Vanguard and Bismarck

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Vanguard and Bismarck

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:08 pm

I have problems in understanding british armour efficiency diagrams especially the vertical protection.
obviously they greatly understate the armour penetration performance of all guns versus vertical armour.
line in red minimum performance(Perforation, projectile whole and fit to burst) of the 38 cm Psgr according german fireeffect tables versus 14" FH armour

(even the performance of their own projectiles is not in line with armour testing.)

to make a difference; for horizontal penetration performance of the german gun there was good agreement between german fireeffect tables and british expectations in the upper diagram.

Image

the armour efficiency diagram for Tirpitz completely ignores the additional protection provided by the scarp for vertical protection and the upper deck for horizontal protection

Image
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

Iranon
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 9:23 am

Re: Vanguard and Bismarck

Postby Iranon » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:34 pm

These graphs seemed very strange to me as well. Also striking:

According to them, the WW1-vintage 15" outperforming both Nelson's 16" and KGV's 14" guns.
Bismarck vs. Queen Elizabeth with almost identical immune zones against one another, apparently the Germans wasted 20 years and a tremendous amount of metal.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Vanguard and Bismarck

Postby paul.mercer » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:28 pm

Gentlemen,
I often wonder why Vanguard was not fitted with 8 x16" to make her more comparable with US ships. I realize that the 15" gun was a tried and tested weapon, but was it because the RN knew that the battleship era was over and so just fitted whatever they had available at the time?

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Vanguard and Bismarck

Postby dunmunro » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:54 am

paul.mercer wrote:Gentlemen,
I often wonder why Vanguard was not fitted with 8 x16" to make her more comparable with US ships. I realize that the 15" gun was a tried and tested weapon, but was it because the RN knew that the battleship era was over and so just fitted whatever they had available at the time?


Pretty much. They recycled 4 x 15in twin turrets. No such turrets existed in 16in calibre. Ideally Vanguard would have mounted 9 x 16in in three turrets or 12 x 14in in quad turrets, but that would have involved restarting/extending battleship turret and gun production and there simply wasn't the money and spare industrial capacity for that.

Iranon
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 9:23 am

Re: Vanguard and Bismarck

Postby Iranon » Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:12 am

The British put some credible effort into designing new battleships towards the end of WW2, which would likely carried 16" guns (they considered 14" and 15" as well though). So that's not it.

They had spare 15" lying around, and considered it an excellent weapon despite its age. Their armour efficiency diagrams wrt Tirpitz had it as their best deck penetrator, and inferior to the 16" in belt penetration only at rather high obliquities. It was also their most accurate gun.

Since guns were the bottleneck for new battleship construction, Vanguard made a lot of sense even though some aspects weren't ideal (e.g., 4x2 wouldn't have been their preferred gun layout at the time).


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests