Hood v Vittorio Veneto

[Maciej]

KGV was smaller to Littorio ( or Bismarck ) by significant value. In my opinion comparing Littorio ( or Bismarck ) to Lion is more fair.

... That is a common misconception. In 1940, KGV displaced about 38500 tons standard and 43500 tons full load. By 1943, Duke of York displaced around 40.000 tons standard and 45500 tons full load.

Littorio displaced 40500tons standard in 1941 and about 42000 tons in 1943 (and about 46500tons full load).

I’m not big fun of Garzke&Dulin book, but I simply have it in front of me
So
KGV – standard 38 000 tons, trial 41 600, full load 42 200 full load ( in 1944, 44500 tons )
Bismarck – trial 44 730 tons ( how it compared to British trial? ), full load 49 600.

Littorio – standard 40 700, 43 100 normal, 45 000 full load.

With have 2 700 to 3 000 tons difference in standard displacement. In full load Bismarck much larger thanks to fuel capacity, I'm not sure if direct comparizon will be fair.
No problem? Misconception?

[dunmunro]

KGV was smaller to Littorio ( or Bismarck ) by significant value. In my opinion comparing Littorio ( or Bismarck ) to Lion is more fair.

... That is a common misconception. In 1940, KGV displaced about 38500 tons standard and 43500 tons full load. By 1943, Duke of York displaced around 40.000 tons standard and 45500 tons full load.

Littorio displaced 40500tons standard in 1941 and about 42000 tons in 1943 (and about 46500tons full load).

I’m not big fun of Garzke&Dulin book, but I simply have it in front of me
So
KGV – standard 38 000 tons, trial 41 600, full load 42 200 full load ( in 1944, 44500 tons )
Bismarck – trial 44 730 tons ( how it compared to British trial? ), full load 49 600.

Littorio – standard 40 700, 43 100 normal, 45 000 full load.

With have 2 700 to 3 000 tons difference in standard displacement. In full load Bismarck much larger thanks to fuel capacity, I'm not sure if direct comparizon will be fair.
No problem? Misconception?

According to R&R, in 1940, KGV displaced 36727 tons standard and 42076 tons full load. The difference between standard and full load is 5349 tons and is made up by bunker fuel, diesel, avgas, stove coal, lube oil, fresh water, feed water, and water protection (as defined by the naval limitation treaties) and some of these are extra consumable stores above that in the initial design.

[alecsandros]

According to R&R, in 1940, KGV displaced 36727 tons standard and 42076 tons full load. The difference between standard and full load is 5349 tons and is made up by bunker fuel, diesel, avgas, stove coal, lube oil, fresh water, feed water, and water protection (as defined by the naval limitation treaties) and by some extra consumable stores.

HMS Howe displaced 39500 tons standard and 45500 tons full load in 1943. That's within 2000 tons of Littorio at standard load, and 500 tons in full load, or ~between 2% to 5% in percentage points.

Per unit of length, Howe displaced 39500 tons / 227meters = 174 tons per meter at standard load and 200 tons / meter at full load.

Bismarck standard displacement is usualy given at 41700 tons in 1941, including 1800 tons water in it's TDS system. Per unit of length, Bismarck was at 41700 / 250 meters = 167 tons at standard load. This greatly increases to 200 tons / meter at full load.

[Maciej]

yes, version of 1943 with war aditions of one ship, with 1941 versions of other ship.

What was displacement of Tirpitz in 1943?

[dunmunro]

According to R&R, in 1940, KGV displaced 36727 tons standard and 42076 tons full load. The difference between standard and full load is 5349 tons and is made up by bunker fuel, diesel, avgas, stove coal, lube oil, fresh water, feed water, and water protection (as defined by the naval limitation treaties) and by some extra consumable stores.

HMS Howe displaced 39500 tons standard and 45500 tons full load in 1943. That's within 2000 tons of Littorio at standard load, and 500 tons in full load, or ~between 2% to 5% in percentage points.

Per unit of length, Howe displaced 39500 tons / 227meters = 174 tons per meter at standard load and 200 tons / meter at full load.

