Best Battleship

[Mowgli1647545497]

Fire-Control

 

This is a very interesting topic (for geeks like me), and one which is often overlooked. While not as glamorous (or obvious) as guns, it is crucially important. Here's how I rate things:

Yamato - 5

Iowa - 10

Bismarck - 5

Richelieu - 7.5

King George V - 8

Vittorio Veneto - 5

South Dakota - 10

 

The bottom line is that, after 1943 or so, having the world's best optical fire-control systems was largely irrelevant. The night battle between Washington and Kirishima near Savo pretty much settled the point; good radar usually beats good optics in a stand-up fight. And the radar used by Washington off of Guadalcanal was not as good as the sets fitted aboard Iowa.

 

Then there's the fact that all radar fire-control is not created equal. Radar operating at meter or decimeter wavelengths is useful for ranging, but lacks the angular accuracy necessary for training. In practical terms, this means that a decimetric set can develop a range solution via radar, but must rely on an optical director to supply training information for the battery. This hybrid fire-control solution is, of course, limited by the quality of the optics available, and also by the visual horizon (which is closer than the radar horizon), and weather conditions. Only with the advent of 10cm and (later) 3cm wavelength sets was true 'blindfire' radar fire-control achievable, wherein the firing ship need never come into visual range of the opposing vessel. The Germans, Japanese, and Italians never developed sets of this capability (both the Japanese (despite its 10cm wavelength) and German sets were usable for fire control against a battleship-sized target only out to a range of about 27,000 yards.) The bottom line is, then, that the Allied vessels, and particularly Iowa and South Dakota, would enjoy an enormous advantage in gunfire control over their adversaries. She would have the ability to lob shells over the visual horizon, and would also perform better in complete darkness or adverse weather conditions.

 

The final adjusted rating also reflects the fact that American FC systems employed by far the most advanced stable vertical elements in the world. In practical terms, this meant that American vessels could keep a solution on a target even when performing radical maneuvers. In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns. This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems, and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other.

[Mowgli1647545497]

FINALLY PAGE TWO

[Mowgli1647545497]

And the Heavyweight Champion is...

 

All right, it's time to add up the points and see who comes out on top for both the Heavy and Middleweight categories. Judges, your scorecards please...

 

Ship - COMPOSITE SCORE

Yamato - 148

Iowa - 166

Bismarck - 121

Richelieu - 147.5

King George V - 131.5

Vittorio Veneto - 117.5

South Dakota - 155.5

 

IOWA IS WIN

 

And in the Middleweight Category...

 

Bismarck - 121

Richelieu - 147.5

King George V - 131.5

Vittorio Veneto - 117.5

South Dakota - 155.5

 

South Dakota on top

 

----------

Ok lemme explain my scoring, first the weights:

Guns - Weight: 4

Armor - Weight: 4

Underwater Protection - Weight: 2

Fire Control - Weight: 4

Tactical Factors - Weight: 3

 

'Composite Score' is the sum of the weighted scores for each category. The individual category scores equal (Overall Rating * Weighting Factor). In other words, a score of '10' in a category with a weight of '4' is worth 40 points towards the composite score.

 

Some more explaination is obviously in order here, because my scoring runs counter to some of the established and accepted 'battleship lore' out there. For instance, my scoring indicates that King George V was a pretty close match for Bismarck in a stand-up fight. So, if this was such an even fight, why did Prince of Wales break off her action with Bismarck, instead of just duking it out in a manly fashion? There are a few things to remember in this regard. First; this comparison shows a King George V-class battleship in a late-war configuration equipped with Type 274 radar; a luxury the Prince of Wales did not enjoy in 1940, but which would have been a huge equalizer later in the war. If one assumes British fire control to be equal or slightly inferior to the Germans in 1940, Bismarck starts looking better again. Second; the British had little idea that Bismarck was as tough a low-angle target as she was, and thus closed the range to come to grips with her (which, had she made it that far, also would have reduced Hood's exposure to high-angle deck hits - a vulnerability the British were acutely aware of, and another reason why they tried to close the range with Bismarck as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, they cut their intercept course too fine, and couldn't run the gauntlet before Hood was fatally hit). In retrospect, a ship like King George V is better off fighting Bismarck at long range, where the German ship's own vulnerability to high-angle fire would be heightened. Third, of course, is the fact that Prince of Wales was suffering from teething problems in her main mounts, to put it mildly, and was not getting nearly the output of shells she might have enjoyed in a late-war engagement when all the bugs with the British 14"/45 mount had been worked out. Late-war, at long range, with blindfire radar fire-control, and turrets working, I believe King George V was a decent match for the Bismarck.

 

Second, I'm saying that South Dakota would have usually whipped the Bismarck. Not only that, but if handled correctly, she ought to have had a better-than-even shot against Yamato, a statement that on the face of it seems absurd! Yamato was fully 27,000+ tons heavier, had much thicker armor, and possessed the largest naval rifles ever mounted afloat. However, the American ship had the world's best fire-control system, a fantastic armor belt, and guns which delivered very large projectiles at high-angle trajectories which could go through thicker deck plates than Yamato's 18.1" shells. Again, fire-control and the ship's fighting instructions become crucial. If the American stays at range (30,000-35,000 yards), she should be able to deliver many more hits to Yamato than she receives in return, because she can both shoot and maneuver (due to her much better stable vertical fire-control system elements). Further, Yamato's internal subdivision is not as good as SoDak's, and American hits are therefore likely to be more damaging than the Japanese. On the other hand, historically the Americans had little idea of Yamato's capabilities, and were likely to have attempted to close the range with her, not knowing the extent of her armoring, or that she was, in fact, armed with truly enormous 18.1" guns, rather than the 16" guns everyone on the American side of the lake assumed was the case. Closing the range with Yamato would likely have resulted in the American ship learning a painful lesson in gunfire supremacy. South Dakota's belt is better than Yamato's (barely), but at close range Yamato's guns have much better penetration. Further, Yamato's secondaries are very powerful, and would have begun to take a possible toll on SoDak's exposed radars and fire-control equipment, which would reduce her advantage in fire-control substantially if disabled. The bottom line is that South Dakota is a boxer, and should maintain her distance from a slugger like Yamato. Under the right circumstances, however, she was perfectly capable of dishing out critical damage to her hulking opponent.

[Mowgli1647545497]

Let me know if you're interested in my opinions on who's the BEST ALL-AROUND SHIP, and the BEST ALL-AROUND TREATY BATTLESHIP.

[Adam]

one missle > any ship, true story

[Devils Advocate]

Who has the bggest Internet Penis?

[Buckeye23]

Originally posted by stealthmonkey:

http://www.ohio3si.org/sig/pictures/threadhijack.jpg

That's actually a picture of Israeli Special Forces in action. Isayeret is what they're called. I believe the pic is on their website.

 

http://www.isayeret.com/

 

Might not be a bad idea for the next thread similar to this. Best Special Operations Units.

 

Carry on...

 

*edit*

 

It is an Israeli CT picture...

 

http://www.isayeret.com/units/civi/yamas/civi-mis1.jpg

[Dave1647545494]

Iowa class battleships were the best especially for things like offshore artillery support wich is more often than not what they were used for. examples are the island hoping campaign in the pacific durin wwii, korea, and vietnam they also provided fire support in the gulf war but it was mainly cruise missles by then. the problem is by the time all these sweet battleships came out most battles were decided by aircraft long before battleships were even close enough to do anything more than provide anti-aircraft support to a carrier group. just a couple more things you might want to add to your ratings. although battleships were designed for ship to ship combat they were far more effective as floating artillery platforms and ground support. my.o2

 

oh yeah anything that can shoot a 2000lb shell that far OWNS

[Avenger1647545502]

Gotta go with the classics: HMS Victory, and HMS Dreadnaught.

Victory: good blend of firepower with manueverability, and could sail very close to the wind.

Dreadnuaght: Started the "all big gun" battleship race.

[Mowgli1647545497]

The Iowas were used as artillery platforms because she was the last ship standing, there was nobody left for her to fight.

 

Victory was a ship of the line, Dreadnaught was a, well a dreadnaught. If you want to split hairs. But as contemporary busters they were awesome ships, just not battleships.

 

 

Funny thing: Britain also screwed herself with building the Dreadnaught.

 

By building the first all big gun ship, they rendered all other ship designs obsolete.

 

Including their own.

 

So literally overnight Britain went from having the largest open water navy in the world by far, to leveling the playing field for everybody. Within a month of HMS Dreadnaught's sea-trials France, Germany, Italy, and America were all laying keels for all-big-gun dreadnaughts.

 

Winston Churchill: "DOH!"

 

As for aircraft - well battleships, like the dreadnaughts before them, always were a pissing contest only. Pretty useless in hindsight, but back then they were percieved as the thermonuclear ICBMs of their day. However, even General Mitchell conceded he wouldn't wantt o tryto take a bomber or fighter wing in against an Iowa... and thats the famous General "Ship Killer" Mitchell. Why? See below:

[Mowgli1647545497]

All right, then, now that we have the Heavy- and Middleweight Champion prizes awarded, let's take a look at the other categories that go into the Best All-Around competition.

[Mowgli1647545497]

Secondary Armament

 

Secondary batteries were an important part of any battleship's armament. I'm going to segregate secondary armament into two categories: anti-ship and anti-aircraft.

Ship - Anti-ship - antiaircraft

Yamato - 9.5 - 4.5

Iowa - 10 - 10

Bismarck - 10 - 4

Richelieu - 8 - 1.5

King George V - 5 - 4.5

Vittorio Veneto - 6 - 1

South Dakota - 10 - 10

 

Rating these I added 1 point to those ship's scores which carried at least some guns of near 6" caliber, because these guns generally have greater range, a more powerful shell, and therefore a greater ability to knock out small vessels such as destroyers. While I personally lean towards the belief that more shells is just a better thing, I can also understand those who argue that battleship secondaries must be able to hit and sink small ships before they can fire their own 4-5" weapons at you. In effect, if the same amount of steel is in the air, 6" steel is better than 5" because its shells carry larger explosive charges, are more effective against light armor, and tend to have flatter trajectories, making it easier to range and hit the target. The net effect is that Iowa's secondary, while very potent, do not dwarf the competition completely. Bismarck and Yamato pull even in the overall rankings. Oh the reason I rate Yamato as highly as I do (despite her lower total throw weight) is because she has the best arcs of fire for her secondaries of any BB, due to her superfiring triple 6.1" turrets. In her final configuration, and in a broadside engagment, she would be able to bring 8,563 lbs of ammunition/minute to bear, some 43% of it being very powerful, high-velocity 6.1" shells. Richelieu also has a very powerful battery for her size. King George V is hampered by the comparatively low rate of fire she experienced with her 5.25" guns. Vittorio Veneto fared slightly better, but also suffered from comparatively low rates of fire.

 

Iowa and SoDak have by far the best heavy AA suite of the seven. The 5"/38, coupled with the Mark 37 fire-control system, was the best heavy AA system of the war. Period. The total throw weight of the American BBs dwarfs the other vessels, and throw weight is really important, because in a very real sense anti-aircraft fire is a numbers game: the more lead you've got in the air, the better off you are. Coupled with proximity-fuzed 5" shells (which at least tripled the effectiveness of a 5" round when it first appeared, and by 1945 had multiplied it's lethality by a factor of six), the American 5" AA battery is incomparable. Of the remainder, King George V also has a very respectable battery. The 5.25" gun carried a nice sized warhead, and when coupled with proximity fuzing made for a very effective weapon, but her fire-control was not as good as the American Mk 37, and the 5.25" was just a tad too heavy for manual handling, which decreased its rate of fire markedly. Richelieu is heavily penalized because her 6" guns were simply not effective in their intended AA role, and I have therefore not included them in the tabulation. This leaves only her relatively light suite of twelve 3.5" guns. Bismarck has a decent battery, but no radar fire-control. Vittorio Veneto suffers from low throw weight and no radar, and the fact that her 90mm guns were notoriously unreliable in service, because of their very complex mountings.

[Mowgli1647545497]

Light Anti-Aircraft Armament

 

As the war progressed, anti-aircraft protection became both a means and an end in itself, as battleships were forced into escort roles with carrier battle groups. We'll take a look at each ship's final medium/light AA suite for comparison. And again, throw weight will be supremely important for these short-range weapons systems.

Yamato - 2.5

Iowa - 10

Bismarck - 3.5

Richelieu - 7

King George V - 8

Vittorio Veneto - 1.5

South Dakota - 10

 

Again, the Iowa and South Dakota come out on top, largely as a result of mounting so many 40mm Bofors, the best medium AA gun of the war. Furthermore, both American BBs made lavish usage of remote power control (RPC) for their Bofors mounts. By the end of the war, the US was also radar-controlling their 40mm mounts. Richelieu initially mounted a breathtakingly inadequate AA outfit, but after her refit in New York she emerged as a strong performer with her own suite of 40mm Bofors and 20mm Oerlikons. The Yamato was limited by having no comparable weapon; her 25mm mounts, while technically faster-firing, actually had a sustained rate lower than the Bofors (the 25mm gun had to cease fire when a new ammo cartridge was fitted). The Bofors also threw a much heavier shell. Japanese high-angle fire-control was inferior, and her triple 25mm mounts lacked good RPC (i.e. they turned and elevated too slowly to track a fast-moving aircraft). Bismarck benefitted from excellent optical fire control for her AA systems, but had a relatively small suite of weapons. King George V suffers slightly for mostly mounting the 2-pounder pom-pom, which lacked the rate-of-fire and muzzle velocity of the Bofors. Additionally, British high-angle fire-control was not up to American standards (as postwar British studies clearly admitted). Vittorio Veneto was simply hopeless: mediocre guns and not enough of 'em, mediocre fire-control, and complicated sky arcs.

[Mowgli1647545497]

Total Anti-Aircraft Suite

 

The complete anti-aircraft suite is the sum of both DP secondaries and automatic guns:

Yamato - 3

Iowa - 10

Bismarck - 3

Richelieu - 5

King George V - 7

Vittorio Veneto - 1

South Dakota - 10

 

In total, the Iowa and South Dakota easily come out on top. Note, too, that against Kamikazes their batteries were the most effective of the Allied BBs, because they carried a heavier weight of shell in their larger weapons. Kamikazes became increasingly difficult to knock down with 20mm, and even 40mm guns, meaning that the effectiveness of the DP mounts became increasingly important. If Vittorio Veneto had had to fight kamikazes, she wouldn't have lasted an afternoon. As stunning as it may sound, a single late-war U.S. Gearing-class destroyer (armed with 6 x 5"/38, 16 x 40mm Bofors, and 20 x 20mm Oerlikons) could put 32% more steel into the air in a minute than the Italian battleship (12,963 lbs. vs. 9,821 lbs.), and had much better fire-control to boot! To be fair, Vittorio Veneto is being compared here using a circa-1943 weapons suite, whereas the other ships are shown at or near wars-end. On the flip side, even by 1943 standards, the Italian ship was very weakly armed against aircraft.

[Tractor]

I agree it was proven anyway that american naval systems were superior to the Japanese. Don't remember the battle now, too late I'm tired, but we did all our damage at long range without ever visually siting the targets.

 

Evan

[Mowgli1647545497]

Operational Factors

 

Finally, a sort of catch-all category. What I am trying to capture is how useful the ship was in conducting a naval campaign -- what was her radius of action, how easy was she to keep on station, and so on.

Yamato - 8

Iowa - 10

Bismarck - 8.5

Richelieu - 9

King George V - 5.5

Vittorio Veneto - 7.5

South Dakota - 9

 

Again, this category is very subjective. What I'm are trying to do is develop an index of how useful the ship is in the context of a naval campaign. So I think of 3 key areas: Powerplant Efficiency, Combat Radius, and Sea-Keeping, then add em up. 'Powerplant Efficiency' is an mixture of both the amount of power per ton of powerplant weight, as well as the amount of power per cubic foot of powerplant volume, including electrical generating capacity. These figures were drawn from Dulin & Garzke. 'Combat Radius' is based on the ship's nominal radius at 16 knots speed (which was fairly difficult to arrive at; most radius of action figures for these vessels are fairly incomplete.) 'Sea-Keeping' is based mostly on anecdotal evidence found in various reference books (i.e. 'King George V was very wet forward').

 

A couple of points need to be made here. First, I was very surprise that both the French and Italian powerplants rated as well as they do, although I knew that the French design was very compact. I would guess, however, that these plants were harder to maintain than the American and British plants. The Italians in particular would be close to their bases, and thus could afford to have more cramped machinery spaces because repairs would not have to be carried out at sea as often (this is a characteristic of many more 'coastal' navies, including the modern Russian navy). American vessels (and British, too, I would suspect) tend to devote more of their internal volume to repair facilities and accessways, which makes for a less compact, but more maintainable vessel.

 

Second, ships like King George V and Vittorio Veneto are penalized here for sea-keeping, which isn't completely fair. King George V (and indeed all British capital ships until the post-war Vanguard) were designed to allow zero-elevation fire of the main battery over the bow. It isn't surprising that the lack of sheer forward that such a design requirement entailed resulted in her being a very wet boat. Vittorio Veneto was designed to fight in the more confined waters of the Mediterranean, and thus didn't require the sort of sea-keeping abilities of her blue-water foes. Bismarck, too, was not as good a seaboat as her size and beam might have suggested; she was wet forward, probably due to her being overweight. Iowa, for all her speed, had a very long, fine bow structure, and tended to bury her nose in rough seas.

 

As far as combat radius is concerned, Italian vessels generally would not be fighting at extreme distances from home, meaning that their relatively low radius of action was understandable. For their part, the British counted on their vast worldwide network of refueling stations to compensate for King George V's shortcomings in the fuel efficiency department, although operationally this may have been a greater liability than the British had anticipated, particularly when more of their capital ships began to operate with the Americans in the Pacific near the end of the war. By contrast, American and Japanese vessels were designed to operate in the vast reaches of the Pacific, although you wouldn't know it by looking at 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. Iowa, on the other hand, was possessed of tremendous endurance.

[Mowgli1647545497]

And the Best All-Around Performers Are...

 

And now the moment we'e all been waiting for, or not. Again, judges, your scorecards...

Yamato - 170

Iowa - 206

Bismarck - 146

Richelieu - 174

King George V - 152

Vittorio Veneto - 130.5

South Dakota - 196

 

Not surprisingly, Iowa is the winner in the Best All-Around competition. American secondaries and AAA were awesomely effective. The Axis ships, particularly Vittorio Veneto, were horribly outclassed in this department. In the Middleweight category, South Dakota comes out on top again, followed again (though more distantly this time) by Richelieu.

 

Well, that sort of wraps it up. A very complex topic, all in all, and one which is impossible to answer conclusively. (Kinda like gearheads debating fastest cars.) After all, as in all things having to do with combat, luck would have more than a little to do with determining the outcome in a clash between any of these steel monsters.

[Mowgli1647545497]

Originally posted by Slowica GT:

...

 

Might not be a bad idea for the next thread similar to this. Best Special Operations Units.

 

That'd be cool to read. I know next to nothing about special ops and would like hearing from someone in the know.

[Buckeye23]

Originally posted by Mowgli:

That'd be cool to read. I know next to nothing about special ops and would like hearing from someone in the know.

I'm no expert either, but I've read a few things here and there. I did read a cool article in Maxim several years ago where they broke down the Navy Seals, Delta Force, Spetsnaz, GIGN, GSG9, SAS. They did some back ground, training, had a former member recount a story, and also did like a historical highlight.

 

A guy here at work used to be stationed at Ft. Bragg when he was in the army. Also stationed at Bragg are the Rangers and Delta. So frequently, the regular GI's were tabbed as "bad guys" to help train Spec. Ops. in various scenarios. Needless to say, the Spec. Ops units train much differently and play by a different set of rules. When the GI's got their asses beat, they literally got their asses beat.

[Kurt B.]

Hey Mowgli, nice to know I'm not the only history buff out there, you really know your stuff, but no battleship was ever worth a shit w/o a captain that was willing to take a risk, or follow a hunch, very cool thread.

[Guest riggs867]

What about the first ship to fire a guided missile in the Atlantic? The largest ship to travel the St. Lawrence Seaway?

 

http://www.britesites.com/macon/Graphics/macfrontlg.jpg

 

A sporty heavy cruiser. Of course, I might be biased.

 

 

USS Macon

[Mowgli1647545497]

Soon as missles come into play, you have to fastforward right to the Aegis. Or just forget boats altogether and talk about attack aircraft.

 

Me, I like big mean-ass monster ships slinging shells the size of VW Bugs at each other smile.gif

 

As for Captains, KBond, you couldn't be more right, its the difference between a hard-charging Beatie and a simpering Jellicoe (thats not fair to Jellicoe actually, but eh, who cares smile.gif ).