spicmart wrote:Which one was the better battleship design wise.
Excluded are "software" like radar, aircraft, anti aircraft capability, crew condition etc..
Just brute force and toughness, resistance against attacks (artillery and torpedos).
spicmart wrote:I wonder if a more powerful main armament could be installed on Vanguard.
So with the TDSs being equal Bismarck should have had the better overall protection.
Dave Saxton wrote:Bismarck's belt was 5 meters deep. It extended 2.3 meters below the waterline at operational displacements, but only 1.5 meters at konstruction displacement.
What is interesting is the POW's deeper belt did not prevent below the belt hull penetrations at Denmark Strait.
If the belt extends too far it can create complications for an effective TDS design.
There is an interesting discussion on the issue of below the belt penetrations here:
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... osa#p16683
I think that Bismarck's belt was deep enough in most normal situations and normal cases of shells landing short of the target. These hits can occur when the wave forms at certain speeds around the hull uncover the belt in some small specific areas though.
alecsandros wrote:It's debatable.
H-39 design had a deeper belt than Bismarck...
Mostlyharmless wrote:These depths of armour belts depend on the load. The belt on the King George V class was 23 ft 9 inches and at deep load was intended to have 9 ft 9 inches of armoured freeboard, which was calculated as a minimum so that the ship would not have to return to port immediately after the explosion of a bomb near the side above the main deck. Thus KGV should have 14 ft of submerged belt at full load although the thickness fell at the lower edge to 5.5 inches abreast the magazines and 4.5 inches abreast the machinery (actually the thickness was 220 lb and 180 lb). Vanguard was supposed to have a deeper belt than KGV although Wikipedia gives it a 24 ft belt which would only be 3 inches deeper. Of course, the actual fighting displacement would probably be with the oil tanks between 2/3 and 3/4 full, so the belt will not extend to 14 ft. deep, although most ships ended up displacing more than originally calculated. However, I suspect that it would be hard to lighten Vanguard enough that only 8 1/2 ft of belt were submerged unless you mean only 8 1/2 ft of full thickness before the belt started to taper down to about 110 mm.
Dave Saxton wrote:alecsandros wrote:It's debatable.
H-39 design had a deeper belt than Bismarck...
Indeed it would have. H-39 was an improved design. My figures for Bismarck are taken from the official KM drawings, so they are correct. In that light, Bismarck's belt depth does not compare unfavorably among its contemporaries.
Vanguard's belt extended 8 1/2 feet below the waterline or 5.6 meters. Thus Vanguard's belt is only 30cm (11.8") deeper than Bismarck's. How did KGV compare to Vanguard?
Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests