HMS Anson vs USS Washington

[Wordy]

Hi all
Who do we think would win between the two? both ships have the same speed, and roughly the same displacement. Obviously Washington had a bigger main armament, but I'm not sure about armour(still learning about the verious thicknesses, angle steel types etc).

[Dave Saxton]

but I'm not sure about armour(still learning about the verious thicknesses, angle steel types etc).

In terms of protection from shell fire Anson was superior. Washington was designed against 14" guns, while KGV appear to be designed against Nelson's 16" gun between 20km and 30km. Nonetheless, Anson will be shooting 14" shells at Washington, while receiving 16" shells in return.

The main belt of Anson was thicker (15" vs 12") of much higher quality, and extended deeper (less vunerable to shells passing below the belt). Washington's main belt had more slope but this hardly compensates for the rather poor quality.

In terms of deck protection, Anson's protection was also superior. Washington's deck protection calculates to ~ 115-120mm effective thickness, while Anson's was 129mm over the machinery and 152mm over the magazines. British homogenous armour contained molybdenum while American STS did not.

The British and Americans held different views about how much armour was required to protect the main battery. This may be due the poor quality of the American face hardened plate. They were forced to substitute the heavy face hardened plates with thick homogenous plates which are less effective. The British face plates were 325mm (not including the backing plate which was of negligable significance) albeit declined a few degrees. The roof plate was 124mm (not counting backing plate) homogenous armour. Barbets were 330mm. On Washington the face plate was 406mm (including backing plate) homogenous armour and angled back at a significant angle. Roof plates were 180mm total homogenous armour. Barbetts were 406mm.

I would give Washington a slight advantage in terms of firecontrol.

If this is a post 1942 battle Washington would also have an advantage in firecontrol radar. Washington was fitted with a Mk8 to the aft position during 1943 but retained a MK3 at the foretop position until its state side repairs from the Feb 44 collision.

[alecsandros]

@Dave
As an addition, the con towers had different degrees of protection: ANson's had 100mm thick sides while Washington's was 406mm thick...
The complexities of the 14" quad turrets could also hamper the output of the British ship.

On the other hand, on deep loads for both ships, Anson would probably have a 1.5-2kts speed advantage (27.5 - 28kts vs ~26.5kts)...

[Dave Saxton]

@Dave
As an addition, the con towers had different degrees of protection: ANson's had 100mm thick sides while Washington's was 406mm thick......

Another area outside the main the citadel which received significant armour protection on US designs was the stearing gear rooms. For conning tower and stearing gear sections the USN, like the Germans, provided significant armour protection. In keeping with a strict AoN principle, the British and most others now considered providing such heavy protection to such areas not worthwhile.

[tommy303]

The reasons for the British dispensing with a heavily armoured conning tower are several fold. For one, it was felt that the weight of the conning tower could be best utilized elsewhere on the ship particularly when designers were trying their best to keep within treaty weight limits. Secondly, British heavy units were normally conned from the unprotected or only splinter proofed compass platform anyways as the view from the compass platform was generally superior to that afforded from the conning tower. There was therefore little reason to provide massive protection for key personnel if they were not going to use it. Consequently only the quartermaster at the helm and a few others occupied the actual armoured conning tower.

[alecsandros2]

............ Secondly, British heavy units were normally conned from the unprotected or only splinter proofed compass platform anyways as the view from the compass platform was generally superior to that afforded from the conning tower. There was therefore little reason to provide massive protection for key personnel if they were not going to use it. Consequently only the quartermaster at the helm and a few others occupied the actual armoured conning tower.

It is interesting to think about the necessity of a heavily armored con.
The British usualy kept their con towers light, as a APC hit would probably not explode inside if passing thorugh lightly armored walls.
On the other hand, not armoring them meant the con towers were vulnerable to even light cruiser fire, and certainly to heavy cruiser fire.

The direct hit received Prince of Wales in the con tower showed that the risk of a single hit whipping out the entire command crew from the con were severe...
Also, South Dakota's captain certainly was very happy with his 16" of armor on the con, during the pounding his ship received at Guadalcanal...

====
All in all, my impression is that the weight of the armor allocated to the con tower was modest compared to the advantages it offered during a prolonged (and intense) battle...

[alecsandros]

............For one, it was felt that the weight of the conning tower could be best utilized elsewhere on the ship particularly when designers were trying their best to keep within treaty weight limits. .

Perhaps,
but the weight of the armor of the con was rather modest, and if the situation required it, the command personnell would certainly prefer to be in a safe position rather than on the exposed platform(s).

The case of South Dakota at Guadalcanal comes to mind here, as the 406mm of con armor certainly saved a lot of people that night...
But one can also make a case about... Prince of Wales... which showed that even a non-detonating APC hit could kill everyone inside the con [cmdr Leech and the officer that got away were extremely luky to escape being killed by fragments of the 380mm shell's windscreen which flew around inside at ~ 400mps...]

[dunmunro]

............For one, it was felt that the weight of the conning tower could be best utilized elsewhere on the ship particularly when designers were trying their best to keep within treaty weight limits. .

Perhaps,
but the weight of the armor of the con was rather modest, and if the situation required it, the command personnell would certainly prefer to be in a safe position rather than on the exposed platform(s).

The case of South Dakota at Guadalcanal comes to mind here, as the 406mm of con armor certainly saved a lot of people that night...
But one can also make a case about... Prince of Wales... which showed that even a non-detonating APC hit could kill everyone inside the con [cmdr Leech and the officer that got away were extremely luky to escape being killed by fragments of the 380mm shell's windscreen which flew around inside at ~ 400mps...]

Leach, Gatch, Lee, Davis and AFAIK, Lindeman and Lutjens, all commanded their ships from their unarmoured navigation bridges. SoDak's CT was not hit during the battle at Guadalcanal. Fully armoured CTs weighed about 500 tons, IIRC, which is a considerable amount of topweight.

[alecsandros]

............For one, it was felt that the weight of the conning tower could be best utilized elsewhere on the ship particularly when designers were trying their best to keep within treaty weight limits. .

Perhaps,
but the weight of the armor of the con was rather modest, and if the situation required it, the command personnell would certainly prefer to be in a safe position rather than on the exposed platform(s).

Leach, Gatch, Lee, Davis and AFAIK, Lindeman and Lutjens, all commanded their ships from their unarmoured navigation bridges. SoDak's CT was not hit during the battle at Guadalcanal. Fully armoured CTs weighed about 500 tons, IIRC, which is a considerable amount of topweight.

Note my emphasis.

Where does the 500t figure come from ? I find it quite large...

[MikeBrough]

Where does the 500t figure come from ? I find it quite large...

Burt has HMS Hood's conning tower weighing 900 tons of which 600 tons was armour.

[alecsandros]

Where does the 500t figure come from ? I find it quite large...

Burt has HMS Hood's conning tower weighing 900 tons of which 600 tons was armour.

Bismarck's con had about 450 tons of armor, and that including the main armored communication tube, which went all the way down beneath the panzer deck (with 220mm thick KC n/A walls).

Richelieu's con had about 400 tons of armor.

Veneto about 300 tons.

Both Bismarck and Richelieu had amongst the most heavily defended con towers of the battleships of WW2