Thread: Best WWII Battleship

Originally Posted by gunnut

Really? I did not know that. I thought by 1938/9 the USN had abandoned the treaty on the Iowa's design because the word was IJN had abandoned the treaty.

USA, UK and France started to exchange diplomatic notes invoking the tonnage escalator clause of the LNT in March 1938, the protocol raising the limit to 45,000 tons being signed in June 1938.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Yes, In brief.. After realizing that both Germany and Japan were shrouding the real displacement of their new Capital ships as well as refiiting other ships to upgrade their armament, the U.S. invoked the escalator clause of the contract and produced the Iowa class battleship designs.

With a still isolationist and pacifist Congress, neither Japan's withdrawal from the LNT negotiations in January of 1936 (and subsequent refusals to guarantee adherence to the Treaty limits) nor Japan's active concealment of the building charateristics of the Yamatos were considered sufficient evidence per se.

Despite rumors of Japan designing battleships of 45,000 tons or more began to circulate as early as 1936, there was not enough *concrete* evidence to permit any of the treaty signatories to invoke the tonnage escalator clause until early 1938, when a concessus was reached among members of the international “Naval Attachés’ Club” was reached on Japan building battleships of considerably greater tonnage than 35,000 tons.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

After realizing that both Germany and Japan were shrouding the real displacement of their new Capital ships as well as refiiting other ships to upgrade their armament, the U.S. invoked the escalator clause of the contract and produced the Iowa class battleship designs.

While analysis of Nagato's radio traffic during her 1936 trials revealed that she made over 26 knots, it seems that :

1. The fact that Hiei was remilitarized did not become known to the US Navy until she was operational in January 1940.

2. The fact that the reconsruction of the Kongos increased their speed from 26 to 30 knots was not known by the US Navy until 1942 (e.g. ONI-222 published in December 1942 showed the speed of the four Kongos as 26 knots).

OTOH, none of the existing IJN battleships in 1936 had received armament upgrades that would permit any of the treaty signatories to invoke the escalator clauses of the LNT.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

After realizing that both Germany and Japan were shrouding the real displacement of their new Capital ships as well as refiiting other ships to upgrade their armament, the U.S. invoked the escalator clause of the contract and produced the Iowa class battleship designs.

I don't recall ever coming across documents specifically discussing the influence of the Kriegsmarine shipbuilding program on :

a. the US invoking the tonnage escalator clause

b. the design of the Iowas

I would welcome any bibliographical references you could provide on either a. or b.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

While analysis of Nagato's radio traffic during her 1936 trials revealed that she made over 26 knots, it seems that :

1. The fact that Hiei was remilitarized did not become known to the US Navy until she was operational in January 1940.

2. The fact that the reconsruction of the Kongos increased their speed from 26 to 30 knots was not known by the US Navy until 1942 (e.g. ONI-222 published in December 1942 showed the speed of the four Kongos as 26 knots).

OTOH, none of the existing IJN battleships in 1936 had received armament upgrades that would permit any of the treaty signatories to invoke the escalator clauses of the LNT.

That was my meaning in being very "brief". The book that I have read explains this scenerio out of order.Or atleast from what I understand its out of order. I will Post the paragraph from which I read tommorow as I dont have it with me a present. Again this is only one authors views. Its surprising some of the things that I have ran across that contrast with other informative sources. This could be an interesting topic for future post.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

I don't recall ever coming across documents specifically discussing the influence of the Kriegsmarine shipbuilding program on :

a. the US invoking the tonnage escalator clause

b. the design of the Iowas

I would welcome any bibliographical references you could provide on either a. or b.

They dont specifically mention the Kriegs. They give it a general "Germany and Japan" kind of mews. More or less Japan as the subject reads. I think they throw in the Germans to thicken it some what.

Personally I think title of "best WW2 battleship" should really be two catigory's, Treaty limited and non treaty limited.

As gunnut said Iowa benifited from the treatys collapse, while Yamato was built in defiance of it.

Technically you could drop the "WW2" stipulation if you want the best battleship. If you look at some of the pre treaty designs planned by Britain such as the G3, N3 ect. you can get a basic idea where the British where heading with their battleship designs. The G3's while not the best looking ships would have been quite formidable ships in their own right, far better than their then Japanese and U.S. counterparts, the initial Lexington class BC design and the Amagi's.

Even the Nelson's made the Nagato's look inferior though to be fair the Nelsons were a newer design.

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Radar, fire-control, primary and secondary armament, speed...is there any contender to the Iowa's combination of these?

It helps a lot when "one" is the last in time of a great technological push, doesn't it? That's why I get such a giggle out of this contest, comparing those made before the push with those made at the end of the push. Might as well be comparing a P-40 to a P-51 or a Type VII U-Boat to a Type XXI and ask which is better.
---------------------------------------------
("And it looks like we are last year's model."--AirWolf pilot Locke about to engate in air-to-air with a more advanced version, (w,stte), "Airwolf II")

Originally Posted by SnowLeopard

It helps a lot when "one" is the last in time of a great technological push, doesn't it? That's why I get such a giggle out of this contest, comparing those made before the push with those made at the end of the push. Might as well be comparing a P-40 to a P-51 or a Type VII U-Boat to a Type XXI and ask which is better.
---------------------------------------------
("And it looks like we are last year's model."--AirWolf pilot Locke about to engate in air-to-air with a more advanced version, (w,stte), "Airwolf II")

Definately agreed on that note. Newer isint always better but it does have its advantages as far as technology and hind sight go.

Things to consider:

1. The 2700# Heavy AP shell of the Iowa’s had the same or greater penetration capability as the 3200# 18.1" Japanese shell at 45,000 yards.
2. The range of the 16"/45 on North Carolina and South Dakota class ships was 45,000 yards, just like the Yamato. The range of the 16"/50 guns on the Iowa’s was 50,000 yards.
3. US Doctrine was to engage at long range to take advantage of the larger shells, longer range, and better FC radars than the IJN.
4. The IJN Armor was of British WWI equivalent. Meaning it was garbage compared to the US Class A armor of WWII.
5. Lee was smart not to engage the IJN force at Surigao Strait; although I'm sure he wanted to. His BB's were far slower than their Japanese counterparts and the IJN might have been able to cross their "T" just like they did the Russians at Tsushima. Albeit the close confines of the area might not have allowed that possibility. Also you have to remember that Lee's BB's were on a shore bombardment mission. They were loaded with mostly HE shells. That's not going to do much to the armor of a BB, especially the Yamato.... His ships used most of the limited AP rounds they had at the other end of the straight. The ships with the best radars were almost completely out of AP ammunition and there was no chance to reload with AP. They would have been slaughtered by the IJN, which was the intention of the IJN mission to begin with, destroy the transports, and shore bombardment group.
6. The Bismarck would have been a fine WWI BB. She was designed to fight WWI and thus was protected well in a close range battle line fight, which is what the British gave her. That's why she lasted so long. She had poor armor on her decks and very inadequate AA. I mean she was done in by a bi-plane of all things. She was very vulnerable to plunging fire, things the American battleships excelled at.
7. The KGV's were well armored but had a very short range, this due to the sun never setting on the British Empire at the time of their design. They were under gunned, but that was a choice the British had to make in order to keep her under treaty weight. More armor or bigger guns......
8. The Italian ships looked good but had 15” guns and not enough AA. Also, their radars were far less advanced than the American ships. They looked a lot like a SoDak class BB, but like the British, they opted for more armor and les gun. It might have been because the US BB’s had better armor than the others that they felt they needed thicker armor to maintain the same protection the Americans did.
9. The armor quality on the American ships was better because we spent more on our ships. Nothing more, nothing less…..
10. The US didn’t need more planes than the IJN used at Pearl Harbor to sink the Yamato. There were just a lot more in the area and everyone wanted a piece of her. The Musashi was sunk by far fewer planes and hits than Yamato

Conclusions:

1. The Iowa’s could outrun, outmaneuver, and outrange the Yamato’s. They also had better protection schemes and far better radars. Therefore they rank as the best available BB of the war.
2. The SoDak’s were the equal of the Yamato as they could outmaneuver, and had better radars than she did. Her advantage would have improved considerably at night on the open ocean.
3. The Yamato is 2nd or 3rd best of the war at best.
4. The Italian Vittorio Veneto class gets the nod due to her speed and bigger guns.
5. The KGV is #5 but just barely, due to her better radars and thicker armor than Bismark. Her 14” guns stunk….. The 12” guns of the Alaska class battle cruisers were just as powerful and could fire faster.
6. Bismark, beautiful ship, poor engineering in critical areas. Hydraulics not protected enough by a poor deck plating design of only 3.5 inches. This is what the American WWI ships had. The poorly armored North Carolina class had 4.6 inches, SoDak’s 5 inches and Iowa’s 6 inches. The 3.5 inches of the Bismark made her very vulnerable to American long range plunging fire.
7. Richelieu, great deck protection, but was susceptible to attack from the rear. Also too many rifles per mount. One shell could take out half her main armament (and did on the Jean Bart, IIRC).
8. North Carolina, under armored but well gunned and great radar, had a longer traveling range than any other battleships except her American companions, by several thousand miles….
9. If we want to talk about “might have been’s” Let’s not forget the Montana class. She rivaled the Yamato in displacement and had enough armor to stand toe to toe with her. She also had twelve 16” guns which gave her a throw weight advantage of 32,400# to 28,800#.

This is all just my personal opinion of course…..

Originally Posted by Captain C

Things to consider:

2. The range of the 16"/45 on North Carolina and South Dakota class ships was 45,000 yards, just like the Yamato. The range of the 16"/50 guns on the Iowa’s was 50,000 yards.

Range for the IJN 18.1"/45 Type 94 (new gun) with 3,219-lb APC Type 91 was 45,960 yards @ 45° elevation.

Range for the USN 16"/50 Mark-7 (new gun) with 2,700-lb AP Mark-8 was 42,345 yards @ 45° elevation.

Range for the USN 16"/45 Mark-6 (new gun) with 2,700-lb AP Mark-8 was 36,900 yards @ 45° elevation.

Originally Posted by Captain C

Things to consider:

1. The 2700# Heavy AP shell of the Iowa’s had the same or greater penetration capability as the 3200# 18.1" Japanese shell at 45,000 yards.

During WW2, none of the USN 16" could achieve a range of 45,000 yards with the 2,700-lb AP Mark-8 bullet.

As a result, the IJN 3,219-lb APC Type 91 bullet most definitely had greater penetration capabilities at 45,000 yards.

Originally Posted by Captain C

Things to consider:

1. The 2700# Heavy AP shell of the Iowa’s had the same or greater penetration capability as the 3200# 18.1" Japanese shell at 45,000 yards.

The USN 2,700-lb AP Mark-8 bullet was better against horizontal armor.

The IJN 3,219-lb APC Type 91 bullet was better against vertical armor.

Originally Posted by Captain C

Things to consider:

3. US Doctrine was to engage at long range

IJN doctrine was also to engage at long range.