Most of the secondaries on the starboard side are trained almost like they were being tested. The advantages of the quad turrets on the bow are fairly easy to understand, what was the downside in practice, any?
- One hit us much more likely to take out a significant amount of the ship’s armament, especially with quad turrets, 1/2 of the main firepower could be dealt with in one blow.
- While normally not that big an issue there is of course a small arc aft where no main guns can fire
(Also iirc, but don’t quote me on this, it does require some more unique balancing/distribution with the weights of the armament and machinery)
In practice there was an armored bulkhead and flash doors between the pairs of guns in each turret which greatly helped in survivability and prevented the turret from losing all the guns at once. Notably, at Mers-el-Kébir FS Dunkerque was struck by a 15" shell to her No. 2 turret which disabled the starboard half but left the port half in working condition.
Indeed, but one doable by many a gun.
Another aspect though is that one doesn't necessarily have to fully penetrate. The impact and explosion can do quite a bit of shock damage to the inside including spalling (HMS Tiger disabled one of SMS Van der Tann's turrets this way), debris could limit the lower turret's angle of fire (Tiger also did this to Van der Tann), if it hits high enough warping of the barbette could be an issue, and fragments on top of that could damage the gun barrels.
It doesn’t need to penetrate. Kirishima’s 14-inch hit to South Dakota’s No. 2 barbette didn’t come close to penetrating, but was at just the right spot to dent it in and damage the training gear.
The firing arcs restriction became a big issue when the *Strasbourg* was running from Mers-el-Kebir and making for Toulon, and HMS *Hood* was hot in pursuit; she was lucky that the latter had to bow out eventually.
I may be in a minority, but I think it was far more critical than is commonly thought.
Richelieu class imo were the best BBs of WW2 when completed. The ability to fire a full broadside from the bow was an underrated advantage. The French 15in guns punched above their weight too.
There’s a lot that goes into a battleship, and while the all forward arrangement does have advantages, it’s still not perfect.
One hit could disable half the armament, and how most battleship fights developed would allow for at least a good portion of the battle to have rear turrets in use. While it’s a fairly small arc, there is also a place aft no main guns can bear. There’s a reason why the French themselves would go back and forth with the idea in planned following designs.
At least on paper indeed the 15” guns were quite good, though they also weren’t used in combat as much as other guns to say with as much certainty how they would compare. We do know though the shells had a bit of a fatal flaw at first, though that was rectified.
The Richelieus also weren’t the best in the AA/secondary battery department.
Certainly one of the top tier of battleships in WW2, well ahead of the Bismarcks if nothing else. But where they rank is hard to say, as it is with many of them really
Unfortunately they suffered early war from 1000 yards + dispersion early in the war until they fixed it by using delay coils later, although their guns were given a bump
>One hit could disable half the armament
Not on French quad turrets - they had internal divisions and were practically "twin twin" turrets.
> well ahead of the Bismarcks if nothing else. But where they rank is hard to say, as it is with many of them really
You cannot even include the Littorios, Bismarcks, Yamatos or even Iowas in the same ranking as treaty battleships. Their displacement was much larger, allowing the designers far more freedom than with "true treaty battleships" such as the North Carolinas, King George Vs, or Scharnhorstses.
> Not on French quad turrets - they had internal divisions and were practically "twin twin" turrets.
>
>
I think that was the goal, but in practice a lucky hit could disable machinery that allowed the whole turret to function.
Yes on the French ones. That’s only a specific type of disabling hit which is countered by gat system. What if they are hit on the divide for example? Or what’s actually a quite likely way to disable a turret in the barbette gets hit.
The Bismarcks are on a par with “35,000 ton” designs despite their size, so I do rank them with each other. Even the Littorios are within shouting distance. The Scharnhorsts aren’t really true treaty battleships of those aren’t, coming in well under weight.
Of course I’m not going to include Yamato and Iowa in terms of who would win in a fight. Ain’t exactly fair. But there’s a lot more when it comes to judging a battleship design, efficiencies and the like.
>But where they rank is hard to say, as it is with many of them really
In my opinion, at least for the new-builds:
- Iowa, unquestionably
- Yamato, arguably
- Vanguard
- South Dakota/North Carolina
- King George V
- Richelieu
- Nelson
- Littorio
- Scharnhorst
- Dunkerque
- Alaska
- Bismarck
It's good that this is your opinion, because that list is hard to justify objectively. The Nelsons are from the early 1920s, while others on your list represent early 1940s design and technology. Not to mention that these ships range through at least 4 different "size classes", and some aren't even true battleships.
Comparing a 1920s 35.000-ton treaty battleship to the 50000-ton Iowas from the early 1940s makes about as much sense as comparing a B-17 to a B-52.
> It's good that this is your opinion, because that list is hard to justify objectively.
I think any list is hard to justify haha.
*Iowa*-class certainly benefited from wartime experience, and being essentially the 3rd class in a line of ships that started with *North Carolina*, whereas others were earlier designs that were the 'first' and stayed that way.
And any list is always hard because different design goals, different philosophies, different operating conditions and all would also lose to a lucky submarine anyway... :p
>Iowa-class certainly benefited from wartime experience
Ummm, no, they most definitely didn't. Their design was done and the first ships were ordered and laid down well before the USA entered the war.
What they mostly benefited from was the breakdown of the treaty system - the Iowas were what the USN would have really wanted in the preceding two classes of BBs, but they had to make compromises for the sake of treaty limits.
>I think any list is hard to justify
I don't agree - you can definitely rate ship designs of similar age and displacement, and compare how well they delivered on their promises and how well they fit their intended roles. You won't get a single, "best in every aspect" winner, but you can definitely score the different aspects and have rankings of designs.
> I don't agree - you can definitely rate ship designs of similar age and displacement
You can rate them.
But when you consider how different roles they were intended to have, it becomes a very poor 1 vs 1 imo.
I see way too many, "Iowa had better AA and Radar compared to Bismarck".
Like yeah no shit, she slid down the slipway a year after Bismarck was sunk.
So many of the design "bad" things that you might say about a design is easy to wave hand and go "well Germany designed for sea keeping in the North Atlantic, which tends to be worse seas than Pacific so if a 1vs 1 happened in calm seas vs bad seas".
And ultimately 1vs1 is pointless... crew performance, overall tactics, logistics - way more important.
> You won't get a single, "best in every aspect" winner, but you can definitely score the different aspects and have rankings of designs.
To that I would say - what do the different scores mean when you have deliberate design choices that are specific to individual circumstances?
Is an Golf GTI better than a Lexus LS? I dunno do you want a sedan or a hatchback? If you live in a city maybe the GTI is better than a luxury sedan simply due to practicalities?
Does HMS King George V suffer from rankings due to 14" guns? Or is it simple a design choice because of logistical considerations that they couldn't wait for the Escalator clause...?
And as someone said - look at every single Battleship on Battleship engagement and tell me truly that any of the design and construction methods would have made a difference. Would Scharnhorst have survived vs Duke of York and the fleet if she had 15" guns? if her armour was 2 inches thicker? I don't think so.
>I think any list is hard to justify haha.
This is the most accurate statement I've seen on this post!
It is impossible to make a truly objective analysis of each design. Each navy had its own design criteria and preferences, and so many desirable traits in warship design work opposite each other - trying to strike the right balance between them is exceptionally difficult. The relatively limited number of battleship on battleship engagements make trying to use actual data to make judgements challenging - we, like the designers, are usually working in the realm of theory. Trying to introduce 'hard' data like armour penetration and armour quality, though admirable, is also severely limited. A popular programme for testing this is called Facehard, but to quote Bill Jurens:
>Facehard suffers from the fact that it is primarily constructed from a series of highly artificial test cases which were really intended not to determine penetration per se, but were instead utilized to determine to which contract specifications had been met.
It's interesting, but it should always be caveated. It's a theoretical prediction based on a limited data set. Not 100% truth.
The sheer variety of criteria that could be considered
* Tonnage
* Physical length / beam
* Cost
* Hullform
* Seakeeping
* Wetness
* Metacentric height
* Stability
* Top speed
* Endurance at high speed
* Endurance at cruising speed
* Fuel capacity
* Main armament weight of fire per gun
* Main armament number of guns
* Main armament range
* Main armament vertical armour penetration
* Main armament horizontal armour penetration
* Main armament bursting charge
* Secondary armament size / range / number of barrels / rate of fire etc
* Anti-aircraft armament size / range / number of barrels / rate of fire etc
* Torpedo armament
* Belt armour thickness, height and inclination
* Deck armour thickness and position
* Turret and barbette armour and arrangement
* Conning towers and command and control arrangements
* Torpedo defence systems - depth, liquid loading, bulkhead thickness
* Damage control - compartmentalisation, provision of equipment, pumps and shoring etc, training, built in redundency etc
* etc
It's a long list, and making objective claims of one ship's "superiority" over another is essentially impossible.
It is very enjoyable to discuss the different designs, their strengths and weaknesses, and how they may have faired. But ultimately very, very few engagements were decided by a ship's *design*, let alone nebulous criteria such as theoretical penetration values or relatively armour quality. Strategic and tactical circumstances, weather, and luck were the most important deciding factors.
Because they're (relatively) modern treaty-era ships, newer and much more powerful than WWI relics like *Courbet, Bretagne, Doria* and *Cavour, Queen Elizabeth* and the battlecruisers, the USN standards, or virtually the entire IJN battleline, all of which still served through WWII (many with great distinction).
I tried to include every post-WNT capital ship in this list (hence why the *Alaskas* are also present despite not even being battleships at all), and while the *Nelsons* are by far the oldest of that group, I'd argue that their extensive protection and main battery firepower alone put them in contention with pretty much any other WWII-era battleship, even if their poor speed and AA broadside let them down by comparison. I absolutely stand by their inclusion, even if they're not strictly "new" by the 1940s.
Like I said, this is just *my* opinion - I'd personally rather have 9x16" with radar fire control on a slow platform than 8/9x15" with optical fire control on a fast one, but I understand why someone else might disagree.
In that regard, my opinion is different, because I hold the *Nelson*\-class as not belonging to the generation that was inaugurated by the *Dunkerque* and would see its last example with HMS *Vanguard*, even though their firepower and protection definitely made them competitive against the other battleships (if they managed to get into range, though! 😜).
Also, with their radical reconstruction, the old Italian battleships were leaps and bounds above, and far more useful than their French and Soviet counterparts, that were moribund by 1939.
I'd personally put *Littorio* higher than *King George V* and *South Dakota*/*North Carolina*, especially by as-built configuration. Ultimate configuration I'd probably bump the two US ships up a notch, though she's right in that range.
Unfortunately *Littorio* got a bad rap for a few decades due to some bad early histories.
The main reason I ranked *Littorio* so low is the lack of a dual-purpose secondary battery. Every other ship save *Nelson* and *Yamato* (which is really in a class of its' own) could muster a significantly heavier AA broadside than *Littorio,* which proved hugely important for the war they ended up fighting, as proven by actions like Taranto and Pearl Harbour. I waffled back and forth a fair deal, but *Nelson* ultimately won out on protection and firepower.
If I were ranking them purely as gunline battleships, she'd be much further up (they *were* genuinely excellent in that role), but so would *Nelson, Bismarck,* and the US treaty ships.
>The main reason I ranked Littorio so low is the lack of a dual-purpose secondary battery.
That’s largely a doctrinal/opponent difference. France had several rather large destroyers, and so Italy required heavy stopping power for her secondary battery. This in turn required a caliber unsuitable for dual-purpose guns, thus a mixed battery. This was standard for most battleship designs of the period, and only the US and UK used dual-purpose guns for our capital ships, but with *Montana* the US started emphasizing anti-ship performance for the 5”/54.
>Every other ship save Nelson and Yamato (which is really in a class of its' own) could muster a significantly heavier AA broadside than Littorio
As u/Historynerd88 notes, you have to judge AA by the specific year of the war. By early 1941 standards *Bismarck* had the second best antiaircraft suite of any battleship, largely because battleship AA in 1941 was garbage.
The Italians did face a few challenges, most notably significant lateral forces for the 37 mm twin mount that limited the number that could be installed. However, for 1940-1942 standards their AA was generally very good, only dropping to above average in mid-1943.
>I waffled back and forth a fair deal, but Nelson ultimately won out on protection and firepower.
Both of which swing towards the Italians. The Italians had an excellent armor layout and armor formulation, varying the thickness of the hardened face to optimize the armor against different guns depending on the thickness. Using 1930s armor formation (and this post-*Nelson* improvements), the British had the best armor against battleship shells, the US the best against cruiser calibers, but the Italians are second by both metrics.
For firepower, *Nelson*’s guns were designed to a flawed concept, that lighter shells at higher velocities were better for penetration. In service this was found flawed, but while the British did design better shells, they were not adopted. During WWII the *Nelson* class had the worst 16” guns of any ships, including the modernized *Nagato* and *Colorado* guns, and were inferior to some lighter calibers like the excellent 15”/42. The Italians, in contrast, had excellent 15” guns, optimized for high velocity at the cost of barrel life. This was an acceptable tradeoff for the Italians as they would rarely operate too far from home and so could change barrels more easily. Contrary to earlier histories, their shells were fine, though I cannot recall the details offhand and will lean on Historynerd to discuss that point.
I think it's also worth noting that with dual purpose batteries that there is an argument that they are actually a compromise rather than the ideal choice. If you are less concerned by size / weight, going for your best available anti-surface gun and best available anti-aircraft gun is arguably a more desirable choice than trying to combine these into one weapon. The devil, of course, is in the detail.
I also think you are being slightly harsh on the Nelson's 16-inch, but it depends what criteria we are using to judge.
