LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteWhen did Lee ever had a chance to engage the Japanese Battle Line at Surigao Strait ?Originally Posted by Captain C
Bismarck/Tirpitz
King George V class
Iowa class
Yamato class
Littorio class
Average armor quality indices according to Nathan Okun :
HOMOGENEOUS ARMOR-GRADE STEELS:
* US Class B (WW2 era) : 1.00
* US STS (WW2 era) : 0.95
* Japanese NVNC : 0.95
* Japanese MNC : 0.95
FACE-HARDENED ARMORS:
* US Class A (WW2 era) : 1.00
* Japanese VH : 0.85
And a couple of quotes from Nathan Okun :
HOMOGENEOUS ARMOR-GRADE STEELS:
" I am not singling out Japanese post-WWI armors for criticism. 'New Vickers Non-Cemented" (NVNC) armor, which is the homogeneous form of the face-hardened "Vickers Hardened" (VH) armor used in the IJN YAMATO, was deliberately kept at the level of late-WWI British armor due to the Japanese preoccupation with under-water hits. Just prior to WWII they introduced a new homogeneous armor "Molybdenum Non-Cemented" (MNC) that just met minimum U.S. Navy acceptance test standards and that seems to be similar to German Wh. It was used for most of the YAMATO's heavy homogeneous armor above the waterline while NVNC was used extensively for armor and anti-torpedo bulkheads below the waterline. Japanese "Copper Non-Cemented" (CNC) in several grades was very widely used during WWII as an NVNC replacement in thin plating, where its low nickel (a "strategic" metal in short supply) and high copper (available in large amounts to the Japanese and having limited nickel-like properties in some alloys) content did not cause its toughness to fall below minimum standards. Other nations did similar things during WWII, with various success, but the Japanese were more deliberate in writing their pre-WWII armor acceptance specifications to use such alternate armor alloys, rather than hurriedly reacting to short supplies of necessary alloying elements after they occurred, as other nations with less foresight did during WWII."
FACE-HARDENED ARMORS:
"The 26" (66cm) VH turret face plates on the YAMATO Class were inclined back 45o and were the only plates that could not be completely penetrated by any gun ever put on a warship--these plates could be holed at point blank range by a newly-lined World War II U.S. Navy 16"/50 gun with late-World War II hard-capped AP projectiles, but even these projectiles would always ricochet;"
When did Lee ever had a chance to engage the Japanese Battle Line at Surigao Strait ?
KGV's short range actually had more to do with deficient propulsion plants than with the sun never setting down on the British Empire.
Nominal endurance of the KGV was supposed to be 10,250 NM @ 15 knots and 14,000 NM @ 10 knots.
Nominal endurance was based on an expected oil consumption of 2.4 tons per hour at 10 knots.
In practice, oil consumption was found to be 6.5 tons per hour at 10 knots, reducing KGV's actual endurance to 7,000 NM or less at 10 knots (5,600 NM at 10 knots in 1944 for HMS Duke of York).
For comparison purposes, the North Carolinas in 1945 had a nominal endurance of 16,320 NM @ 15 knots.
The actual trade-off was "more guns" vs "more armor", the latter prevailing when decision was made to reduce the number of 14" guns to 10 (instead of the 12 originally intended) to increase magazine protection.
The UK and the US had agreed upon the gun limit of 14" as early as 1934 and the 14"/45 Mark-VII was the only modern BB gun design available to the British when construction of the KGVs started.
Had the construction of the KGVs been deferred to incorporate heavier than 14" gun calibers, the ships would not have been ready for service until 1942 at the earliest.
The KGVs actually had a broadside weight of 15,900 lbs, more than the Bismarcks (14,112 lbs) and the Richelieus (15,592 lbs).
The 15"/50 Model 1934 of the Littorios was arguably more powerful than the 16"/45 Mark-6 of the North Carolinas and South Dakotas (ME of 320 MJ for the 15"/50 vs 300 MJ for the 16"/45).
Compared with USN 16" guns (16"/45 Mark-6 and 16"/50 Mark-7), the Italian 15"/50 Model 1934 has better penetration against vertical armor, though inferior against horizontal armor.
At reasonable combat ranges (20-25,000 yards) the higher muzzel velocity of the Italian gun is really meaningless due to the likelyhood of deck hits and the fact that at this range both ships can penitrate each others belts anyway. The American gun has a barrel life almost three times as long as the Italian gun as well, 395 vs 130.
The 16"/45's ROF is better, 2rpm vs Littorio's 1.3rpm. As for the shells themselves the 16"/45 simply due to her size should have the larger bursting charge (can't find stats on Littorio's burster charge) which means the South Dakota would likely pummel the Littorio with her heavier explosive charge and higher rate of fire.
Last edited by smilingassassin; 07 Jan 07, at 08:05.
Hash, just pick a forum with a topic you are familiar with and dive right into the conversation. Make sure your polite and knowlegable on the subject and most importantly read the forum rules!
Meaningless ?
At said ranges (20,000 to 25,000 yards), side hits will represent ~35% of the total (deck hits ~65%).
Last edited by Shipwreck; 07 Jan 07, at 18:12.
This sounds more like a ship vs ship comparison than a gun vs gun comparison.
At 26,000 yards, against a BB with a 13-inch belt and a 6-inch deck, the Italian 15"/50 gun with a 1,951-lb APC bullet is a safer bet, penetration-wise, than the US 16"/45 with a 2,700-lb AP bullet.
At 20,000 yards, against a BB-sized target, the Italian 15"/50 gun with a 1,951-lb APC bullet offers a ~20% greater danger space than that of the US 16"/45 with a 2,700-lb AP bullet.
The Italian 15"/50 Model 1934 had a loose liner which could be removed from the breech end.
The Italian BBs were by design not meant to operate far away from their bases.
Those two factors largely mitigated the relatively short barrel life of the 15"/50 Model 1934, which in practice never was a problem for the Italian Navy in WW2.
All 15" AP bullets used by the European navies during WW2 had a burster charge comprised between 40 and 50 lbs, i.e. equal to or slightly greater than that of the US 2,700-lb Mark-8 AP bullet (40.5 lbs).
True, but I've yet to see stats on the Italian 15" to confirm this trend. If we really wanted to examine the burster charge we'd have to look at the explosive compund used by each navy to really see the difference.
The point about ROF still stands, given the percentage ratio of deck/belt hits the higher ROF of the American 16" gives it the slight advantage.
Fairly equal ships really but I'd still bet money on the SoDak.
Last edited by smilingassassin; 08 Jan 07, at 13:55.
I'll check my archives when unpacked to see if I can find the exact figure.
While rapid main battery fire was axiomatic in the US gunnery doctrine during WW2, I cannot think of any USN BB ever reaching a ROF of 2 rpm during actual engagement in the period.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: