Iowa’s faster and outranges the, hypothetically (not including fire control) Iowa can take out a ton before it runs out of ammunition.
If they’re fighting close Iowa losing to 8 pre dreadnoughts with 14 inchers sounds right. 👍
Battleship showdown (march madness)
-
Here’s a comparative study of WWII battleships that might be of interest:
-
Just break out your Naval Mini’s and see what happens trade sides and see if the results are the same and then see if you need a third round tie-breaker.
Use the 3W rules from the sink the Bizmark game
Just an idea -
French Battleship, Jean Bart VS German Battleship, Bismarck is a very close match up.
-
The US always loses it’s first small fight. In every conflict. The Russians are just more bodies for the fire of communism. I’m going to give this brawl to the reds.
This may be true, but the Russians don’t have the advantage of greater numbers here, and the Soviet battleship was the flagship of the Czarist fleet meaning its very old and outdated while the Missouri is brand-spanking new. I just don’t think the Soviets have a snowballs chance in hell to win this, they may get lucky and cause some damage but they won’t win it. If it were a fight between the 2 crews, fighting as infantry i’d give it to the Soviets, but between 2 ships the Reds are going to lose.
-
The old soviet Battleship had only 12’ guns, not much firepower againist Missouri.
-
@ABWorsham:
The old soviet Battleship had only 12’ guns, not much firepower againist Missouri.
12" guns. :-D 12’ guns would have been deadly (“черт возьми! Missed, comrade, but no matter, twelve foot shell is like hand grenade, only need to be close.”) However, you couldn’t carry much ammo, so choose your targets wisely.
-
@CWO:
Here’s a comparative study of WWII battleships that might be of interest:
It is an interesting and extremely detailed analysis, but actual combat results suggest the weighting chosen in some areas, particularly fire control, might be less than accurate. The Bismarck and Prinz Eugen had pretty darned good gunnery at range.
Too much weight is given to radar fire control in my opinion. It was a valuable edge vs. those who lacked it, but not without its downfalls, particularly against experienced night fighting forces like the Japanese. The South Dakota illustrates the problems with that when engaged vs. a battleship (the older Kongo class Kirishima). South Dakota had some trouble with her radar and the Kirishima moved in range and hit her with the 1st salvo, destroying the radar and forcing her to withdraw. Fortunately, the Washington then engaged Kirishima and crippled her. Without the Washington, the South Dakota likely would have been in big trouble rather than the other way around. But it was a 2 vs 1 BB fight (although there were the attendant cruisers and destroyers…and the Japanese commander did not realize he was facing BB’s until too late.)
The author spends a lot of effort looking at the absolute penetration of a shell vs. the armour in various location, but it appears from combat reports that a ship could often be effectively taken out of action by less spectacular blows. It doesn’t really matter if your belt is absorbing the hits if your command has been knocked out, the rudder is jammed, your fire control destroyed, and/or your main guns disabled. At that point if you don’t have a helping screen to drive away your attacker(s) you are a dead duck.
-
just wondering, why is the British ranked first when the Missouri is clearly a better ship? bigger guns, better guns, more AA guns, better protection, faster, and more maneuverable. just curious
-
@CWO:
Here’s a comparative study of WWII battleships that might be of interest:
Some great info and comparison in that link, but I disagree with the weighting given in light of WWII engagements. The Bismarck had some pretty good gunnery and even the cruiser Prinz Eugen was a match for the Prince of Wales (and bloodied Hood as well before the Bismarck ended the fight.) She would have been vulnerable to plunging fire through the deck, but if she could close her high firing rate, excellent gunnery, and durable belt would have been a match for the more modern big boys.
While important, the impact of radar ranging seems overstated. For one thing it was not well developed yet. And for another it was vulnerable to hits from even cruisers. Electrical problems and hits on its radar could have finished off the South Dakota against the older Kongo class Kirishima. Kirishima originally thought it would be engaging cruisers, but instead engaged two more modern BB’s. The superior night fighting experience of the Japanese was nearly decisive and did sent the South Dakota into flight. The BB Washington however had better results with its radar and crippled the Kirishima.
There are so many intangibles to these fights. Direct penetration of the main belt or deck armour doesn’t appear to be the primary consideration to me. More important seems to be harder to quantify aspects such as ammo handling, damage control, hits to the vulnerable command bridge, hits on radar, optical range finding, turrets, rudder, etc. Any could prove decisive.
My admittedly limited reading is that Japan’s damage control was inferior to that of the USN. Japan better utilized torpedo attacks. The Royal Navy’s ammo handling was problematic.
-
WTF??? This is the 2nd time I’ve tried to post the same basic info on this topic and I’m getting some sort of bullshit spam warning???
-
just wondering, why is the British ranked first when the Missouri is clearly a better ship? bigger guns, better guns, more AA guns, better protection, faster, and more maneuverable. just curious
I ranked them by stength of Navies around 1941. Had it been 1945, U.S would have been 1.
-
so… what are the results?
-
@ABWorsham:
just wondering, why is the British ranked first when the Missouri is clearly a better ship? bigger guns, better guns, more AA guns, better protection, faster, and more maneuverable. just curious
I ranked them by stength of Navies around 1941. Had it been 1945, U.S would have been 1.
Problem is that the Iowa class wasn’t launched until mid-1942 and commissioned in 1943. So she’s the most modern of the class. In 1941 the South Dakota class would be the U.S. entrant.
The Jean Bart is an odd choice since she was incomplete and some of her guns were later placed on the namesake of the class, the Richelieu (which had lost some guns in action.)
The Yamato was commissioned Dec. 16, 1941, making it in after the start of the Pacific War, but before the end of 1941.
-
you could use the North Carolina instead as well seeing as it was commissioned in April of '41
-
you could use the North Carolina instead as well seeing as it was commissioned in April of '41
You are correct. I had forgotten that the South Dakota wasn’t commissioned until 1942.
Of course ABWorsham is ranking contenders on the strength of their navies in 1941, rather than limiting the contest to 1941 era ships, so by that criteria the Iowa also works.
-
@Red:
you could use the North Carolina instead as well seeing as it was commissioned in April of '41
You are correct.  I had forgotten that the South Dakota wasn’t commissioned until 1942.Â
Of course ABWorsham is ranking contenders on the strength of their navies in 1941, rather than limiting the contest to 1941 era ships, so by that criteria the Iowa also works.Â
You’re correct. Let’s have the next round this weekend. Whats your thoughts on the Bismarck and Jean Bart match up?
-
BIZ MARK!
-
@ABWorsham:
Whats your thoughts on the Bismarck and Jean Bart match up?
That’s a tough one, primarily because of how muddled the history of the French ships was (new/incomplete boats, Vichy/Free French, gun issues.) Richelieu was sort of complete at the start of the war, Jean Bart wasn’t. Assuming a completed boat of the class one should probably still factor in teething troubles: the Richelieu’s guns did worse damage to themselves than their targets because of improper propellant/shell design issues.
The Richelieu was tough enough though. It took some 15" hits with no significant damage. Jean Bart also took some hits from the 16" battery of South Dakota class BB, but was still in action. These French BB’s were not as vulnerable as the Hood.
From what I gather the French ship’s gunnery was a mess because the shells and propellant had not been properly tested, plus the close mounting of the 4-gun turrets produced a “wake effect” that created “excessive dispersion.”
So in a fighting scenario I would expect it to go something like this:
At long range, where the Bismarck would be vulnerable to rounds plunging through her deck, the French ship wouldn’t be able to hit anything without a lot of luck. The Bismarck on the other hand would be able to find the range and pound away. However, this fire likely would only cause non-crippling damage.As the range closed, the Richelieu/Jean Bart would finally be able to score some hits, but would be firing against the disproportionately thick belt armour of the Bismarck.
Both would be bloodied, but still standing. To break the tie comes down to discipline and ability to adapt, favoring the Bismarck.
-
@ABWorsham:
If the countries of the 1940’s decided to solved WWII by a Battleship Duel […]
Representative John S. Williams, from Mississippi, suggested something similar during a Congressional debate back around 1907 or 1908. Unhappy with the decision to start construction of the battleship USS Michigan, he proposed “That whereas the battleship sea monster we are imitating has been named the Dreadnought – an archaic name – this man o’war is hereby named the Skeered o’ Nothin’ as an expression of our true American spirit: provided further, that it is hereby made the duty of the first captain who shall command her to challenge in the nation’s name the so-called Dreadnought to a duel a l’outrance, to take place upon the sea somewhere in sight of Long Island, and upon that occasion of the combat the President and his Cabinet … shall be entertained on the quarter deck as guests of the ship and the nation.”
-
LOL
SKEEREd O NUTHIN!
Suggested Topics