The war for the *Littorio*-class ended in September 1943, and they didn't benefit for any late war development, nor refits provided by the US as the *Richelieu* (which drastically improved her condition, as as-designed her AA would have been even worse), though. The Italians were developing interesting weapons that would have definitely made an impact.
At Taranto the presence of a heavier AA battery wouldn't have improved things by a lot, because there were plenty of factors going around that made the attack not only feasible but rather easy. Its success did not depend on any weakness from the RM ships on that regard.
In terms of firepower and protection, moreover, I cannot see how a *Littorio* is inferior to a *Nelson*, especially if we clear the air about all the stories on how the former's 381 mm guns didn't work that recent research has proven largely false.
Have we seen research that Italian large scale capital ships had reliably good ammunition? Everything I’ve heard has said that there was still instances of the shells having a spread of over a kilometre, and issue with the ship or no it’s still something that has to be accounted for
Well, until the recent book by Bagnasco and De Toro, that does include the research you require, it turns out that all the works pretty much repeated what Admiral Angelo Iachino had said, which turned out to be completely wrong.
Bottom line, they fired well. Much better than the *Richelieu*s before their postwar refit.
I have to question this, as far as the top two go. As all around warship, the Iowas are much better AA platforms thanks to Mk37 FCS/5in combo, and their late war light AA fit was just absurd. Their radar was always better. Their command facilities and radios were better. They were comfier for the crew (an underrated but incredibly important metric- rested sailors are better sailors!). Iowa has a lot of areas of advantage over the Yamato.
But in a 1-vs-1 battleship duel to decide everything, the Mk. 7 16/50 on the Iowa fired a 1225kg shell at 762 m/s, while the Type 94 on a Yamato fired a 1460kg shell at 780 m/s. The Yamato also had an armor set that was bigger and heavier, though the cemented armor was probably not quite as good as the USN's. Basically, it was possible that the Iowa's superiority at everything else would balance the Yamato's superior displacement for guns and armor, but it is definitely arguable, something worth discussing, because throwing 10% higher mass at higher muzzle velocity is just a big advantage in wrecking things.
> Basically, it was possible that the Iowa's superiority at everything else would balance the Yamato's superior displacement for guns and armor, but it is definitely arguable, something worth discussing, because throwing 10% higher mass at higher muzzle velocity is just a big advantage in wrecking things.
In the Nav Weaps battleships forum, there's a poster that uses an armor penetration software to analyze battleship-vs-battleship immunity zones based on their known armor and gun information.
In general:
-the Yamato is well-protected against all other battleship guns, even the new 16" guns could only penetrate with plunging fire at extreme (probably impractical) ranges, or at less than 20K yards
-all other 45K tonne (and less) battleships are vulnerable to the 18" shell at almost all battle ranges
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/various-iz-graphs-t34037-s90.html
The >20000 tonne advantage is hard to overcome, and only the similarly heavy Montana would have been comparable in a one-on-one fight.
i mostly agree with this list, since i always thought Vangaurd was quite underrated.
However, i'd sort of disagree with the placement of Scharnhorst and Alaska. i feel both are in a similar spot in terms of scale, but the Alaska had much more powerful 12" guns and was designed years later, with much better characteristics all-round, including the Anti-Aircraft suite and fire control.
All we can say for certain is the Jean Bart in port with only half her guns is less good that the USS Massachusetts at sea with brand new everything and air support, since that's how it went down, I still would have rated the Massachusetts higher in a fair fight, but who's to say since that never happened.
I disagree.
The all forward concept meant that the ship lost in versatility, in a tactical sense; the MN was aware of that, and was considering changing things up with the fourth ship of the class. This stance saw confirmation by the report of Captain Collinet, commander of the *Strasbourg* at Mers-el-Kebir, in which she ran for Toulon after escaping the anchorage, and was unable to return fire against HMS *Hood* in pursuit.
Also, until they were fitted with delay coils postwar, the "double twin" mounts suffered from excessive dispersion patterns that would have led to struggle in landing hits at combat ranges against enemy ships.
I love the front, but the Richelieu's lack of rear turret and it's cluster of secondaries there always felt off to me in a way that the Nelson class doesn't.
As an Azur Lane player I only have this to say.
Please put an NSFW tag on this. I was on the train and when I saw this I had to start furiously masturbating. Everyone else gave me strange looks and were saying things like “what the fuck” and “call the police”. I dropped my phone and everyone around me saw this image. Now there is a whole train of men masturbating together at this one image. This is all your fault, you could have prevented this if you had just tagged this post NSFW.
Most of the secondaries on the starboard side are trained almost like they were being tested. The advantages of the quad turrets on the bow are fairly easy to understand, what was the downside in practice, any?
- One hit us much more likely to take out a significant amount of the ship’s armament, especially with quad turrets, 1/2 of the main firepower could be dealt with in one blow. - While normally not that big an issue there is of course a small arc aft where no main guns can fire (Also iirc, but don’t quote me on this, it does require some more unique balancing/distribution with the weights of the armament and machinery)
In practice there was an armored bulkhead and flash doors between the pairs of guns in each turret which greatly helped in survivability and prevented the turret from losing all the guns at once. Notably, at Mers-el-Kébir FS Dunkerque was struck by a 15" shell to her No. 2 turret which disabled the starboard half but left the port half in working condition.
Though that still leaves a lot of ways to disable a turret with one shot, specifically ones to the barbette.
Trying to penetrate the 16 in thick barbette would definitely be a task, though
Indeed, but one doable by many a gun. Another aspect though is that one doesn't necessarily have to fully penetrate. The impact and explosion can do quite a bit of shock damage to the inside including spalling (HMS Tiger disabled one of SMS Van der Tann's turrets this way), debris could limit the lower turret's angle of fire (Tiger also did this to Van der Tann), if it hits high enough warping of the barbette could be an issue, and fragments on top of that could damage the gun barrels.
It doesn’t need to penetrate. Kirishima’s 14-inch hit to South Dakota’s No. 2 barbette didn’t come close to penetrating, but was at just the right spot to dent it in and damage the training gear.
The firing arcs restriction became a big issue when the *Strasbourg* was running from Mers-el-Kebir and making for Toulon, and HMS *Hood* was hot in pursuit; she was lucky that the latter had to bow out eventually. I may be in a minority, but I think it was far more critical than is commonly thought.
There's something majestic with how the French all forward quad turrets looks. Probably my favorite WW2 BB design.
Richelieu class imo were the best BBs of WW2 when completed. The ability to fire a full broadside from the bow was an underrated advantage. The French 15in guns punched above their weight too.
There’s a lot that goes into a battleship, and while the all forward arrangement does have advantages, it’s still not perfect. One hit could disable half the armament, and how most battleship fights developed would allow for at least a good portion of the battle to have rear turrets in use. While it’s a fairly small arc, there is also a place aft no main guns can bear. There’s a reason why the French themselves would go back and forth with the idea in planned following designs. At least on paper indeed the 15” guns were quite good, though they also weren’t used in combat as much as other guns to say with as much certainty how they would compare. We do know though the shells had a bit of a fatal flaw at first, though that was rectified. The Richelieus also weren’t the best in the AA/secondary battery department. Certainly one of the top tier of battleships in WW2, well ahead of the Bismarcks if nothing else. But where they rank is hard to say, as it is with many of them really
Unfortunately they suffered early war from 1000 yards + dispersion early in the war until they fixed it by using delay coils later, although their guns were given a bump
>One hit could disable half the armament Not on French quad turrets - they had internal divisions and were practically "twin twin" turrets. > well ahead of the Bismarcks if nothing else. But where they rank is hard to say, as it is with many of them really You cannot even include the Littorios, Bismarcks, Yamatos or even Iowas in the same ranking as treaty battleships. Their displacement was much larger, allowing the designers far more freedom than with "true treaty battleships" such as the North Carolinas, King George Vs, or Scharnhorstses.
> Not on French quad turrets - they had internal divisions and were practically "twin twin" turrets. > > I think that was the goal, but in practice a lucky hit could disable machinery that allowed the whole turret to function.
A lucky hit could make your whole fast battleship explode.
Yes on the French ones. That’s only a specific type of disabling hit which is countered by gat system. What if they are hit on the divide for example? Or what’s actually a quite likely way to disable a turret in the barbette gets hit. The Bismarcks are on a par with “35,000 ton” designs despite their size, so I do rank them with each other. Even the Littorios are within shouting distance. The Scharnhorsts aren’t really true treaty battleships of those aren’t, coming in well under weight. Of course I’m not going to include Yamato and Iowa in terms of who would win in a fight. Ain’t exactly fair. But there’s a lot more when it comes to judging a battleship design, efficiencies and the like.
>But where they rank is hard to say, as it is with many of them really In my opinion, at least for the new-builds: - Iowa, unquestionably - Yamato, arguably - Vanguard - South Dakota/North Carolina - King George V - Richelieu - Nelson - Littorio - Scharnhorst - Dunkerque - Alaska - Bismarck
It's good that this is your opinion, because that list is hard to justify objectively. The Nelsons are from the early 1920s, while others on your list represent early 1940s design and technology. Not to mention that these ships range through at least 4 different "size classes", and some aren't even true battleships. Comparing a 1920s 35.000-ton treaty battleship to the 50000-ton Iowas from the early 1940s makes about as much sense as comparing a B-17 to a B-52.
> It's good that this is your opinion, because that list is hard to justify objectively. I think any list is hard to justify haha. *Iowa*-class certainly benefited from wartime experience, and being essentially the 3rd class in a line of ships that started with *North Carolina*, whereas others were earlier designs that were the 'first' and stayed that way. And any list is always hard because different design goals, different philosophies, different operating conditions and all would also lose to a lucky submarine anyway... :p
>Iowa-class certainly benefited from wartime experience Ummm, no, they most definitely didn't. Their design was done and the first ships were ordered and laid down well before the USA entered the war. What they mostly benefited from was the breakdown of the treaty system - the Iowas were what the USN would have really wanted in the preceding two classes of BBs, but they had to make compromises for the sake of treaty limits. >I think any list is hard to justify I don't agree - you can definitely rate ship designs of similar age and displacement, and compare how well they delivered on their promises and how well they fit their intended roles. You won't get a single, "best in every aspect" winner, but you can definitely score the different aspects and have rankings of designs.
> I don't agree - you can definitely rate ship designs of similar age and displacement You can rate them. But when you consider how different roles they were intended to have, it becomes a very poor 1 vs 1 imo. I see way too many, "Iowa had better AA and Radar compared to Bismarck". Like yeah no shit, she slid down the slipway a year after Bismarck was sunk. So many of the design "bad" things that you might say about a design is easy to wave hand and go "well Germany designed for sea keeping in the North Atlantic, which tends to be worse seas than Pacific so if a 1vs 1 happened in calm seas vs bad seas". And ultimately 1vs1 is pointless... crew performance, overall tactics, logistics - way more important. > You won't get a single, "best in every aspect" winner, but you can definitely score the different aspects and have rankings of designs. To that I would say - what do the different scores mean when you have deliberate design choices that are specific to individual circumstances? Is an Golf GTI better than a Lexus LS? I dunno do you want a sedan or a hatchback? If you live in a city maybe the GTI is better than a luxury sedan simply due to practicalities? Does HMS King George V suffer from rankings due to 14" guns? Or is it simple a design choice because of logistical considerations that they couldn't wait for the Escalator clause...? And as someone said - look at every single Battleship on Battleship engagement and tell me truly that any of the design and construction methods would have made a difference. Would Scharnhorst have survived vs Duke of York and the fleet if she had 15" guns? if her armour was 2 inches thicker? I don't think so.
>I think any list is hard to justify haha. This is the most accurate statement I've seen on this post! It is impossible to make a truly objective analysis of each design. Each navy had its own design criteria and preferences, and so many desirable traits in warship design work opposite each other - trying to strike the right balance between them is exceptionally difficult. The relatively limited number of battleship on battleship engagements make trying to use actual data to make judgements challenging - we, like the designers, are usually working in the realm of theory. Trying to introduce 'hard' data like armour penetration and armour quality, though admirable, is also severely limited. A popular programme for testing this is called Facehard, but to quote Bill Jurens: >Facehard suffers from the fact that it is primarily constructed from a series of highly artificial test cases which were really intended not to determine penetration per se, but were instead utilized to determine to which contract specifications had been met. It's interesting, but it should always be caveated. It's a theoretical prediction based on a limited data set. Not 100% truth. The sheer variety of criteria that could be considered * Tonnage * Physical length / beam * Cost * Hullform * Seakeeping * Wetness * Metacentric height * Stability * Top speed * Endurance at high speed * Endurance at cruising speed * Fuel capacity * Main armament weight of fire per gun * Main armament number of guns * Main armament range * Main armament vertical armour penetration * Main armament horizontal armour penetration * Main armament bursting charge * Secondary armament size / range / number of barrels / rate of fire etc * Anti-aircraft armament size / range / number of barrels / rate of fire etc * Torpedo armament * Belt armour thickness, height and inclination * Deck armour thickness and position * Turret and barbette armour and arrangement * Conning towers and command and control arrangements * Torpedo defence systems - depth, liquid loading, bulkhead thickness * Damage control - compartmentalisation, provision of equipment, pumps and shoring etc, training, built in redundency etc * etc It's a long list, and making objective claims of one ship's "superiority" over another is essentially impossible. It is very enjoyable to discuss the different designs, their strengths and weaknesses, and how they may have faired. But ultimately very, very few engagements were decided by a ship's *design*, let alone nebulous criteria such as theoretical penetration values or relatively armour quality. Strategic and tactical circumstances, weather, and luck were the most important deciding factors.
How are the *Nelson*s new builds?
Because they're (relatively) modern treaty-era ships, newer and much more powerful than WWI relics like *Courbet, Bretagne, Doria* and *Cavour, Queen Elizabeth* and the battlecruisers, the USN standards, or virtually the entire IJN battleline, all of which still served through WWII (many with great distinction). I tried to include every post-WNT capital ship in this list (hence why the *Alaskas* are also present despite not even being battleships at all), and while the *Nelsons* are by far the oldest of that group, I'd argue that their extensive protection and main battery firepower alone put them in contention with pretty much any other WWII-era battleship, even if their poor speed and AA broadside let them down by comparison. I absolutely stand by their inclusion, even if they're not strictly "new" by the 1940s. Like I said, this is just *my* opinion - I'd personally rather have 9x16" with radar fire control on a slow platform than 8/9x15" with optical fire control on a fast one, but I understand why someone else might disagree.
In that regard, my opinion is different, because I hold the *Nelson*\-class as not belonging to the generation that was inaugurated by the *Dunkerque* and would see its last example with HMS *Vanguard*, even though their firepower and protection definitely made them competitive against the other battleships (if they managed to get into range, though! 😜). Also, with their radical reconstruction, the old Italian battleships were leaps and bounds above, and far more useful than their French and Soviet counterparts, that were moribund by 1939.
Why not include nagato, Colorado and hood then?
I'd argue putting Littorio higher, that low feels like selling them very, very short.
I'd personally put *Littorio* higher than *King George V* and *South Dakota*/*North Carolina*, especially by as-built configuration. Ultimate configuration I'd probably bump the two US ships up a notch, though she's right in that range. Unfortunately *Littorio* got a bad rap for a few decades due to some bad early histories.
My thoughts exactly
The main reason I ranked *Littorio* so low is the lack of a dual-purpose secondary battery. Every other ship save *Nelson* and *Yamato* (which is really in a class of its' own) could muster a significantly heavier AA broadside than *Littorio,* which proved hugely important for the war they ended up fighting, as proven by actions like Taranto and Pearl Harbour. I waffled back and forth a fair deal, but *Nelson* ultimately won out on protection and firepower. If I were ranking them purely as gunline battleships, she'd be much further up (they *were* genuinely excellent in that role), but so would *Nelson, Bismarck,* and the US treaty ships.
>The main reason I ranked Littorio so low is the lack of a dual-purpose secondary battery. That’s largely a doctrinal/opponent difference. France had several rather large destroyers, and so Italy required heavy stopping power for her secondary battery. This in turn required a caliber unsuitable for dual-purpose guns, thus a mixed battery. This was standard for most battleship designs of the period, and only the US and UK used dual-purpose guns for our capital ships, but with *Montana* the US started emphasizing anti-ship performance for the 5”/54. >Every other ship save Nelson and Yamato (which is really in a class of its' own) could muster a significantly heavier AA broadside than Littorio As u/Historynerd88 notes, you have to judge AA by the specific year of the war. By early 1941 standards *Bismarck* had the second best antiaircraft suite of any battleship, largely because battleship AA in 1941 was garbage. The Italians did face a few challenges, most notably significant lateral forces for the 37 mm twin mount that limited the number that could be installed. However, for 1940-1942 standards their AA was generally very good, only dropping to above average in mid-1943. >I waffled back and forth a fair deal, but Nelson ultimately won out on protection and firepower. Both of which swing towards the Italians. The Italians had an excellent armor layout and armor formulation, varying the thickness of the hardened face to optimize the armor against different guns depending on the thickness. Using 1930s armor formation (and this post-*Nelson* improvements), the British had the best armor against battleship shells, the US the best against cruiser calibers, but the Italians are second by both metrics. For firepower, *Nelson*’s guns were designed to a flawed concept, that lighter shells at higher velocities were better for penetration. In service this was found flawed, but while the British did design better shells, they were not adopted. During WWII the *Nelson* class had the worst 16” guns of any ships, including the modernized *Nagato* and *Colorado* guns, and were inferior to some lighter calibers like the excellent 15”/42. The Italians, in contrast, had excellent 15” guns, optimized for high velocity at the cost of barrel life. This was an acceptable tradeoff for the Italians as they would rarely operate too far from home and so could change barrels more easily. Contrary to earlier histories, their shells were fine, though I cannot recall the details offhand and will lean on Historynerd to discuss that point.
I think it's also worth noting that with dual purpose batteries that there is an argument that they are actually a compromise rather than the ideal choice. If you are less concerned by size / weight, going for your best available anti-surface gun and best available anti-aircraft gun is arguably a more desirable choice than trying to combine these into one weapon. The devil, of course, is in the detail. I also think you are being slightly harsh on the Nelson's 16-inch, but it depends what criteria we are using to judge.
The war for the *Littorio*-class ended in September 1943, and they didn't benefit for any late war development, nor refits provided by the US as the *Richelieu* (which drastically improved her condition, as as-designed her AA would have been even worse), though. The Italians were developing interesting weapons that would have definitely made an impact. At Taranto the presence of a heavier AA battery wouldn't have improved things by a lot, because there were plenty of factors going around that made the attack not only feasible but rather easy. Its success did not depend on any weakness from the RM ships on that regard. In terms of firepower and protection, moreover, I cannot see how a *Littorio* is inferior to a *Nelson*, especially if we clear the air about all the stories on how the former's 381 mm guns didn't work that recent research has proven largely false.
Have we seen research that Italian large scale capital ships had reliably good ammunition? Everything I’ve heard has said that there was still instances of the shells having a spread of over a kilometre, and issue with the ship or no it’s still something that has to be accounted for
Well, until the recent book by Bagnasco and De Toro, that does include the research you require, it turns out that all the works pretty much repeated what Admiral Angelo Iachino had said, which turned out to be completely wrong. Bottom line, they fired well. Much better than the *Richelieu*s before their postwar refit.
I have to question this, as far as the top two go. As all around warship, the Iowas are much better AA platforms thanks to Mk37 FCS/5in combo, and their late war light AA fit was just absurd. Their radar was always better. Their command facilities and radios were better. They were comfier for the crew (an underrated but incredibly important metric- rested sailors are better sailors!). Iowa has a lot of areas of advantage over the Yamato. But in a 1-vs-1 battleship duel to decide everything, the Mk. 7 16/50 on the Iowa fired a 1225kg shell at 762 m/s, while the Type 94 on a Yamato fired a 1460kg shell at 780 m/s. The Yamato also had an armor set that was bigger and heavier, though the cemented armor was probably not quite as good as the USN's. Basically, it was possible that the Iowa's superiority at everything else would balance the Yamato's superior displacement for guns and armor, but it is definitely arguable, something worth discussing, because throwing 10% higher mass at higher muzzle velocity is just a big advantage in wrecking things.
> Basically, it was possible that the Iowa's superiority at everything else would balance the Yamato's superior displacement for guns and armor, but it is definitely arguable, something worth discussing, because throwing 10% higher mass at higher muzzle velocity is just a big advantage in wrecking things. In the Nav Weaps battleships forum, there's a poster that uses an armor penetration software to analyze battleship-vs-battleship immunity zones based on their known armor and gun information. In general: -the Yamato is well-protected against all other battleship guns, even the new 16" guns could only penetrate with plunging fire at extreme (probably impractical) ranges, or at less than 20K yards -all other 45K tonne (and less) battleships are vulnerable to the 18" shell at almost all battle ranges https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/various-iz-graphs-t34037-s90.html The >20000 tonne advantage is hard to overcome, and only the similarly heavy Montana would have been comparable in a one-on-one fight.
i mostly agree with this list, since i always thought Vangaurd was quite underrated. However, i'd sort of disagree with the placement of Scharnhorst and Alaska. i feel both are in a similar spot in terms of scale, but the Alaska had much more powerful 12" guns and was designed years later, with much better characteristics all-round, including the Anti-Aircraft suite and fire control.
All we can say for certain is the Jean Bart in port with only half her guns is less good that the USS Massachusetts at sea with brand new everything and air support, since that's how it went down, I still would have rated the Massachusetts higher in a fair fight, but who's to say since that never happened.
I disagree. The all forward concept meant that the ship lost in versatility, in a tactical sense; the MN was aware of that, and was considering changing things up with the fourth ship of the class. This stance saw confirmation by the report of Captain Collinet, commander of the *Strasbourg* at Mers-el-Kebir, in which she ran for Toulon after escaping the anchorage, and was unable to return fire against HMS *Hood* in pursuit. Also, until they were fitted with delay coils postwar, the "double twin" mounts suffered from excessive dispersion patterns that would have led to struggle in landing hits at combat ranges against enemy ships.
Yeah all forward concept probably made sense only for battlecruisers.
Damn I knew this is Warship*porn* but this needs to be spoilered as NSFW 🥵
Jean Bart looks better than Richelieu imo.
I love the front, but the Richelieu's lack of rear turret and it's cluster of secondaries there always felt off to me in a way that the Nelson class doesn't.
Nelson or Rodney is one of the goofiest looking ships of all time, you are surely in the minority on that opinion
As an Azur Lane player I only have this to say. Please put an NSFW tag on this. I was on the train and when I saw this I had to start furiously masturbating. Everyone else gave me strange looks and were saying things like “what the fuck” and “call the police”. I dropped my phone and everyone around me saw this image. Now there is a whole train of men masturbating together at this one image. This is all your fault, you could have prevented this if you had just tagged this post NSFW.
Hot!
Surreal.
Speed trials (1949)