Iowa vs Vanguard

[zraver]

Originally Posted by Tiornu

The FC systems were quite comparable. In fact, Vanguard's FC included some American components. Iowa had Remote Power Control for main gun elevation as well as main gun training, and this might be a slight advantage unless the sea conditions made Vanguard's greater steadiness a compensating factor. Vanguard needed a specialized spotting radar which, from memory, was merely a qualified success. But again, I am hesitant to discuss radar since each side would be trying to jam the other. The American system was proven capable of maintaining a fix during radical maneuvers; I don't know if Vanguard could match it.
Both ships were capable of very accurate fire. I suspect the US might have had a slight advantage, so slight that the difference could easily be swallowed up by crew and chance factors.

Ok, how good was the crew? RN gunnery was not that impressive and led indirectly to the sinking of the Hood, Queen Mary and Indefatigable and almost of the Lion. Meanwhile (assuming hand picked crews for each) the US crews fresh from WW2 not only had recent naval combat experiance but also damage control experiance.

[Dreadnought]

Some hints:

FCR:
1)Look at any of the Iowa classes sillowette during WWII and then Vangards. Note the placement of the FCR (fore and aft stationing), Note the height of the FCR against the height of the stacks and you can get a good impression of just where both ships were fundamentally "blind".

Gunnery:
The Iowa class had 1)projectile hoist and 2) powder elevators per gun. Rate of fire 2 rounds per minute.
Vangard- ROF -UNKNOWN However "if" (not sure) she kept with British tradition inside the turret their guns were loaded through the "cage" method" in other words the shell on the top shelf, powder bags on the second shelf and third shelf of the cage and the cage carried shells and powder at the same time. It would take three rammings to load one gun where as the Iowas only needed one ramming since their powder was moved by hand between the powder elevator and the spanning tray or cradle.

Anybody know the turret layout for Vangard?

I do know that KGV loaded her guns in this fashion. And supposedly Vangard was modeled after this class of BB.

[Tiornu]

RN gunnery was not that impressive

That's not something I can agree with. Warspite may hold a share of the record for the longest-range hit on an enemy ship at sea. Duke of York's gunnery at North Cape was quite good. Despite all her teething problems, Prince of Wales nearly matched Bismarck's hit percentage at Denmark Strait.

Vangard- ROF -UNKNOWN

A firing cycle of about 30 seconds.

[eocoolj]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

It would take three rammings to load one gun where as the Iowas only needed one ramming since their powder was moved by hand between the powder elevator and the spanning tray or cradle.

Doesnt an Iowa require 2 rammings? One to load the projectile and one to load the powder? The loading cycle can be seen in this video.

[zraver]

Originally Posted by Tiornu

That's not something I can agree with. Warspite may hold a share of the record for the longest-range hit on an enemy ship at sea. Duke of York's gunnery at North Cape was quite good. Despite all her teething problems, Prince of Wales nearly matched Bismarck's hit percentage at Denmark Strait.

nice examples, but what of the rest of the fleet? IIRC the RN pre-radar WW1 suffered from being built on narrower slips which reduced the width of range finders and the ship over all giving the Germans technically better ships. How this would play with radar I don't know but if it was jammed and this flaw held true into WW2.

As for the Prince of wales example, a navy with hundreds of years ruling the waves inthe worlds newest battleship only matches the gunnery of the older less experianced German vessel and crew. The Duke of York's longest hit was almost 11km, well short of the 30,000 yd ranges we have been talking. Now the Warspites hit is impressive and my hats off to the crew.

In Comparison to the Duke of York or the Prince of Wales the USS Washington with 9x 16/45 radar controlled guns scored 9 hits in 7 minutes on the IJS Kirishima at a range of 8400-12600yds and did it at night. The USS West Virginia hit the IJS Yamashiro at night at 22,600yds with her first salvo and 5 of her first 6 salvos hit. Unlike the Washington the the West Virginia was not assigned or specially equipped to take on surface forces having been assigned to support troop landings.

[Tiornu]

Beam does not limit the base length of rangefinders. German battleships in WWI were not technically superior.
Bismarck had commissioned nine months before Denmark Strait; PoW had commissioned two months before the battle. In what way were the Germans less experienced? The British had to contend with a fine approach that maximized trunnion tilt, and the sea conditions caused more fouling to British optics. For a ship so new that workmen were still on board, she gave a fine performance.
DoY had three separate encounters with Scharnhorst. On each of those three occasions, her first salvo was a straddle. Given the horrendous conditions under which the battle was fought, that was a remarkable achievement.
You've short-changed Washington. She scored about twenty 16in hits. The figure of nine hits comes from a USSBS interrogation of a guy who didn't really know what was happening on board. Kirishima's damage-control officer listed the twenty hits. Washington fired using her Mk 3 radar and her optics, and she did a fine job.
West Virginia had Mk 8 radar, and she holds the record for the longest-range first-salvo hit. I'm not sure what the exact distance was, as her action report cites only the gun range.

[Nathan45]

I'd be curious to know how much real anti-ship target practice each ship got after WWII. USN ships (And maybe RN ships, records seem to be hard to find) got plenty of real practice shoots, both as offset practices and actual shooting at target sleds in WWII. But with postwar budgets, I wonder how much was allowed. Actual practice likely would have a huge effect on each ship. Of course, other then Missouri the other Iowa's were decommissioned for much of this time anyway.

Does anyone know the height of the fire control tower on Vanguard? Spot 1 was ~116 feet high or so in the Iowa's.

[zraver]

Originally Posted by Tiornu

Beam does not limit the base length of rangefinders. German battleships in WWI were not technically superior.

I'll have to double check, but the Iron duke had a beam of 90' the Baden was 8' wider, the Konig Albert was 5 1/2 feet wider. I don't know how far apart the range finder was for each ship. But a the very least, would not wider equal better stability? I could swear the German ships had bigger and more accurate range finders


The Hood's range finder was 30' on a beam of 104'

Bismarck had commissioned nine months before Denmark Strait; PoW had commissioned two months before the battle. In what way were the Germans less experienced?

What battleships did Germany have to train on? The RN had several and so had a large cadre to pull from for the new ship.

The British had to contend with a fine approach that maximized trunnion tilt, and the sea conditions caused more fouling to British optics. For a ship so new that workmen were still on board, she gave a fine performance.

be that as it may, it wasn't any better than the Germans.

DoY had three separate encounters with Scharnhorst. On each of those three occasions, her first salvo was a straddle. Given the horrendous conditions under which the battle was fought, that was a remarkable achievement.

yes, but it still does not deal with truly long range gunnery like the vanguard and an Iowa opening up on each other at long range.

see your comments below

You've short-changed Washington. She scored about twenty 16in hits. The figure of nine hits comes from a USSBS interrogation of a guy who didn't really know what was happening on board. Kirishima's damage-control officer listed the twenty hits. Washington fired using her Mk 3 radar and her optics, and she did a fine job.
West Virginia had Mk 8 radar, and she holds the record for the longest-range first-salvo hit. I'm not sure what the exact distance was, as her action report cites only the gun range.

Do you know what mod of the Mk 8? If it was mod 3 then the gun range might well be the range cause the mod 3 could see the splash of the guns shells out to 32,000m

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Tiornu

That's not something I can agree with. Warspite may hold a share of the record for the longest-range hit on an enemy ship at sea. Duke of York's gunnery at North Cape was quite good. Despite all her teething problems, Prince of Wales nearly matched Bismarck's hit percentage at Denmark Strait.


A firing cycle of about 30 seconds.

That I would have to see about. Three rammings eats precious time up. I would more opt for say 1.5 rounds per minute. One has to keep in mind the cage needs to be elevated after every ramming.

To imagine the "cage" picture in you mind a traffic signal. Red being where the shell is located, Rammed,retracted then elevated for Yellow (powder) rammed,retracted then elevated and Green (powder) rammed, retracted cage lowered. Thats not including the primer nor cycling the breech yet.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by eocoolj

Doesnt an Iowa require 2 rammings? One to load the projectile and one to load the powder? The loading cycle can be seen in this video.

The Iowas require two rammings 1) projectile then two powder bags are placed into the breech which leaves 4 bags after the elevator cycles in the spanning tray and then your second ramming the four bags into the previous two already placed in the breech to provide the need space between the powder bags and the "mushroom head". Breech cycled and switch cycled.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

The Iowas require two rammings 1) projectile then two powder bags are placed into the breech which leaves 4 bags after the elevator cycles in the spanning tray and then your second ramming the four bags into the previous two already placed in the breech to provide the need space between the powder bags and the "mushroom head". Breech cycled and switch cycled.

That's NOT the way you do it.

E.g. you DON'T ram the projectile and the powder together as you seem to suggest.

Etc...

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

That's NOT the way you do it.

E.g. you DON'T ram the projectile and the powder together as you seem to suggest.

Etc...

Didnt mean to suggest that.

1)Projectile to seat the bands in the rifleing.
2)Pushs the 4 bags on the spanning tray into the two bags that are placed into the breech by hand.

Sorry if it wasnt worded correctly. My bust.

Shipwreck, you wouldnt happen to have any footage/images of KGV's gun loading sequence would you? I'm attempting to describe the "cage" method for the RN BB's.

[Shipwreck]

In the 1950's : (starts at 6:00)




In the 1980's :

[Tiornu]

I'll have to double check, but the Iron duke had a beam of 90' the Baden was 8' wider, the Konig Albert was 5 1/2 feet wider.

Yes, you're correct that German ships generally had greater beams. This does not relate, however, to rangefinder base length. It was a simple matter to replace smaller rangefinders with larger ones

But a the very least, would not wider equal better stability?

Yes, we can say generally that the beamier battleship is the more stable battleship, all else being equal, but that's not a good thing for gunnery. Stability and steadiness tend to be exclusive qualities. That's why the British "R" class deliberately sacrificed stability.

I could swear the German ships had bigger and more accurate range finders

Yes, I believe your correct. And I tend to favor stereoscopic rangefinders (such as the Germans used) over coincidence rangefinders (such as the British used) based on the fact that every other navy adopted stereoscopic gear for their modern battleships. If you haven't seen it, there's a book that you may greatly enjoy for its details on this subject: Dreadnought Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland by John Brooks. It goes all nuts-and-bolts on British FC computers and analyzes ship performances at Jutland.

yes, but it still does not deal with truly long range gunnery like the vanguard and an Iowa opening up on each other at long range.

It means the ship and its FC systems were capable of precise fire under terrible conditions. The British outshot the Germans. I cited this event in response to the claim that RN gunnery was unimpressive. DoY's performance (not to mention Norfolk's) was impressive.

Do you know what mod of the Mk 8? If it was mod 3 then the gun range might well be the range cause the mod 3 could see the splash of the guns shells out to 32,000m

West Virginia had a Mk 8 Mod 2. If not for the need to conserve ammo, the ships might have opened fire at their maximum range.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Shipwreck, you wouldnt happen to have any footage/images of KGV's gun loading sequence would you? I'm attempting to describe the "cage" method for the RN BB's.

The loading sequence was shot on HMS Howe :



Next time you go to your favorite video club, try to rent the 1960 movie "Sink the Bismarck". The loading of the 15" guns was shot on HMS Vanguard.