was dictated by the 35,000 ton treaty limit, which had been discarded in the case of the BISMARCK. Dulin and Garzke comment that the entire KGV design and construction process was fixated upon weight issues, which demanded many compromises.




The average maximum speeds attained on trials were 27.9 knots for the KGVs and 30.4 for the Bismarcks. Very simply put, you'd need another 10 meters length in the midship section full of machinery to achieve the extra speed.

..... I don't think it's quite that simple. Increasing length by 35 feet would indeed improve her speed/length ratio. But it adds an additional 3,000 tons in hull structure, armor and machinery [plus about 4,500 sq ft more wetted area].

By my back-of-the-envelope arithmetic, KGV would require an increase in power of about 25 percent to increase her speed capability from 27.9 kts to 30.4 kts. That would represent approximately two additional boilers [which would demand a revision of the power plant layout] or a substantial increase in boiler operating pressure [which the RN was unwilling to entertain at that time].

All this boils down to the hard design choices imposed by the Washington Treaty limits. If the KGV's had been designed without such restrictions, I'm sure that a very different ship would have emerged: perhaps 9 x 16-inch and 30 knots, i.e. - a genuine fast battleship.

Blutarski2004
09-18-2008, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The real KGV class was substantially better armored than the Bismarck class.


..... Oscar Parkes gives a good amidships cross-sectional comparison of KGV versus BISMARCK, comparing protection standards for a machinery room space in the central citadel.

Deck Armor -
KGV: 1 + 5 inches.
BISMARCK: 2 + 3 inches.

Main Belt -
KGV: 14 inches from upper deck to 6 ft below W/L, then tapering to 4.5 inches to about 12 ft below W/L.
BISMARCK: 12.6 inches from upper deck to 6 ft below W/L. 5.75 inches from upper deck to forecastle deck.

Interior vertical splinter bulkhead -
KGV: 2 inches.
BISMARCK: 1.9 inches.

Armored deck slope behind main belt -
KGV: nil
BISMARCK: 4.4 inches extending in a 30 deg slope from W/L to bottom of main belt to approx 6 ft below W/L.


My impression ... BISMARCK better protected against short range fire; KGV better protected against long range fire. BISMARCK's armor layout resembles German practice in WW1. KGV resembles more modern practice [except no inclined belt] plus an interior vertical splinter bulkhead.

JtD
09-18-2008, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... The KGV tonnage figures I quoted were for the date 1939. as I was trying to make her situation chronologically consistent with BISMARCK.

I don't think it is wise to take the 1939 design displacement as a basis. The KGV's design wasn't ready at that point. Most changes made in the design after that time were in order to fix some errors not in order to improve fighting abilities. They would have been necessary no matter what. Unless you'd like your ship dark inside, because someone forgot the lighting.

As in spring 1941, in the conditions that KGV, PoW and Bismarck were in, their standard displacement was less than 4000ts and less than 10% apart.


..... There was a "legal" reason. The KGV design was dictated and limited by the 35,000 ton treaty limit, which had been discarded in the case of the BISMARCK.

However, the North Carolina, the South Dakota, the Dunkerque and Richelieu all carried more fuel while being of smaller or the same standard displacement, with the same restrictive thinking applying.

I'm not sure that you are aware of the fact that fuel was not included in the limited displacement, so all you had to do is to provide extra fuel capacity. Which comes at a very small displacement penalty, as you can use void spaces in the ships structure for fuel storage.
The British thought that they wouldn't need that extra fuel because of their world wide web of supply bases. They also expected the range of the ships to be twice as high as it turned out to be, because they forgot to include secondary energy consumption into their range calculations. So they figured that findings in trial conditions were valid for wartime conditions, too. But they weren't.


..... I don't think it's quite that simple. Increasing length by 35 feet would indeed improve her speed/length ratio. But it adds an additional 3,000 tons in hull structure, armor and machinery [plus about 4,500 sq ft more wetted area].

Yes, this is my estimate. 10 meters improve the speed/lenght ratio and make room for necessary extra machinery. Taking the midships cross section, that's an about 3000ts increase. If you go by the US South Dakota and Iowa designs, this isn't too far off.


All this boils down to the hard design choices imposed by the Washington Treaty limits. If the KGV's had been designed without such restrictions, I'm sure that a very different ship would have emerged: perhaps 9 x 16-inch and 30 knots, i.e. - a genuine fast battleship.

Or a 8x15" 30 knots, i.e. Vanguard.

Blutarski2004
09-18-2008, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I don't think it is wise to take the 1939 design displacement as a basis. The KGV's design wasn't ready at that point. Most changes made in the design after that time were in order to fix some errors not in order to improve fighting abilities. They would have been necessary no matter what. Unless you'd like your ship dark inside, because someone forgot the lighting.

As in spring 1941, in the conditions that KGV, PoW and Bismarck were in, their standard displacement was less than 4000ts and less than 10% apart.

..... Almost all warships suffer tonnage creep over their careers. My desire was to place the two ships at approximately the same point in time and degree of preparedness, launched and commissioned at the start of the war. It's just undeniable that KGV was a smaller ship than BISMARCK. KGV never exceeded 45,000 tons full load displacement in her entire career. BISMARCK was at 49,000 tons full load displacement in her first and only commission.

Dimensionally speaking - BISMARCK - 792 x 118 x 28.5 ft; KGV - 740 x 103 x 28 ft.



However, the North Carolina, the South Dakota, the Dunkerque and Richelieu all carried more fuel while being of smaller or the same standard displacement, with the same restrictive thinking applying.

..... It was a matter of design choices made within the 35,000 target tonnage. SODAK carried more fuel, but her main belt armor was 12-inches compared to 14-inches for KGV.



I'm not sure that you are aware of the fact that fuel was not included in the limited displacement, so all you had to do is to provide extra fuel capacity. Which comes at a very small displacement penalty, as you can use void spaces in the ships structure for fuel storage.

..... Of course. But, no matter how you look at it, extra fuel still counts against displacement.




The British thought that they wouldn't need that extra fuel because of their world wide web of supply bases. They also expected the range of the ships to be twice as high as it turned out to be, because they forgot to include secondary energy consumption into their range calculations. So they figured that findings in trial conditions were valid for wartime conditions, too. But they weren't.

..... True.




Or a 8x15" 30 knots, i.e. Vanguard.

..... VANGUARD's main battery actually consisted of spare 15-inch turrets removed from COUAGEOUS and GLORIOUS when they were converted to CV's. They were sort of available "off-the-shelf" to help rush wartime construction in much the same way as RENOWN and REPULSE were war-built and armed with spare dreadnought turrets in WW1. I was thinking that, with a clean and unrestricted sheet of paper, the designers would have repeated the 16-inch main battery developed for their NELSON Class. There actually was some discussion about arming the KGV's with 9 x 16-inch, but it did not come to pass. I think it would have been a smart move. The number of main battery turrets would have been reduced from four to three. That 30-40 ft of citadel length could have been used to accommodate additional machinery for 30 kts without any material increase in armor weights.

Xiolablu3
09-18-2008, 01:22 PM
COmparing ship to ship really means nothing, you need to compare the whole sides forces in each battle.

One single heavy battleship means nothing if it has no other support and the other side has AIr superiority and a large fleet.

JtD
09-18-2008, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... Almost all warships suffer tonnage creep over their careers. My desire was to place the two ships at approximately the same point in time and degree of preparedness, launched and commissioned at the start of the war. It's just undeniable that KGV was a smaller ship than BISMARCK. KGV never exceeded 45,000 tons full load displacement in her entire career. BISMARCK was at 49,000 tons full load displacement in her first and only commission.

You're either going on a too fast pace or on a different course...the KGV was commissioned in October 1940, Bismarck in August 1940. Bismarck was operational in May 1941. I think that spring 1941 is a very good time to pick for any comparisons, in particular as this was the only time a KGV fought a Bismarck.
I still don't think that a full load displacement is a good basis for size comparisons, but yes, the Bismarck is larger.


..... It was a matter of design choices made within the 35,000 target tonnage. SODAK carried more fuel, but her main belt armor was 12-inches compared to 14-inches for KGV.

The SD's belt was inclined 19? and internal, according to the US designers it was equivalent to 16 inches vertical external at the lower end of the immunity zone. The SD used a totally different concept.
The weight of the fuel did not effect the armor. The fuel was carried in the outer spaces of the torpedo defense system and the triple bottom of the ship. Very much like the KGV did, however the US designers made a lot more spaces available than the British did, at almost no weight penalty.
It was a matter of design choice, not a matter of displacement limitations.


I was thinking that, with a clean and unrestricted sheet of paper, the designers would have repeated the 16-inch main battery developed for their NELSON Class. There actually was some discussion about arming the KGV's with 9 x 16-inch, but it did not come to pass. I think it would have been a smart move. The number of main battery turrets would have been reduced from four to three. That 30-40 ft of citadel length could have been used to accommodate additional machinery for 30 kts without any material increase in armor weights.

9x16" are quite a bit of extra firepower and would increase the displacement over a 8x15" and a 10x14" ship considerably. The KGV was to be fitted with either 9x16" or 12x14", the latter was decided and eventually downgraded to 10x14" for displacement reasons. 9x16" is slightly heavier than 12x14", too, so 9x16" on the KGV would have brought their displacement up to something like 39.000ts-40.000ts early war.
The 15" on the Vanguard were a rather light and compact weapon, replacing them with 16" would not have only have increased the displacement by some 1500ts, but also required some extra room.

Blutarski2004
09-18-2008, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
The SD's belt was inclined 19? and internal, according to the US designers it was equivalent to 16 inches vertical external at the lower end of the immunity zone. The SD used a totally different concept.
The weight of the fuel did not effect the armor. The fuel was carried in the outer spaces of the torpedo defense system and the triple bottom of the ship. Very much like the KGV did, however the US designers made a lot more spaces available than the British did, at almost no weight penalty. It was a matter of design choice, not a matter of displacement limitations.

..... The idea behind inclined armor was to provide a given degree of armor protection for a lesser weight of tonnage of vertical armor. SODAK was a weight limited treaty design, so tonnage saved in one area was utilized in other areas, one of which would have been the weight of fuel [range in other words].




9x16" are quite a bit of extra firepower and would increase the displacement over a 8x15" and a 10x14" ship considerably. The KGV was to be fitted with either 9x16" or 12x14", the latter was decided and eventually downgraded to 10x14" for displacement reasons. 9x16" is slightly heavier than 12x14", too, so 9x16" on the KGV would have brought their displacement up to something like 39.000ts-40.000ts early war.
The 15" on the Vanguard were a rather light and compact weapon, replacing them with 16" would not have only have increased the displacement by some 1500ts, but also required some extra room.

..... I checked the weights for the rotating armored mounts plus guns and was honestly surprised that the 9 x 16in outfit was actually lighter than the 10 x 14in armament.

three 16-in triple turrets:
[9 x 108t] + [3 x 1100] = 4272 tons

versus

two quadruple 14-in turrets plus one twin 14-in turret:
[10 x 79t] + [2 x 1500t] + [1 x 900t] = 4690 tons

which more than makes up the difference in ammunition/propellant weights.

Interesting.

Frequent_Flyer
09-18-2008, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vinnie_Gumbat:
At the web site http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
the KGV class comes in at a conciderable disadvantage to the Bismark amd it's twin the Tirpitz.

Vinnie

Forget that article and don't open it anymore. It's comparing apples and oranges to start with and the author apparently fails to understand several important points in some designs. I'd also bet he is US American. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



[/QUOTE]What other kind of American is there ?" US American "
By " US American " do mean he's, good looking, intelligent and rich ?.[/QUOTE]

JtD
09-18-2008, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
SODAK was a weight limited treaty design, so tonnage saved in one area was utilized in other areas, one of which would have been the weight of fuel [range in other words].

No, fuel does not count into the weight limitations. Fuel and reserve feed water are excluded from the limited standard displacement. There was no limit to full load displacement. If you want to carry an extra 3000ts of fuel, you don't need to save 3000ts of something else to be compliant with the Washington treaty. Your standard displacement does not change, your full load displacement goes up 3000ts.


..... I checked the weights for the rotating armored mounts plus guns and was honestly surprised that the 9 x 16in outfit was actually lighter than the 10 x 14in armament.

three 16-in triple turrets:
[9 x 108t] + [3 x 1100] = 4272 tons

versus

two quadruple 14-in turrets plus one twin 14-in turret:
[10 x 79t] + [2 x 1500t] + [1 x 900t] = 4690 tons

Nelson class, rotating turret weight (3 turrets): 4389ts.
Nelson class, main armament: 5936ts.
Nelson class (design), total armament: 6900ts.
Nelson class (as completed), total armament: 6869ts.
KGV class, rotating turret weight (3 turrets): 4079ts.
KGV class (design), total armament: 6050ts.
KGV class (as completed), total armament: 7401ts.
Lion class, rotating turret weight (3 turrets): 48000ts.
Lion class (design), total armament: 7100ts.
Vanguard, rotating turret weight (4 turrets): 3420ts.
Vanguard, main armament weight: 4605ts.
Vanguard (design), total armament: 6100ts.
Vanguard (as completed), total armament weight: 6718ts

I think it is safe to assume that the 9x16" of the Lion class would have lead to more than 7100ts eventually, because the calculations for both KGV and Vanguard were quite optimistic. At least, for Vanguard the extra displacement included some extra weapons, while much of the extra displacement for the KGV went into the corrections of design errors. So I think that 9x16" would have increased the displacement somewhat, but you are right in that it might not have been as much as I initially thought, in particular if the 16" guns of the Nelson had been used again. Indeed a bit surprising.

Edit: Your turret weights are a bit off because the 1500ts and 900ts for the 14" already are for a fully equipped turret.

JtD
09-18-2008, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:

What other kind of American is there ?" US American "
By " US American " do mean he's, good looking, intelligent and rich ?.

There are two continents full of Americans. About one third of them is US American.

Blutarski2004
09-19-2008, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
No, fuel does not count into the weight limitations. Fuel and reserve feed water are excluded from the limited standard displacement. There was no limit to full load displacement. If you want to carry an extra 3000ts of fuel, you don't need to save 3000ts of something else to be compliant with the Washington treaty. Your standard displacement does not change, your full load displacement goes up 3000ts.

..... What you say is technically true, but the designer must still allow for the nature and condition of the ship when provisioned and fueled for sea service. It is perfectly possible to design a theoretical 35,000 ton battleship that, when fully loaded, has zero reserve buoyancy. Obviously no one would build such a ship, but the idea of doing so does reflect what I have been trying [inadequately] to explain. The designer of a Washington Treaty battleship had 35,000 tons of standard displacement to work with. His responsibility was to parcel out that tonnage to propulsion, armament, protection, and hull volume, such that the finished vessel could usefully perform its functions at sea in a fully loaded operational state.




I think it is safe to assume that the 9x16" of the Lion class would have lead to more than 7100ts eventually, because the calculations for both KGV and Vanguard were quite optimistic. At least, for Vanguard the extra displacement included some extra weapons, while much of the extra displacement for the KGV went into the corrections of design errors. So I think that 9x16" would have increased the displacement somewhat, but you are right in that it might not have been as much as I initially thought, in particular if the 16" guns of the Nelson had been used again. Indeed a bit surprising.

Edit: Your turret weights are a bit off because the 1500ts and 900ts for the 14" already are for a fully equipped turret.

..... Thanks for that data, Jtd. I took my turret weight data from a quick look into the appendices of Hodges' book "The Big Gun" and did not cross-check it against other sources.

JtD
09-19-2008, 08:05 AM
Well, hull volume as needed for fuel capacity certainly does not come for free, yet it is a rather minor factor when it comes to displacement. Mainly due to the fact that you can use compartments like the double bottom that have no other function anyway. The last two KGVs had an increased fuel capacity of 7.5% and 15% respectively. They (simply) accessed some spaces forward of the citadel and in the torpedo defense system.

As for reserve buoyancy, the PoW is supposed to have taken almost 20000ts of water in before going down. I dare to say that the design, at least from this point of view, did have some reserves.


Thanks for that data, Jtd. I took my turret weight data from a quick look into the appendices of Hodges' book "The Big Gun" and did not cross-check it against other sources.

Yet another book I don't have. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Mine are mostly from Raven/Roberts British battleships of WW2, which is an excellent book I got for 10 Euros new, and certainly is the best value for money I've ever come across. I cross checked with and added figures from other sources, too. But I'm sure, as with the displacements of the ships totals, that there are plenty of sources around that give other figures.

Blutarski2004
09-19-2008, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Well, hull volume as needed for fuel capacity certainly does not come for free, yet it is a rather minor factor when it comes to displacement. Mainly due to the fact that you can use compartments like the double bottom that have no other function anyway. The last two KGVs had an increased fuel capacity of 7.5% and 15% respectively. They (simply) accessed some spaces forward of the citadel and in the torpedo defense system.

As for reserve buoyancy, the PoW is supposed to have taken almost 20000ts of water in before going down. I dare to say that the design, at least from this point of view, did have some reserves.

..... The point I am actually seeking to make doesn't involve finding space for additional fuel; that is pretty much a given. It is that every ship is designed with certain amounts of inherent reserve buoyancy and stability. Both are important factors in determining both seaworthiness and battleworthiness of a design. Every ton added to a ship definitely affects reserve buoyancy and may affect stability. Although a designer is designing a ship of 35,000 tons standard treaty displacement, he has to provide sufficient stability and reserve buoyancy to ensure that that his design can float and fight at 40,000 tons displacement. Going back in time, an excellent example of this issue in practice was the experience of OSLIABIA at Tsushima. She was so overloaded with coal that her main belt was actually underwater and her stability was badly compromised. As a result, she suffered free flooding from waterline damage and was lost to capsize as a result of insufficient reserve stability.



Yet another book I don't have. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Mine are mostly from Raven/Roberts British battleships of WW2, which is an excellent book I got for 10 Euros new, and certainly is the best value for money I've ever come across. I cross checked with and added figures from other sources, too. But I'm sure, as with the displacements of the ships totals, that there are plenty of sources around that give other figures.

..... The amusing thing is that "British BB's of WW2" is one of the Raven/Roberts books I do not have in a fairly large naval history library! LOL. If it's anything like their "British Cruisers of World War Two" [which I do have], then it must be without question a good reference source. You know me as an Ubizoo flight sim enthusiast, but my principal interest is actually naval history. My areas of special focus are naval ordnance and gunnery, WW1 in the North Sea, WW2 naval night surface actions in the Solomon Islands, and the Age of Sail. If you're interested to discuss other naval related stuff, PM me.

JtD
09-19-2008, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... The point I am actually seeking to make doesn't involve finding space for additional fuel; that is pretty much a given....

Ok, you've made your point. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'd just like to add that stability and reserve buoyancy are not necessarily connected. Stability is also a question of the metacentric height, which may increase when the displacement goes up, usually when weight is added far down in the ship. So a ship may take more water to capsize when loaded, but less water for straight sinking.
For ships of their size, the KGV had huge amount of reserve buoyancy and a good stability.
Which cannot be taken for granted - the projected H-class intended to follow up the Bismarcks had the main armor deck below the waterline. That happened because of displacement increasing design changes. With their comparatively thin belt, this was a serious flaw, allowing widespread flooding in case of a not so unlikely AP hit and also trapping crews below the armored deck.


You know me as an Ubizoo flight sim enthusiast, but my principal interest is actually naval history. My areas of special focus are naval ordnance and gunnery, WW1 in the North Sea, WW2 naval night surface actions in the Solomon Islands, and the Age of Sail. If you're interested to discuss other naval related stuff, PM me.

My naval library contains only about a dozen books, but I think most of them as high quality. It's a lot more than I have on aircraft. I wouldn't consider me that much of an enthusiast, but currently I'm assembling Fujimi's 1/350 scale IJN Kongo class battleship, which happens to be the lead ship of my favorite WW2 battleship class. In second place here the Renown/Repulse and third the Hood. Love the battlecruisers. Assembling the ship keeps my naval interest at high level atm, so while not inhaling poisonous glue I'm going through my books again.

Which brings me to another point: Do you, or anyone else following this topic, happen to know a good book about the Kongo class, in particular about the later years, meaning final technical condition and WW2 action? If you look for "Japanese battleship" 98% of the answers you get read "Yamato". It seems that the Kongo class has been of very little interest for most authors. The most detailed info you get is actually on wikipedia. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Glykol02
09-19-2008, 11:51 AM
JtD, may be one of these:

http://www.abebooks.de/servlet/SearchResults?sortby=3&s...attleships&x=84&y=19 (http://www.abebooks.de/servlet/SearchResults?sortby=3&sts=t&tn=Japanese+battleships&x=84&y=19)

Sorry, nothing special about the Kongo Class, and I don`t know if there is more information as on wiki..

That Raven / Roberts book seems to blow my pocket http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://www.abebooks.de/servlet/SearchResults?an=Raven+R...tleships+of&x=68&y=9 (http://www.abebooks.de/servlet/SearchResults?an=Raven+Roberts&sortby=3&sts=t&tn=British+battleships+of&x=68&y=9)

Blutarski2004
09-19-2008, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Which brings me to another point: Do you, or anyone else following this topic, happen to know a good book about the Kongo class, in particular about the later years, meaning final technical condition and WW2 action? If you look for "Japanese battleship" 98% of the answers you get read "Yamato". It seems that the Kongo class has been of very little interest for most authors. The most detailed info you get is actually on wikipedia. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


KONGO - Most powerful BC in the world when launched.


Try these sites on the web [if you do not already know about them]:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/senkan.htm

http://www.combinedfleet.com/

Jon Parshall and Anthony Tully [authors of "Shattered Sword"] run a terrific IJN website. Check it out and get on the forum - lots of knowledgeable people here.

Tully has an article specifically on KONGO.

- - -

http://www.warship.org/wi.htm

Best value for the money in naval history. My collection goes back to the mid-70's.

- - -

http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/periodicals/warship/

Warship [used to be Warship Quarterly, now an annual]. Another excellent reference series w/ articles written by qualified authorities. Raven and Roberts have been regular contributors.

- - -

I do not know of any books specifically on the IJNS KONGO. But if there is such an animal, the people at Nihon Kaigun / Combined Fleet will know about it.

Hope this helps.

Gumtree
09-19-2008, 08:03 PM
Is it true that a straffing run by a plane armed with .50 cal mgs could sink a capitol ship, just like they could destroy a Tiger Tank? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

luftluuver
09-20-2008, 12:39 AM
JtD, not on the Konga but Anatomy of the Ship has one on the Fuso.

JtD
09-20-2008, 05:41 AM
Thanks for the recommendations, I'm aware of all of them, though. They are not what I am looking for. Maybe it's a good idea to get in touch with the combined fleet guys, and if they can't help me with a good book maybe I can help them with improving their battleships "baddest" competition. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

luftluuver
09-20-2008, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Thanks for the recommendations, I'm aware of all of them, though. They are not what I am looking for. Maybe it's a good idea to get in touch with the combined fleet guys, and if they can't help me with a good book maybe I can help them with improving their battleships "baddest" competition. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Thought you would be but others reading the thread might not be.

Forgot, another board you can try.
http://www.bobhenneman.info/forum/index.php

Glykol02
09-23-2008, 04:50 PM
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/2109/ijngeschwaderyi8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Drueber gestolpert:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6421019045/m/5041029786

JtD
09-24-2008, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:

Forgot, another board you can try.
http://www.bobhenneman.info/forum/index.php

You need to register to participate but I can't find a way to register. No button, link or anything. Obvious case of internet-inability.

----

Very nice pictures, Glykol. Thanks a lot!

HereticYojimbo
09-30-2008, 05:25 PM
Battleships of similar period often have lots of minor niches and factors relating to the protection and design of their armour. Unless a ship's protective system is clearly miles ahead in terms of development, like Iowa's, it's pretty difficult to say which ship has better protection over the other when they're both from a pretty similar period like Bismarck and KGV.

JtD
09-30-2008, 10:42 PM
How was the Iowas protective system miles ahead of the rest? It was just a repetition of the South Dakotas scheme. It was quite efficient, but not that effective.
The French Richelieu had a more effective torpedo protection system, thicker deck armor and a more effective belt, the only drawback being a slightly higher vulnerability against under water projectiles. The Richelieu was one of the first WW2 battleship designs.

HereticYojimbo
10-01-2008, 08:46 AM
American ships generally had waaay better compartmentalization and damage control practices. The brand of steel the Americans used in their armour was of better quality than anyone else's. Many of them also used Turbo-Electric propulsion which was a really reliable means of powering the ship. No american battleship was ever signifigantly damaged by a Kamikaze attack except for poor old Pennsylvania. Penn was a relic from the first world war anyway.

Richelieu had good protection but its firepower left a lot to be desired until it recieved its refit in New York. It had virtually zero means of anti-aircraft capability until it had been refit. The quality of the ammunition it used was also suspect. It's pretty tough to compare Rich and Iowa though because they were built close to eachother though.

JtD
10-02-2008, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by HereticYojimbo:
American ships generally had waaay better compartmentalization

Not true. It was good, though.


and damage control practices.

Not true. It was excellent, though.


The brand of steel the Americans used in their armour was of better quality than anyone else's.

Not true. Their face hardened armor was considerably inferior to British armor and their homogenous armour was almost the same as German material.


Many of them also used Turbo-Electric propulsion which was a really reliable means of powering the ship.

No modern USN battleship used turbo elctric propulsion, as it was too heavy.


No american battleship was ever signifigantly damaged by a Kamikaze attack except for poor old Pennsylvania. Penn was a relic from the first world war anyway.

No German, Italian, French, Japanese or British battleship was ever significantly damaged by Kamikaze attacks.


Richelieu had good protection but its firepower left a lot to be desired until it recieved its refit in New York.

At the time of it's completion it's firepower was better than all battleships in existence with the exception of the Italian Vittorio Veneto.


It had virtually zero means of anti-aircraft capability until it had been refit.

At the time of it's completion it had better AAA capabilities than any US battleship in existence.


The quality of the ammunition it used was also suspect.

This is because it didn't use the ammunition it was designed for. Which is quite an achievement, not a failure.


It's pretty tough to compare Rich and Iowa though because they were built close to eachother though.

It's pretty easy to compare them, it's just a little pointless to end a comparison of complex machinery with a simple "better" attribute.

And I still don't see how the Iowas protective system was miles ahead of the rest?

Blutarski2004
10-02-2008, 12:53 PM
Here's what bothers me about the design of the RICHELIEU class. The RICHELIEU class had virtually no immune zone against US 16-inch 45/50 caliber guns.

The first hit made by USS MASSACHUSETTS at about 22,000 yards went through the 150mm armored deck, the 40mm splinter deck and exploded in the the magazine serving JEAN BART's 152-mm aft turrets. Very fortunately for her crew, neither the 152-mm turrets nor their associated ammunition were yet aboard the ship. Otherwise she would have been blown up.

Of course, in fairness, they were probably designed with Italy and Germany in mind as potential enemies.

JtD
10-02-2008, 01:19 PM
Imho, that's not a matter of design, it's a matter of material used. The French homogenous armor was not as good as German or US material. A 150mm / 170mm deck backed up by 40 mm splinter deck is nominally the best deck protection in any WW2 ship.

The US 16"/45 was the WW2 gun with the best deck protection, as it coupled a low muzzle velocity (ergo a steep angle of fall) with a very heavy and capable projectile.

A shell exploding in a secondary magazine will not necessarily explode the magazine and even if that happens, is does not necessarily have to be the end of the ship. No doubt, though, it was good it was empty in Jean Bart's case.

HereticYojimbo
10-02-2008, 01:39 PM
I'm not denying that Richelieu is probably among one of the best battleships ever designed, it probably would have been better off for me to specify that my argument was started with the idea of Iowa vs. KGV/Bismarck. If you want to include Rich in the category of Iowa, then it fits fine. Rich was a ship pretty ahead of its time when designed. So I don't include it in the same category as KGV and Bismarck.

BTW, Bismarck suffers from one of the most over-rated reputations in naval history. I imagine you know that though.

Blutarski2004
10-02-2008, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
A shell exploding in a secondary magazine will not necessarily explode the magazine and even if that happens, is does not necessarily have to be the end of the ship. No doubt, though, it was good it was empty in Jean Bart's case.


..... You and I will have to agree to disagree on this particular point. Had those magazines been full, there would have been something like 10,000 kgs of propellant in them to serve the three 152-mm turrets. The likelihood of the explosion of a 2700 lb AP projectile within a magazine failing to detonate the stored propellant is IMO infinitesmally minute.

JtD
10-02-2008, 02:55 PM
Afaik, the secondary guns did not use silk cartridges. Metal cartridges are not as likely to blow up, or to blow up a ship. IIrc, there were instances where brass cartridge magazines survived a shell explosion, but had to be flooded.

Blutarski2004
10-02-2008, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Afaik, the secondary guns did not use silk cartridges. Metal cartridges are not as likely to blow up, or to blow up a ship. IIrc, there were instances where brass cartridge magazines survived a shell explosion, but had to be flooded.


..... See pages 169-171 in "Nelson to Vanguard", by D K Brown. According to Ing. Brown, fixed ammunition was highly vulnerable, with hot shell splinters acting as the agents of ignition.

ElAurens
10-02-2008, 05:44 PM
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/5710/knogoclassxm0.jpg

Fascinating discussion gents.

I too find favor in the Kongo class. A pity we didn't get the Haruna that was being worked on for PF.

As in any discussion of arms, there is much more to any engagement that just armour thikness/quality and weapon throw weight and penetration.

For instance, an early war night engagement between IJN battleships and their US or RN counterparts. I would have to vote in favor of the IJN because as a total system, they were superior in the night. They trained incessantly for night engagements, they had superior optical devices, again fine tuned for operation at night. Even though the US or RN BBs may be (and were) better on paper.

Like we say about the sim, it's the pilot and his training, and not the aircraft that wins.

JtD
10-03-2008, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... See pages 169-171 in "Nelson to Vanguard", by D K Brown. According to Ing. Brown, fixed ammunition was highly vulnerable, with hot shell splinters acting as the agents of ignition.

Wouldn't fixed ammo be projectile and propelling charge in one piece? The French 152mm gun used seperate ammo. This greatly lowers the chances of a violent chain reaction, as brass cartridge splinters are not great in penetrating other brass cartridges and setting off the propellant. They also protect the propellant from short time heat exposure.
I think it was the WW1 Lützow that twice had her brass cartridge main magazines aft burned out, without fatal damage to the ship.

----------

Made my Kongo by now:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fotos/kongo.jpg

Blutarski2004
10-03-2008, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Wouldn't fixed ammo be projectile and propelling charge in one piece? The French 152mm gun used seperate ammo. This greatly lowers the chances of a violent chain reaction, as brass cartridge splinters are not great in penetrating other brass cartridges and setting off the propellant. They also protect the propellant from short time heat exposure.
I think it was the WW1 Lützow that twice had her brass cartridge main magazines aft burned out, without fatal damage to the ship.


..... It's not brass splinters. It is the very hot steel splinters of the striking projectile that penetrate or tear the relatively thin propellant casings [whether fixed or cased separate loading ammo] and ignite their contents. Even high-capacity AA projectiles were vulnerable, according to the British tests cited by Brown.

Re the WW1 event, you are probably thinking of the experience of SEYDLITZ at the Battle of Dogger Bank. The projectile did not detonate within her magazine. N J M Campbell gives a good description of the sequence of events -

Quote -

The second hit from LION at about 17000 yards caused much destruction. This shell struck the quarterdeck and burst in holing the 9-in barbette armor of the sternmost turret. The shell was kept out but armor fragments entered, piercing the ring bulkhead, and ignited 11-in main and fore charges in the working chamber. The flash ignited the charges in the gunhouse, and those in the lower hoists and handing room, as well as some in the magazine also caught fire. The ignition of these charges was at first comparatively slow, as when the fumes of the burning charges in the working chamber began to penetrate to the handing room one deck below, the crew of the latter opened the bulkhead door leading to the handing room of the after superfiring turret to escape. At this moment the charges in the handing room ignited and flash passed into the superfiring turret, setting fire to charges in the handing room and to some in the magazine and also in the working chamber and gunhouse. Altogether 62 complete [main and fore] charges were destroyed totalling over 6 tons of propellant. Fumes and flames penetrated through the damaged ventilation system and made the after part of the ship untenable, but it was possible to flood the magazines and the stern torpedo flat before the 11-in shells started exploding from the heat of the fire.

- Unquote

Only about 15 percent of the propellant in the two turrets burned and they did so over a period of time throughout the volume of the two turret structures, ultimately enabling the magazines to be flooded. Critical pressure [essential to detonation of a magazine] never built up within a magazine chamber.


BTW, very nice model - the KONGO class is a beautiful warship design.

JtD
10-05-2008, 10:35 AM
Thanks for the quote. While not exactly what I remembered, the description underlines my opinion.

a) A projectile will not hit and ignite all charges in the magazines when it explodes, simply because it doesn't produce enough splinters.

b) Brass casings do not tend to quickly spread the fire, it's more like a violent fire than an explosion.

c) So the critical pressure/temperature will not be reached very quickly, allowing the crew to take counter measures.

So to get back to my original point, I don't think that a hit into a magazine will inevitably lead to the loss of the ship; I think the chances for survival are considerably better than infinitely small.

---

Maybe it was Lion that had turret fires twice in WW1? I know there was one capital ship that almost blew up twice (in Doggerbank and Jutland), I just don't know which and I certainly can not look up details atm.

Blutarski2004
10-05-2008, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Thanks for the quote. While not exactly what I remembered, the description underlines my opinion.

a) A projectile will not hit and ignite all charges in the magazines when it explodes, simply because it doesn't produce enough splinters.

b) Brass casings do not tend to quickly spread the fire, it's more like a violent fire than an explosion.

c) So the critical pressure/temperature will not be reached very quickly, allowing the crew to take counter measures.

So to get back to my original point, I don't think that a hit into a magazine will inevitably lead to the loss of the ship; I think the chances for survival are considerably better than infinitely small.

---

Maybe it was Lion that had turret fires twice in WW1? I know there was one capital ship that almost blew up twice (in Doggerbank and Jutland), I just don't know which and I certainly can not look up details atm.


..... LION was crippled at Dogger Bank and had to be towed home. The critical damage was a non-penetrating 12-in hit abreast the port engine room, flooding from which forcd the shut-down of her portside boilers and ultimately shorted out her entire electrical power system.

At Jutland, LION suffered a hit from a 12-in SAP fired by LUTZOW at the join between the turret face plate and the front inclined roof plate of Q turret. The shell entered the gunhouse and burst, killing all its occupants and blowing the front roof plate and center face plate off. The gunhouse fire was put out, flash doors closed, and the magazine flooded. 28 minutes later, the fire revived, setting alight eight propellant charges still in the barbette loading queue. These flashed and burned so violently that, despite the venting provided by the missing turret roof, the bulkheads of Q magazine were substantially bulged inward despite the support of the water inside the magazine chamber.

- - -

elieve me, AP projectiles produce plenty of splinters. I have pictures of such exploded projectiles whose fragments have been collected and re-assembled for experimental purposes. And when a shell of any substantial size explodes in a confined space like that of a ship's magazine compartment, everyone therein will likely be dead from blast over-pressure. There is a dramatic difference in effect between a hit in the gunhouse or barbette and a hit directly within a magazine.

As I said, you and I will have to agree to disagree on the question of magazine vulnerability.

JtD
10-06-2008, 11:22 AM
How many ships blew up because of the explosion of secondary charges in brass casings?

And how does Gneisenau fit into the picture? Turret A magazine blew up as much as it could, but the ship was still seaworthy thereafter and damage, while extensive, was local. B magazine next door did not blow up.

Blutarski2004
10-06-2008, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
How many ships blew up because of the explosion of secondary charges in brass casings?

And how does Gneisenau fit into the picture? Turret A magazine blew up as much as it could, but the ship was still seaworthy thereafter and damage, while extensive, was local. B magazine next door did not blow up.


..... I assume you are referringto the bomb hit suffered by GNEISENAU on the night of 26/27 Feb 1942. The 1000-lb SAP bomb [30 pct charge weight] exploded in a ventilator shaft just forward of Turret Anton at an angle of approx 70 degrees from the horizontal. A single red-hot bomb splinter [according to Dulin & Garzke] entred the magazine and ignited some powder charges. The resulting explosion severely damaged the turret and the magazine spaces and flashed into the ready use magazine. The roof of Turret Anton was blown off and the entire revolving turret structure was lifted vertically 0.5 meters, falling back on the revolving track after the over-pressure had been relieved. Fire broke out in the nearby fuel oil tanks which, along with the heat from 230 consumed powder cartridges, ruined the structural qualities of the armor and hull structure in the vicinity of Turret Anton. The turret itself was completely gutted, and an explosion was only averted by partial flooding of the magazine.

The destruction in the forward part of the ship from this hit was so severe as to generate estimates of as much as two years for necessary repairs. On 4 Apr 42 the ship moved from Kiel to Gdynia under her own power, where the bow back to frame number 185.7 as well as the remains of Turret Anton and nearby portions of deck, side armor, and torpedo protection system, was removed.

As it was, the bow had not yet been repaired by early 1943, when Hitler cancelled the project. GNEISENAU in fact never put to sea after the damage suffered in the Kiel raid.

Please note that this was the result of an odd splinter from the detonation of a bomb near, not within, a magazine.

- - -

Re explosions of magazines containing cases and semi-fixed ammunition. I have to do some lengthy homework.

ploughman
10-06-2008, 01:06 PM
Very interesting thread guys. Anyone know the rate of turn of a 1916 QE class battleship going flat out, or specifically how long it took Barham to turn 16 points to the north at 16:56 on 31st May, 1916. This is a piece of information of great interest to me.

JtD
10-06-2008, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

Re explosions of magazines containing cases and semi-fixed ammunition. I have to do some lengthy homework.

That would be most appreciated. If been going through some magazine explosions but afair it almost always took some time for the magazine to go boom. I don't recall a single one where the initial source blew the magazine up (maybe Arizona?). It's usually a self destruct thing after ignition.

Of course it is a very lucky thing that there weren't even more of these incidents, but this leaves us a bit short of data for statistics.

----
WRT Gneisenau, I don't think that there was only one splinter. It's just not likely, but of course I don't know.

----
Can't help you Ploughman. The info should be available, though. What is the background? Maybe you also try one of the forums linked on the previous page.

Blutarski2004
10-06-2008, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Very interesting thread guys. Anyone know the rate of turn of a 1916 QE class battleship going flat out, or specifically how long it took Barham to turn 16 points to the north at 16:56 on 31st May, 1916. This is a piece of information of great interest to me.


..... I do have some data on turning performance of QE class BB's, dating from the post-W1 period, which I copy below. However, please note that formation maneuvering diameters were normally rather looser than the tightest possible tactical diameters. The standard capital ship maneuvering diameter for evolutions of the WW1 Grand Fleet was about 700 yards. All capital ships had charts giving necessary rudder angles for any given formation speed to produce the required 700 yard turn diameter.

QE notes as follows -

14 kts @ 12.5 deg rudder angle = 752 yards advance + 824 yards tactical diameter.
14 kts @ 35 deg rudder angle = 580 yards advance + 620 yards tactical diameter.


Remaining Speed at 45, 90, 135, and 180 deg of turn and time to reach each respective change of heading:

14 kts @ 25 deg rudder angle =

45 deg [13.6 kts / 1m 18s]
90 deg [12.4 kts / 1m 59s]
135 deg [11.5 kts / 2m 45s]
180 deg [11.3 kts / 3m 35s]

- - -

14 kts @ 35 deg rudder angle =

45 deg [11.9 kts / 0m 53s]
90 deg [ 9.0 kts / 1m 27s]
135 deg [ 6.8 kts / 2m 08s]
180 deg [ 5.5 kts / 2m 57s]

- - -

23 kts @ 35 deg rudder angle =

45 deg [19.5 kts / 0m 37s]
90 deg [15.6 kts / 0m 56s]
135 deg [11.4 kts / 1m 19s]
180 deg [ 9.7 kts / 1m 48s]

- - -

My best guess is a rudder angle of approx 15 deg and a 5th Battle Squadron formation speed into the turn of about 23 knots and a time to turn through 180 degrees of 2.5/3.0 minutes per ship and about 5/6 minutes for the four ship squadron.


Hope this helps.

ploughman
10-06-2008, 02:59 PM
Thanks B, check your PMs. Thanks again.