@axis_roll I have not watched the History Channel in years. It became to heavily involved in reality TV.
We cut the cord.
Italy: Andrea Dorea class dreadnought
22,956 tons
21 knots
Weapons:
13 - 12" C46 guns in three triple turrets on centerline (forward, aft, mid) and two double turrets in superfiring position fore and aft
16 - 6" C45 guns in casemates
13 - 3" guns
Three torpedo tubes
Armor:
Belt - 10"
Turrets - 11" face, 9.5" sides/rear, 3.35" top
Deck - 3.9" over magazines, 3.1" over machinery, 1.2" elsewhere
Conning tower - 11"
Ottoman Empire: Yavuz Sultan Selim battlecruiser (German Moltke class BC)
(I picked this over the 17 knot pre-dreadnoughts)
22,616 tons
25.5 knots
Weapons:
10 - 11" C50 guns in five twin turrets, one forward, two wing en echelon, two aft (w/one superfiring)
12 - 5.9" C50 guns in casemates
12 - 3" guns
4 torpedoes
Armor:
Belt - 4-11"
Turret - 8"
Deck - 1-3"
Conning - 10.5"
Note: German captain and crew. Had good underwater protection as it survived hitting multiple mines. Good gunnery demonstrated in combat at mid-range 11,000 yards. Was used as a battlecruiser should be, making use of speed avoiding duels with 12" and 15" armed pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts.
But the guns are 11 and 12, far smaller than the 15" UK late war Dreadnoughts
While I don’t profess to be an expert about battleships, it seems quite plausible that 1.5 extra inches of deck armor would matter more than an inch of belt.
It depends on the combat range. At short ranges, vertical protection matters more because shells come in on a flatter trajectory and hence have a lot of potential to penetrate a ship’s sides. At long ranges horizontal protection matters more because shells arrive on a high-arc trajectory and hence have a lot of potential to penetrate a ship’s deck. At intermediate ranges, a well-designed battleship is theoretically in its “immunity zone” in which it is adequately protected from both horizontal and plunging fire.
Had Germany captured Norway in WWI would this have broken the British Blockade?
Well no because the primary flow of trade was at German ports via Baltic to Atlantic.
Germany would still need to ferry the goods to Germany, which again means running the blockade. The British blockade
Also, UK placed substantial sea mine zones to block against ‘running’ the blockade.
Okay, we’ve finished the appetizers, lets get on to the main courses (Germany, UK, US)
United States: New Mexico class dreadnought
(Two commissioned before the end of WWI, Tenn. class was post war)
32,000 tons
21 knots
Weapons:
12 - 14" C50 guns in four triple turrets on centerline, two forward, two aft, superfiring
14 - 5" C51 guns in casemates (originally had 8 additional casemate bow and stern guns but were too wet and were removed)
Two torpedo tubes
Armor:
Belt - 8-13.5"
Turret - 18" face, 9-10" sides, 9" rear, 5" top
Deck - 3.5"
Conning - 11.5"
Notes: Compact turret design may have increased dispersion and slowed loading, turret elevation limited to 15 degrees until 1930’s.
A number of ship classes in various navies had similarly restricted elevation and therefore range in WWI. This should be checked when evaluating whether or not plunging fire could penetrate a deck of a given ship.
Germany: Bayern class dreadnought
31,700 tons
21 knots
Weapons:
8 - 15" C45 guns in four twin turrets on the centerline, two forward, two aft, superfiring
16 -5.9" C45 guns in casemates
Five torpedo tubes
Armour:
Belt - 6.7 - 13.8" (13.8" for the armoured citadel)
Turrets - 13.8" face, 9.8" sides, 11.4" rear, 3.9" top
Deck - 2.3 - 3.9" (most 2.3", but 3.9" over critical areas)
Connning - 16"
Notes: Gun elevation limited to 20 degrees, could defeat 15.3" of WWI armor at ~11,000 yards with ideal angle, 13.8" at ~13,600 yards, 10.4" at 22,000 yards., max range 25,400 yards. (Need data for deck penetration values.) Had higher demonstrated rate of fire than British 15" guns in post war testing. Used less volatile/cooler firing propellant less prone to catastrophic deflagration upon magazine hit.
United Kingdom: Royal Sovereign (Revenge) class dreadnought
(The Queen Elizabeth class might be better…some improvements were made to it after Jutland)
28,000 tons
~22 knots
Weapons:
8 - 15" C42 guns in four twin centerline turrets, supefiring two forward, two aft
14 - 6" C45 guns in casemates
Four torpedo tubes
Armor:
Belt - 6-13"
Turrets - 13" turret face, 11" side/rear, 4.25" top
Deck - 1 - 4"
Conning - ? Looks like 11" max in drawing…
Note: Having trouble pinning down specs on the Brit dreadnoughts (incredibly). Suspect the guns were limited to 20 degrees elevation. Postwar comparison of the class with Bayern was not favorable.
I’m going to revise what I said earlier about relative deck thickness, somehow I got either bad values or reversed them–I’m still scratching my head as to how I did that. I don’t believe the Bayern was at a disadvantage with respect to deck thickness, and depending on precise locations of armor/magazines it might have had an advantage.
I could dig into this further, but based on what I’ve read, particularly postwar evaluation of the Bayern by the British, I would select the Bayern as the best of the lot. There are several reasons for my choice:
1. The slightly thicker armor on the Bayern for the main belt and turret faces, and what looks like a better overall scheme to my eye.
2. German propellant was less volatile and less prone to explosive deflagration that would destroy the ship, rather than just a turret in the event of a magazine hit.
3. The German rangefinder seems to have been better suited for the North Atlantic, a difference in the optical design. It might not have been as sophisticated in some ways, but it could produce a solution more readily–the right tool for the time and place.
4. German boats proved more durable to battle damage, even the more lightly armoured battlecruisers that were terribly damaged at Jutland made it home with help.
5. The Brits had design/handling issues with the magazines of their secondary armament that was causing breaches to the main magazines.
6. The German 15" guns had 23 second cycle time in British tests, vs. 36 seconds for the UK’s 15".
I won’t swear that all of these points are correct or that I haven’t made further errors, but I think there is enough weight of evidence that even if I’m wrong on 1 or 2 of the points it won’t change the outcome.
How do you think the Great War would have ended had Japan joined Germany? How would a showdown between western powers and Japan have ended in a large Battleship duel? Germany could have kept there cruiser fleet in the Pacific. your thoughts?
Japan would have lost that battle to the western powers.
The Great War was really a European conflict with a minor chase in the Pacific against a number of Light German cruisers. The Central powers objectives did not include much outside Europe/ Middleast