1939 Battleship Forces: US Navy vs Royal Navy

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: 1939 Battleship Forces: USN v RN, Who Would Win?

Postby Bgile » Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:49 am

How do you cross the T if the US just turns as you try to pull ahead?

I never understand why people think a speed advantage helps if both sides want to fight. It helps you run away and prevents the other guy from running away, but it doesn't help you cross his T. As long as he can maneuver and knows where you are, you can't do it.

User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: 1939 Battleship Forces: USN v RN, Who Would Win?

Postby paulcadogan » Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:50 pm

As I think about it, you're quite right. Even at Jutland it didn't work as the HSF simply did the kertwendung thing.

I was thinking that the Nelson, Rodney and R's remain off the beam, but still, that would subject them to overwhelming fire from the US line. The Brits would need many more ships for that to work. Also, having the BC's at the head of the British line as was the WW1 practice, might subject them to the heaviest US gunfire (presuming the Marylands lead the US line) risking a Jutland/DS-style catastrophe for them.
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: 1939 Battleship Forces: US Navy vs Royal Navy

Postby Bgile » Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:13 pm

It's possible that sort of maneuver would work if you had enough ships that were enough faster than the other guys because he would tend to get boxed in over time. But that assumes ships aren't getting beat up and dropping out and so on. I'm afraid the Hood would be by herself fairly quickly, and maybe fighting the lead US division. Who can say for sure? You'd have to game it and try various things.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: 1939 Battleship Forces: USN v RN, Who Would Win?

Postby RF » Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:15 am

paulcadogan wrote:
Overall, I can see it being a horrific confrontation with substantial losses on both sides.

Paul


I would certainly agree with this.

I had thought the US battleships had a greater speed than that quoted, if as argued the RN has overall advantage in speed and keeps the force cocentrated, then I think the advantage falls their way.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: 1939 Battleship Forces: US Navy vs Royal Navy

Postby Bgile » Mon Oct 05, 2009 3:30 pm

Remember the US would have a big firepower advantage, with 12 guns vs 8 guns in many cases.

User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: 1939 Battleship Forces: US Navy vs Royal Navy

Postby tommy303 » Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:46 pm

The following link has an article that seems pertinent to the discussion at hand:

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of ... 4hone.html

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: 1939 Battleship Forces: US Navy vs Royal Navy

Postby Bgile » Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:46 pm

tommy303 wrote:The following link has an article that seems pertinent to the discussion at hand:

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of ... 4hone.html


Hmmm ... but I think only if you are a member?

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: 1939 Battleship Forces: US Navy vs Royal Navy

Postby lwd » Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:05 pm

Let's take a look at the contenders (some of you proably know this by heart so my apologies if I'm boring you)
For Britain:
5 x QEs - 33,000 tons 8 x 15" guns
4 x Revenges - 28,000 tons 8 x 15" guns
2 x Nelsons - 34,000 tons 9 x 16" guns
Hood - 45,000 tons 8 x 15" guns
2 x Renown - 32,000 tons 6 x 15" guns

That's a total of:
14 ships massing 454,000 tons
92 15" guns and 9 16" guns
Single salvo throw weight 215,160 lbs

The US:
Arkansas (assume Wyoming can't be recommisioned as a BB in time - 27,000 tons 12 x 12" guns
2 x New Yorks - 27,200 tons 10 x 14" guns
2 x Nevadas - 27,500 tons 10 X 14" guns
2 x Pennsylvanias - 31,400 tons 12 x 14" guns
3 x New Mexicos - 32,000 tons 12 x 14" guns
2 x Tennessees - 32,000 tons 12 x 14" guns
3 x Colorados - 32,600 8 x 16" guns

That's a total of:
15 ships massing 457,000 tons
12 12" guns, 124 14" guns, and 24 16" guns
For a single salvo throw weight of 247,080

User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: 1939 Battleship Forces: US Navy vs Royal Navy

Postby paulcadogan » Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:59 pm

lwd wrote:5 x QEs - 33,000 tons 8 x 15" guns
4 x Revenges - 28,000 tons 8 x 15" guns


Though you've added details of displacement and weight of fire to what I had in my listing posted earlier - one small error - it would have been 4 QE's since the Queen Elizabeth herself was still under reconstruction in 1939. Assuming there was no war with Germany or it was prior to October 1939, Royal Oak would have been there making it 5 Revenges.

Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: 1939 Battleship Forces: US Navy vs Royal Navy

Postby lwd » Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:21 pm

paulcadogan wrote: ...Though you've added details of displacement and weight of fire to what I had in my listing posted earlier

Somehow I missed that post .... :oops:
- one small error - it would have been 4 QE's since the Queen Elizabeth herself was still under reconstruction in 1939. Assuming there was no war with Germany or it was prior to October 1939, Royal Oak would have been there making it 5 Revenges....

Thanks for the corrections. Certainly looks to me like a contest that luck could be the major factor in and if it's not it would likely be very bloody.

boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

Re: 1939 Battleship Forces: US Navy vs Royal Navy

Postby boredatwork » Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:10 pm

lwd wrote:14 ships massing 454,000 tons
92 15" guns and 9 16" guns
Single salvo throw weight 215,160 lbs


^Also looks like you're missing 9x16"

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: 1939 Battleship Forces: US Navy vs Royal Navy

Postby lwd » Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:22 pm

boredatwork wrote:
lwd wrote:14 ships massing 454,000 tons
92 15" guns and 9 16" guns
Single salvo throw weight 215,160 lbs


^Also looks like you're missing 9x16"

Good catch. I'm pretty sure I included them in the throw weight but will check that out as well.

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: 1939 Battleship Forces: USN v RN, Who Would Win?

Postby yellowtail3 » Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:40 pm

interesting thread. I think the USN would have had an advantage in a battleline shoot-out, due to most ships have better armor and more firepower. It we make it a race, instead of a battle, the RN wins, gaining about 5000 yards every hour.
paulcadogan wrote:Sorry RF, but Hood, Repulse & the reconstructed Renown would run rings around any of the US BB's in 1939.

The British QE's (23-24 knots) were all faster than their US counterparts (20-21 knots) too, plus Valiant and Warspite had been completely modernized, though the Queen Elizabeth was still under reconstruction in 1939 so would not be there to take part. Barham and Malaya's first reconstruction should have put them on par with any of the 1939 BB's in terms of "modern status". I believe most US BB's had their truly transforming modernization after Pearl Harbor.

the modernization of US battleline in the 30s was pretty substantial, about like that the RN gave three of the QEs. Nevada, Oklahoma, Arizona, Pennsy, and all three New Mexicos all got more armor (and more beam to support it, and better torpedo protection), better engines (to maintain speed in that beamier hull), improved guns (more elevation, heavier shells, tighter groups), modern fire control equipment, and better AA/secondary (5"/25cal). The Big Five were in line for modernization, but pressure of upcoming war pressures intervened(kind of like for Hood, pre-war).

paulcadogan wrote:The US advantage would be in sheer number of guns with most of their BB's having 10 or 12 14-inch vs the 6 or 8 15-inch of the British. Plus the US BB's all had their gun elevation increased and so could outrange the R's, the unreconstructed QE's and Repulse. Colorado & Maryland may have had an advantage over Nelson & Rodney in terms of more efficient turrets and better handling.---Overall, I can see it being a horrific confrontation with substantial losses on both sides.
Paul

yep.
Shift Colors... underway.

User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: 1939 Battleship Forces: US Navy vs Royal Navy

Postby neil hilton » Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:50 am

So far it looks like either side could win therefore a draw is most likley. Although it depends on the circumstances and luck as has been stated.

However, the RN 15" 42cal fitted on the RN BBs and BCs were all very accurate pieces. (Historical fact; one of the longest range hits of a moving target was by Warspite against Guilio Caesar, 27000 yds ish. Warspite did have radar at the time but I don't think it was actually tied in to the FC, it was just for spotting).

Also didn't the USN 14" turrets have a poor rate of fire? Having said that, more barrels gives a greater chance to hit.

So from this it boils down to would accuracy win over spray-n-pray (albeit a slow spray-n-pray)?

Thats a close call.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: 1939 Battleship Forces: US Navy vs Royal Navy

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:40 pm

neil hilton wrote:However, the RN 15" 42cal fitted on the RN BBs and BCs were all very accurate pieces.


the guns were comparatively often used, but the biggest ships sunk by this weapon were, as far as i know, 2 italian cruisers.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests