H class vs Iowa

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
Djoser
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:45 am
Location: Key West Florida USA

Re: H class vs Iowa

Post by Djoser » Mon Jun 07, 2010 5:41 am

The Bismarck was damned close to 50 K fully loaded.

Of course the SD was probably a lot closer to 40 K fully loaded than it was to 35 K, we shouldn't forget that.

We all know the treaty battleships went a little over, and to get around the treaty limitations they sure didn't count it at full load!

Still there is a considerable size advantage to 10,000 tons, which were assuredly not thrown away, other than maybe the inefficient secondary armament design (a lot less wasted than 10 K!)

I don't know enough about the Montana to be sure, but I would bet they would be a bit more than a match for H-39. But then again the H-39s would have been hitting the scene at the same time as Iowas, if Germany kept at her more ambitious naval planning. So what might they have produced to go up against the Montanas?

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

Re: H class vs Iowa

Post by boredatwork » Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:28 am

Djoser wrote:The Bismarck was damned close to 50 K fully loaded.
Hence my confusion - if Karl is refering to Bismark's fully loaded weight (instead of H's standard displacement) to make comparisons with weight as a direct measure of ability then at least compare apples to apples. SD was closer to 44k fully loaded so a 6,000 "size advantage."

However IMO making such superficial comparisons is a flawed practice anyways because different nations, different design priorities, different technological capabilities render any such comparison meaningless. And to head off the inevitable counter arguements... if anyone thinks that 6k extra tons automatically makes Bismarck a much better ship than SD then by that logic 6k should make Iowa a much better ship than Bismarck.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4151
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: H class vs Iowa

Post by alecsandros » Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:47 am

Hello Michael,

The South Dakota was ~ 35500 tons empy weight, while Bismarck was ~ 42000 tons. So the empty weight difference is ~ 6500 tons.
Tirpitz was even larger, with ~ 1500 tons, I believe.
Iowa was ~ 45000 tons empty weight, so 3000 tons larger than Bismarck and 1500 tons than Tirpitz.

In this specific comparison, the extra size meant more compartments, more reserve buoyancy and more redundancy being implemented into the systems, leading to a superior ability to mantain a fight even if badly damaged.
It did come with some drawbacks though - like offeriing a bigger target for the enemy :D

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: H class vs Iowa

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:53 am

boreatwork,

Sorry, the way I wrote it was confusing. I was refereing to Bismarck at full load, the 51K tons. Of course the treaty carrier escorts were over the 35 K ton when they were fully loaded. Still there are some 10 K ton of difference amongst them.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

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

Re: H class vs Iowa

Post by boredatwork » Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:36 pm

alecsandros wrote:Hello Michael,

The South Dakota was ~ 35500 tons empy weight, while Bismarck was ~ 42000 tons. So the empty weight difference is ~ 6500 tons.
Tirpitz was even larger, with ~ 1500 tons, I believe.
Iowa was ~ 45000 tons empty weight, so 3000 tons larger than Bismarck and 1500 tons than Tirpitz.
Again a minor quible but, afaik, you are comparing the as built displacements for the German ships with the as designed displacements for the Americans. If you want to be "fair" the completed weights for both Iowa & SD classes were considerably in excess of their designed displacements (~37k and ~48k IIRC).
In this specific comparison, the extra size meant more compartments, more reserve buoyancy and more redundancy being implemented into the systems, leading to a superior ability to mantain a fight even if badly damaged.
It did come with some drawbacks though - like offeriing a bigger target for the enemy :D
That may be but but all of the statements you list are not directly dependant upon size but rather design philosophy and thus size is an irrelavent unit of measure:

Yamato was approximately twice the size of Nagato but only had ~10% more compartments. (not that numbers of compartments were directly proportional to capability either)

South Dakoda as built was ~3000k less than Hood as built and yet had greater reserve buoyancy.

Richelieu and SD were nominally the same weight and yet SD had more redundancy in some areas (3 turrets instead of 2 for example)



Or to put it another way it would be like arguing Iowa was a superior ship because she had 4 shaft to Bismarck's 3 and thus was faster: The Iowa did have 4 shafts and was faster but that doesn't mean number of shafts is a yardstick by which a ship's speed can be compared.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4151
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: H class vs Iowa

Post by alecsandros » Mon Jun 07, 2010 3:35 pm

boredatwork wrote:


That may be but but all of the statements you list are not directly dependant upon size but rather design philosophy and thus size is an irrelavent unit of measure:
Well, I thought you were going to say something like that and that's why I said "in this specific comparison" :P

Of course, size alone isn't a good indicator of battleship capabilities...

Djoser
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:45 am
Location: Key West Florida USA

Re: H class vs Iowa

Post by Djoser » Tue Jun 08, 2010 7:03 am

So, getting back on track :negative: what would the design displacement of H-39 been? I know I have seen it, but I forget.

Perhaps I should look it up myself. I do think displacement should be taken into account when efficient use of the weight is clearly indicated--such as the Bismarck (other than secondary armament of course). I'm quite impressed with the SDs, actually--for 35-38,000 tons to pack so much punch and resilience is quite impressive.

But the 'all or nothing' armor scheme left a lot of ship ready to get blown to hell if the opponent got the range first and started rapid fire, regardless of the difficulty of piercing the protection arrangements. The SD got off easy at Guadalcanal, I think a lot of the hits made were smaller caliber. If that fuckup had happened to the ship, say at DS, it would have been all over for SD.


OK will somebody tell this Djoser guy this is supposed to be H class vs Iowa??
:stubborn:

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4151
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: H class vs Iowa

Post by alecsandros » Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:43 am

:D :D
Indeed, South Dakota could have gotten it way worse at Guadalcanal (especialy if the CAs and DDs would have had their torpedo tubes reloaded...)

I don't know much about H-39. I think they were designed at ~ 65000 tons, with 8 x 406mm guns in 4 x 2 turrets. The armor would probably consist of 350-380mm KC n/A face-hardened, extending more underwater than on Bismarck. Don't know about horizontal protection.

Cheers,
Alex

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1250
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: H class vs Iowa

Post by Herr Nilsson » Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:24 am

Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

Djoser
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:45 am
Location: Key West Florida USA

Re: H class vs Iowa

Post by Djoser » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:09 pm

Wow, thanks.

62,000 tons, thats a big ship!

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: H class vs Iowa

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Jun 08, 2010 8:38 pm

Djoser:

Wow, thanks.

62,000 tons, thats a big ship!
Indeed. Only the Yamato Class could compare to it! With a space array armor she would have been, as Yamato's super AoN, inmune to the 16" of the USN inventory, light or heavy.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

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

Re: H class vs Iowa

Post by lwd » Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:26 am

Montana?

Post Reply