Best choice for 45000 tons battleship

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Best choice for 45000 tons battleship

Post by Thorsten Wahl »

Still I'm convinced that BS was built on a compromise choice to protect also areas outside the vitals (as this choice would have been very important for a commerce raider, far from her bases), however this choice is only reasonable if you want to have a protection against small ships shells, not against another BB.

All armor armor above the armored main deck was integral part of the heavy protection of the ship. Almost ervery projectile attack had to pass through the outer layer to pentrate into vital parts. As attacking projectiles were deformed, fuzed and/or yawed, when they hit the first layer, they loose performance against the main layer and thefor were less likely to pentrate into vitals in a order fit to burst. Given the weight of armor per protected lenght the german arrmor scheme seems more weight efficent as other designs.

The long citadells were result of the experience of the Jutland Battle. Only heavy armor possesses the capability to protect against impacts of main caliber projectiles. And also the perforation of non amoured parts by comparatively small arms (shipends) may cause a ship loss.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Best choice for 45000 tons battleship

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Thorsten Wahl wrote: "succesful decapping requires some distance between fore and main plate
german recommendations"
Italian studies and ballistic tests run in 1935 demonstrated that despite the theory that a large distance (at least the whole projectile length) should have been put between the two plates, the effect could be the same with a minimum distance (25 cm).
Therefore the decision to build the Littorio class with such a scheme for the armour plates (70mm de-capping plate + 25 mm void filled with water-repellent material + 280mm cemented armour), baked by wood (150mm) and finally the 15mm hull plate.
The tests were successful and the plates were considered to be resistant to a 15" shell fired from 16000 meters.

Source: The Littorio Class: Italy's Last and Largest Battleships 1937-1948, by Erminio Bagnasco & Augusto De Toro - Seaforth (English Version)
In the Italian version I have the scheme and the tests are presented at page 35.
Thorsten Wahl wrote: "All armor above the armored main deck was integral part of the heavy protection of the ship"
I know, but while I consider the main "turtle" deck plus the main belt as the real strength of BS, the armour above the belt is IMHO "waste" of weight that I would concentrate just on the main armoured deck and slopes to improve immunity against plunging fire (and bombs).
I agree it could be very useful however against light or medium calibre shells.

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Best choice for 45000 tons battleship

Post by Steve Crandell »

Dave Saxton wrote:The General Board's notes on the evolution of the Iowa's AAA is interesting. As designed it was to carry only 16 of the 1.1-inch and some .50 caliber machine guns. This was altered after the Battle of Santa Cruz in 1942 to 16 40mm Bofers and 20 20mm Oerlikons in single mounts. The additional weight came to 85 tons. The final for WWII configuration probably added about 200 tons to the original weight.

Radars may have added some weight because the original design in 1939 made no provision for any radars at all. Nonetheless, most of the the extra weight appears to be a huge war time fuel ration.

Fuel consumption was greater than expected. It was found that Missouri consumed 4.16 barrels per mile at only 17 .9 knots. Wisconsin consumed an average of 4.8 barrels per mile at an average of 17 knots from March to May 1945. Not all of that was on all boilers but sometimes only four or six boilers were lit. The need to carry extra fuel for refueling DDs was also a factor. Muir mentions the Iowas were just shy of 60,000 tons full load in 1944. Expended fuel was replaced with sea water so it stayed about that all the time.
Are you including the extra ammunition for all those AA guns? I don't see where the weight growth comes from if not the additional AA armament and radar. It can't come from the fuel, because there is no way to increase fuel allowance without compromising the TDS, and I've not heard that they did that. Fuel consumption being higher than expected in itself would not increase displacement. And yet displacement did grow over the war, as it did for most ships of most navies.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Best choice for 45000 tons battleship

Post by Dave Saxton »

Steve Crandell wrote:
Are you including the extra ammunition for all those AA guns? I don't see where the weight growth comes from if not the additional AA armament and radar. It can't come from the fuel, because there is no way to increase fuel allowance without compromising the TDS, and I've not heard that they did that. Fuel consumption being higher than expected in itself would not increase displacement. And yet displacement did grow over the war, as it did for most ships of most navies.
I don't know how the General Board came up with the 85 tons for the first upgrade but that is what they show. It's their calculation not mine. It just doesn't add up to be all from radars and AAA. Each Mk-8 set weighed only about 8 tons and that is extra heavy for a radar set. Yet we have an Iowa pushing 60,000 tons in 1944. Did they actually displace more in terms of standard displacement than is disclosed?
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Best choice for 45000 tons battleship

Post by alecsandros »

... Friedman mentions USS Massachussets with 43500 tons optimal load in 1942 and 47000 tons in 1945, due to equipment increase - AA and radars mostly, but also extra fuel. BuOrd issued an order that the maximum admissible load would be 47000 tons, for fear of increasing the draft to much.

A single quad Bofors 40mm mount weighed about 15 tons without ammo. Each shell was 0.9kg... And there were also the Oerlikons....

EDIT:
I found more,

Friedman, pg 323: the 40mm Bofors mounts of the Iowa class weighed a total of 222 tons, not including splinter shields, directors and ammo. [...] The increase in AA guns and radars led to an increase of manpower on board... which in turn led to a higher quantity of stored provisions on board.
All in all, the total combined weight of extra AA, radars, directors, ammo, men, etc, was 3000 tons, taking the ship from the projected 56200 to 59200 in 1945...
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Best choice for 45000 tons battleship

Post by Dave Saxton »

A quad Bofers weighed as much as a typical semi truck? Really? Even if that's correct it's still only about 285 tons for the full compliment.
but also extra fuel.
Ah,
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Best choice for 45000 tons battleship

Post by Steve Crandell »

Friedman describes some of the weight growth in his book on US Battleships. He notes "All of this extra armament cost weight, as BuShips had foreseen. By May 1945 full-load displacement was about 3,000 tons above the original design figure of 56,270 tons.

He states that Iowa had a design displacement of 45,873 tons, but she was completed at a far greater displacement "due in large part to the mass of light antiaircraft guns added during her construction". The crew grew over time from about 2,000 to about 2,500 men, largely due to the light AA. The original design called for 4 quad 1.1" mounts and most of the class ended up with 20 quad bofors mounts and of course a large number of 20mm.

If fuel capacity was increased he doesn't mention it, and that would be uncharacteristic of him. One thing he does say is that on trials USS New Jersey showed fuel consumption equivalent to a cruising radius of 20,150 miles at 15 kts and 4,830 miles at full power.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Best choice for 45000 tons battleship

Post by alecsandros »

Dave Saxton wrote:A quad Bofers weighed as much as a typical semi truck? Really? Even if that's correct it's still only about 285 tons for the full compliment.
but also extra fuel.
Ah,
... IIRC, the ammo supply for 40mm and 20mm in Iowa class was pretty large - that would add weight.

@Steve
I may be mixing things up - he wrote in the USS South Dakota chapter about the need for fast battleships to carry extra fuel. He then exemplifies with Massachussets carrying about 1000 tons extra fuel than she was expected to. I don't see how Iowa's displacement would increase by 3000 tons without extra fuel...
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Best choice for 45000 tons battleship

Post by Thorsten Wahl »

Bofors quad -USN Gun Mount And Turret Catalog, Ordnance Pamphlet 1112, 1945 26600 lbs ~12.1 metric tons


http://hnsa.org/doc/guncat/cat-0020.htm

ammo 2000 rounds per barrel AFAIK

additional weights crew for gun and provisions
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Best choice for 45000 tons battleship

Post by alecsandros »

Thorsten Wahl wrote:Bofors quad -USN Gun Mount And Turret Catalog, Ordnance Pamphlet 1112, 1945 26600 lbs ~12.1 metric tons


http://hnsa.org/doc/guncat/cat-0020.htm

ammo 2000 rounds per barrel AFAIK

additional weights crew for gun and provisions
Thorsten,
IIRC the 1945 quad mount was a modified version of the 1942 quad, which weighed around 31000 pounds.

2000 rounds = 1800kg.
1800 x 80 = 144 tons for the 40mm rounds alone.
pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: Best choice for 45000 tons battleship

Post by pgollin »

.

Anson was a ridiculous weight by the end of the war - the DNC did a study and found that the main increase in weight in the last two years of war was "unknown" !

DNC could trace what was officially in the "A and A's" - but that was the minority of weight.

First an awful lot of the official weight gain was in ancilliary equipment just "associated" with what is going in, things like cables, enclosures, switches, conduit, junction boxes, etc.... Extra electronics and armament were especially prone to having a large additional weight gain associated with the basic weight.

And yet. The majority of late-war weight was never really accounted for (much like most mid-life weight gain for humans). Anson had a "do not exceed" weight imposed and post war a serious weight reduction exercise regime was imposed on the other surviving KGVs not because they needed it as such but because it was assumed that if a conflict arose there would be major additions to be added to make them war ready.

.
User avatar
tameraire01
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 11:56 pm

Re: Best choice for 45000 tons battleship

Post by tameraire01 »

Vanguard is very close to the weight limit. At 45200 tons standard. The turrets would have to be changed for me from the four twin turrets to four triple turrets with 15 inch guns.
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas. Joseph Stalin
Mostlyharmless
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Best choice for 45000 tons battleship

Post by Mostlyharmless »

We can logically choose a best battleship design for some displacement or for some price but to make a sensible choice it would be very helpful to know when and where the ship will operate and what threats it will face.

If we search the internet for best battleships, the most popular choices are the South Dakota and related Iowa designs while Bismarck and Tirpitz have a dedicated following. However, let us imagine that history had taken a few different twists.

Off Guadalcanal South Dakota received a number of hits from Kirishima, Atago and Takao. Most of the shells from Kirishima were nose fused HE or anti-aircraft shells because Kirishima had loaded her guns to bombard Henderson Field rather than to fight a surface action. Only Hit 26 may have been a 14 inch Type 91 AP fired late in the action. However, what if Hit 25 had been a 14 inch AP shell?

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/ ... html#Hit25 has “An estimated 8-inch AP projectile hit the shell at the second deck, frame 109-1/2. The projectile pierced the shell at a seam between a 25-pound and a 50-pound STS strake, furrowed through the 20-pound STS, second deck, pierced 10-pound longitudinal torpedo bulkhead No. 2 and penetrated the 12.2-inch longitudinal armor bulkhead to a depth of 7 to 8 inches at the top edge of the armor.”

If a 14 inch shell had hit at the same place, it might have retained its cap until it hit the 12.2-inch armor (unlike the actual 8 inch shell). It still might have been stopped by the main deck behind but the shell could have deflected down a little and penetrated.

The South Dakota design aimed at the shortest possible citadel and one of the features was that the secondary magazines were above the machinery. A fire amongst the 6,000 5 inch shells (assuming full magazines) would have been very unpleasant, especially as the magazines were above the waterline and thus relatively hard to flood.

Now assume a much bigger divergence. Let us keep the Anglo-Japanese Alliance (don't ask how) and have Nagato in place of either Rodney on 27th May 1941 or, ignoring the problems of speed, Hood on 24th May. A lucky first hit from Nagato could have penetrated Bismarck's magazine and greatly changed Bismarck's reputation.

In detail, at 20,000 metres range, a shell from Nagato's 41 cm guns would fall with 495 mps velocity and at an angle of 17.5 degrees according to http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_161-45_3ns.htm. To hit 3.5 metres below the waterline at 17.5 degrees angle of fall, implies that shell struck the water 11.1 metres short of the ship and travelled 11.64 metres through the water. 11.64 metres is 28.4 times 41 cm. The rough estimate was that a Type 91 shell lost half its velocity over 100 calibres. Thus we can be fairly confident that the shell would have at least 300 mps velocity on hitting Bismarck's hull and that the total time since hitting the water and initiating the fuse would be shorter than 0.035 seconds. A German or American shell might explode at that point and a British shell would perhaps have already exploded (as a British actually exploded close to the 45 mm bulkhead, we are obviously either making the shell go unnecessarily deep below an undamaged Bismarck's 2.2 metres of armour or underestimating the velocity). A Japanese Type 91 shell had a delay of 0.4 seconds. It would continue until stopped and it might easily stop after deflecting off one of Bismarck's own shells.

The take home message is that WW2 battleships could easily not be designed to survive all plausible threats.
Matrose71
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Best choice for 45000 tons battleship

Post by Matrose71 »

tameraire01 wrote:Vanguard is very close to the weight limit. At 45200 tons standard. The turrets would have to be changed for me from the four twin turrets to four triple turrets with 15 inch guns.
How should this be possible? Three triple turrets perhaps but 4 triple turrets with the same weight is impossible or the turrets have armour like Coke cans.

To me there are two options.

A Battleship optimized for long range battle, so I would choose an enlarged SoD Class, with a longer hull and more speed, clearly advanced between 20000-30000yards or a Battleship more optimized for short to mid range battles between 15000-25000yards. Here I would choose a BS class with a shorter citadel and three triple turrets with the 40,6cm L52 (punch is to be replaced by nothing but more punch). If there is room for an other 1200ts, I would choose a 4 shaft design with a mixed machinery, 2 x 4 MAN 12 42/58 on the outer shafts with 73000 WPS and 8 Wagner boilers with two turbines on the inside shafts with 100000 WPS, so in summary 1730000 WPS, but more important 73000 WPS for Diesel cruising up to 24-25kn.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Best choice for 45000 tons battleship

Post by alecsandros »

Mostlyharmless wrote:
In detail, at 20,000 metres range, a shell from Nagato's 41 cm guns would fall with 495 mps velocity and at an angle of 17.5 degrees according to http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_161-45_3ns.htm. To hit 3.5 metres below the waterline at 17.5 degrees angle of fall, implies that shell struck the water 11.1 metres short of the ship and travelled 11.64 metres through the water. 11.64 metres is 28.4 times 41 cm. The rough estimate was that a Type 91 shell lost half its velocity over 100 calibres. Thus we can be fairly confident that the shell would have at least 300 mps velocity on hitting Bismarck's hull and that the total time since hitting the water and initiating the fuse would be shorter than 0.035 seconds. A German or American shell might explode at that point and a British shell would perhaps have already exploded (as a British actually exploded close to the 45 mm bulkhead, we are obviously either making the shell go unnecessarily deep below an undamaged Bismarck's 2.2 metres of armour or underestimating the velocity). A Japanese Type 91 shell had a delay of 0.4 seconds. It would continue until stopped and it might easily stop after deflecting off one of Bismarck's own shells.

The take home message is that WW2 battleships could easily not be designed to survive all plausible threats.
... Bismarck's powder magazines were not located in the same positions as US and Japanese battleships. The theoretical shell you are presenting would not hit the magazines.
Not to mention there were only 1 or 2 Type91 shells in the entire war that actualy worked as designed...

South Dakota's powder magazines were deep inside the ship and could not be reached by 8" or 14" APC shells at the ranges in existence during the second battle for Guadalcanal, even if they would perforate the main armored belt.
Post Reply