Comparison of BB's

[Dili]

Lest we forget the Italians were cursed with that inferior heavy smoke gunpowder.
Nearly every other major world power was by then using "smokeless" gunpowder.

Don't you mean flashless gun powder?

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-100.htm

[m10bob]

Yes! Thank you..

[Major Shane]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

An admitted geek makes these comparisons to the battleships of WW2 with some interesting finds and claims.

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

Does anyone know if there is a similar site for heavy cruisers?

[spence]

If one were to make a Mediterranean version of this game the land campaign would need to be completely reworked. Horse drawn carts would be workable for European supply but would be completely unrealistic for both sides in North Africa.

In addition, it would seem that the Naval Leadership/Crew Morale would need to be completely reversed from its current incarnation (simply substituting Italians for the IJN/IJA ratings is NOT even remotely a historical reality).

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Dili

torpedo defence system which provided an empty-can type space that was supposed to disperse the torpedo explosion effects. At Taranto and later at Matapan, they discovered that it didn't work

That is false.

At Taranto only one torpedo hit the Pugliese torpedo defense. No issues with that hit. The one that put most water in the ship was forward Pugliese defense. The third one was at stern extreme also outside Pugliese but not much water entered.

At Matapan the hit was also outside Pugliese defense. You can see a picture of the hit location in the link. More or less near where the one that hit Prince of Wales and sent the shaft up dooming the ship, in this case the shaft broke.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battaglia ... tapan1.jpg

There was also hit by submarine torpedo from HMS Urge in 1941 that was in Pugliese Torpedo defense. Sister Littorio was also hit by an aerial torpedo in 1942.


@Matapan was only possible with radar. Otherwise the British would only have sunk the Pola.
There is also the incompetent Italian commander going at night in line without employing his destroyers for screening.

The risk of dangerous air attack was not big. Greece was Allied. Benghazi was still in English hands.

You seem to have a lot of info that supports the idea that the Pugliese system worked OK, and all I have is a memory of reading how it was found wanting in testing post-war and during the war, so I guess your case is stronger. Thanks for bringing this new info to our attention. [:)]

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: m_shane_perkins

ORIGINAL: m10bob

An admitted geek makes these comparisons to the battleships of WW2 with some interesting finds and claims.

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

Does anyone know if there is a similar site for heavy cruisers?

Go to the Combined Fleet main page and search the cruiser section - I seem to recall such a comparison - equally as flawed as the BB study referenced earlier.

[guytipton41]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Go to the Combined Fleet main page and search the cruiser section - I seem to recall such a comparison - equally as flawed as the BB study referenced earlier.

Hi BB,

The dude at combined fleet showed his homework and his algorithm for his results. Do you dislike the algorithm or the subjective values for the inputs. And if it's the inputs then which ones do you think are most in error?

Cheers,
Guy

[Jorge_Stanbury]

I disagree on his assessment that South Dakota wins against Yamato. His rationale is OK. If South Dakota plays long range snipper then maybe he can be right. But a ranking should also consider the very likely probability that the fight won't occur at the most tactically advantageous range

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I disagree on his assessment that South Dakota wins against Yamato. His rationale is OK. If South Dakota plays long range snipper then maybe he can be right. But a ranking should also consider the very likely probability that the fight won't occur at the most tactically advantageous range

Boise at 500 yds! [:D][:'(]

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I disagree on his assessment that South Dakota wins against Yamato. His rationale is OK. If South Dakota plays long range snipper then maybe he can be right. But a ranking should also consider the very likely probability that the fight won't occur at the most tactically advantageous range

Boise at 500 yds! [:D][:'(]

I'm still going with Marblehead...and for gosh sakes, pluck the hair over your nose so its' not one eyebrow!...LOL

[US87891]

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Lest we forget the Italians were cursed with that inferior heavy smoke gunpowder.
Nearly every other major world power was by then using "smokeless" gunpowder.

Whether or not propellant ‘flashes’ is irrelevant. Propellant characteristics are designed to give a proper burn rate for the mass of projectile and caliber length of tube. If is flashes, so be it.

Many of the students at TAMU are interested in Naval matters. They have long since put the ‘specs’ into the dumpster. The biggest gun wasn’t the best. The smallest gun wasn’t the least. Armor is nothing more than moving in or out of the immunity zone.

When modeling naval combat, the kids have come up with a few fundamental propositions that I have found valid in land warfare simulations. They are:

Detection
Orientation
Communication
Fire Control

The young lady who defined these parameters was working on her Masters and wrote her thesis on Napoleonic naval strategy and tactics. No matter how much things change, the more they remain the same.

Matt

[witpqs]

Matt,

From everything that I have read of the naval battles in the Solomons, the greater flash of the powder USN used (early on, at least) mattered a lot. They felt it gave the IJN better targets, and they reported losing more night vision to the greater flash of their own guns.

I think this fits into the factors you listed, in Fire Control (better targeting) and possibly Detection.

I have no idea or opinion on how it affected the RM.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

ORIGINAL: Orm
Thank you for sharing. [:)]

However, the competition is flawed since the bestest ship ever, HMS Warspite, was not included. [;)]

Actually you (inadvertently) have a point about the Queen Elizabeth class. They were available for service in time for WW1 and still capable enough for use in WW2. As such they were probably some of the best value for money battleships.

And Warspite has one of the most impressive combat records of any BB. Pretty much whole of WW1 in GF, especially Jutland, then MEd, Far east, Med again, D Day... it just goes on. And holder (or joint holder if you are KM) of the longest unguided projectile hit from a moving firer to a moving target in history (26000 yds - must have given the ItN such a shock!)

Lets have a Warspite FB thread!

[Mobeer]

ORIGINAL: guytipton41
Hi BB,

The dude at combined fleet showed his homework and his algorithm for his results. Do you dislike the algorithm or the subjective values for the inputs. And if it's the inputs then which ones do you think are most in error?

Cheers,
Guy

I think the comparisons made do not pay enough attention to the navies the ships served in. For example the author of the comparison notes for Yamato:
"She was a fuel hog of monumental proportions, due to her very conservative propulsion plant design, and this greatly hindered her usefulness in wartime because it was hardly ever worth the fuel to drive her out of Truk"

Similarly the same site has a page that discusses the IJNs fuel situation:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/guadoil1.htm

Yet overall the Yamato scores just 1 point lower than the South Dakota on "Operational Factors", helped by a better rating for sea keeping. I would argue that South Dakota should have a huge advantage from this criteria alone.

There are other issues too, for example:
- ignoring the cost of the ships and the ability of each nation to afford them
For example the Iowa outscores South Dakota on "Tactical Factors" thanks to higher speed, but that speed is wasted if Iowa works alongside a North Carolina. It also comes at a cost that could have been avoided with more serial production of South Dakota, freeing resources for other projects. Yet this only seems reflected in giving Iowa a small rating advantage based upon size, rather than giving South Dakota a ratings advantage.

- under valuing anti-aircraft fire
For example Yamato and Musashi are sunk by aircraft, South Dakota functions as a useful escort to carriers. Yet the author freely admits "AA on Allied battleships is so vastly superior to the Axis BBs that I didn't want to skew the ratings unduly by weighting AA too heavily"

[Dili]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
(...)
You seem to have a lot of info that supports the idea that the Pugliese system worked OK, and all I have is a memory of reading how it was found wanting in testing post-war and during the war, so I guess your case is stronger. Thanks for bringing this new info to our attention. [:)]

As much things in battleships we miss more knowledge then we have because the samples we have are so few.

The Pugliese worked okay against one torpedo and was easy to repair at least looking at how fast the Italians put new battleships operating again. That is the only thing we can say. We don't know about multiple hits for example. We have no samples.
But this is true for most battleships in combat, we lack knowledge.

From a project point of view the Pugliese had an advantage and a defect it needed big space. There is also references that the soldering was not perfect and there was leaks but this might be a mix up with the compartiment leaks in Littorio bow that made it take more water than it should at Taranto, and usually people think torpedo hit=>problems=>torpedo defense system

A TDS like armor was limited to the large part of the ship. Usually there is no armor in the bow forward the first turret and at stern after the last turret except near the propellers and rudder. So 1/3 to 1/4 of a battleship length might not have armor or TDS.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

ORIGINAL: Orm
Thank you for sharing. [:)]

However, the competition is flawed since the bestest ship ever, HMS Warspite, was not included. [;)]

Actually you (inadvertently) have a point about the Queen Elizabeth class. They were available for service in time for WW1 and still capable enough for use in WW2. As such they were probably some of the best value for money battleships.

And Warspite has one of the most impressive combat records of any BB. Pretty much whole of WW1 in GF, especially Jutland, then MEd, Far east, Med again, D Day... it just goes on. And holder (or joint holder if you are KM) of the longest unguided projectile hit from a moving firer to a moving target in history (26000 yds - must have given the ItN such a shock!)

Lets have a Warspite FB thread!

warspite1

Well I'm guessing there is at least two of us in that camp [;)]

[warspite1]

With the building of the two aircraft carriers, the Royal Navy can employ a couple of the great names from the past. Personally I think it a shame they went with Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales.

HMS Ark Royal and HMS Warspite would have been better....

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

ORIGINAL: Mobeer




Actually you (inadvertently) have a point about the Queen Elizabeth class. They were available for service in time for WW1 and still capable enough for use in WW2. As such they were probably some of the best value for money battleships.

And Warspite has one of the most impressive combat records of any BB. Pretty much whole of WW1 in GF, especially Jutland, then MEd, Far east, Med again, D Day... it just goes on. And holder (or joint holder if you are KM) of the longest unguided projectile hit from a moving firer to a moving target in history (26000 yds - must have given the ItN such a shock!)

Lets have a Warspite FB thread!

warspite1

Well I'm guessing there is at least two of us in that camp [;)]

Maybe a few more,

This may only be a yarn but....

DDay Normandy.

A Fleet Air Arm pilot spotting for Warspite had to spot the target, reverse course to get in clear radio range of the Warspite then reverse course again to see the fall of shell.

Ranging shots were made with cheaper, inert "bricks"

Pilot gives the info to Warspite, turning back to target sees the incoming "brick" fly through the air and straight through the embrasure of the fortification smashing the gun out the back of the position.

Target destroyed, no shells wasted.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

ORIGINAL: Mobeer




Actually you (inadvertently) have a point about the Queen Elizabeth class. They were available for service in time for WW1 and still capable enough for use in WW2. As such they were probably some of the best value for money battleships.

And Warspite has one of the most impressive combat records of any BB. Pretty much whole of WW1 in GF, especially Jutland, then MEd, Far east, Med again, D Day... it just goes on. And holder (or joint holder if you are KM) of the longest unguided projectile hit from a moving firer to a moving target in history (26000 yds - must have given the ItN such a shock!)

Lets have a Warspite FB thread!

warspite1

Well I'm guessing there is at least two of us in that camp [;)]

Where do I sign up? [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite



And Warspite has one of the most impressive combat records of any BB. Pretty much whole of WW1 in GF, especially Jutland, then MEd, Far east, Med again, D Day... it just goes on. And holder (or joint holder if you are KM) of the longest unguided projectile hit from a moving firer to a moving target in history (26000 yds - must have given the ItN such a shock!)

Lets have a Warspite FB thread!

warspite1

Well I'm guessing there is at least two of us in that camp [;)]

Where do I sign up? [:)]

warspite1

The list is right here [;)].

Who thinks HMS Warspite is the bestest battleship ever.

warspite1