Bismarck standard displacement is usualy given at 41700 tons in 1941, including 1800 tons water in it's TDS system. Per unit of length, Bismarck was at 41700 / 250 meters = 167 tons at standard load. This greatly increases to 200 tons / meter at full load.

Koop states that Bismarck designed displacement was 41700 tons without any liquids on board. Adding fuel, lubeoil and water brought the displacement to 50152 tons.

This website:
http://www.kbismarck.com/bsweights.html

gives Bismarck's actual displacement as 43285 tons standard and 52643 tons full load.

Howe displaced 44500 tons full load (extreme deep) in August 1942 according to inclining trials.

[Maciej]

And there were many additions during war, including so many AA guns, that they had 100+ 40 mm guns ( both pom poms + Bofors )
And in 1945 was order given to not exceed 45 000 tons full load.

[Alan Raven]

Its been nearly forty years since I wrote anything on this subject. Maciej's notes bring back memories.
Out of small interest, The Prince of Wales, in company with the Hood, while making for the Denmark Strait, attained a sustained speed of 32.5 knots on a deep displacement of 42500 tons. The SHP was a little over 128000.

[alecsandros]

Koop states that Bismarck designed displacement was 41700 tons without any liquids on board. Adding fuel, lubeoil and water brought the displacement to 50152 tons.

41700 tons is with water in the TDS, about 1800 tons, which is not included in liquids on board, as it was a part of the torpedo protection system.
The link you posted has weight breakdowns on metric tons.

Howe displaced 44500 tons full load (extreme deep) in August 1942 according to inclining trials.

Howe and all the the KGVs were around 39500-40.000 tons in 1943, and over 45000 tons full load.

Tirpitz in 1943 was probably around 42500 tons standard, and 52500 tons full load.

[dunmunro]

Koop states that Bismarck designed displacement was 41700 tons without any liquids on board. Adding fuel, lubeoil and water brought the displacement to 50152 tons.

41700 tons is with water in the TDS, about 1800 tons, which is not included in liquids on board, as it was a part of the torpedo protection system.
The link you posted has weight breakdowns on metric tons.

Howe displaced 44500 tons full load (extreme deep) in August 1942 according to inclining trials.

Howe and all the the KGVs were around 39500-40.000 tons in 1943, and over 45000 tons full load.

Tirpitz in 1943 was probably around 42500 tons standard, and 52500 tons full load.

I converted the weights to long tons.

No 41700 tons is not with water in the TDS.

[alecsandros]

No 41700 tons is not with water in the TDS.

I kindly ask you to search your own posts from about 3 years ago on this forum and see what you were told on that.

[dunmunro]

No 41700 tons is not with water in the TDS.

I kindly ask you to search your own posts from about 3 years ago on this forum and see what you were told on that.

That's a lot of stuff to go through. In any event the standard displacement calculation on this website should be enough to show the actual differences in weight between KGV, Bismarck, and VV.


I found this info in G&D, Axis Battleships, regarding RM VV armour array testing:

The external armour plate was designed to tear off the false cap of an armour piercing shell while the main armour structure broke up the shell. In tests, the system functioned as designed, when a 381mm projectile was fired from a limiting range of 16,000 meters. The armoured splinter protection bulkheads contained fragments resulting from this projectile, but some shells did manage to penetrate the belt armor system before breaking up. Similar tests indicated that the 70-mm outer plating was sufficient to withstand the effects of the detonation of a 203-mm high-explosive shell.

It sounds like G&D may have the shell size confused, as per Okun, but this provides a clearer picture and validates the RN test results.

[alecsandros]

That's a lot of stuff to go through. In any event the standard displacement calculation on this website should be enough to show the actual differences in weight between KGV, Bismarck, and VV.

Bismarck's TDS was built with the liquid part as an integral, and essential component. The TDS wouldn't work without the ~ 1800 tons of water inside it, so the standard displacement included the water in the TDS. WIthout it, the ship would be around 40.000 tons, or slightly less. (but it is just for theoretical discussions, as the ship could not function without the liquid)

The external armour plate was designed to tear off the false cap of an armour piercing shell while the main armour structure broke up the shell. In tests, the system functioned as designed, when a 381mm projectile was fired from a limiting range of 16,000 meters. The armoured splinter protection bulkheads contained fragments resulting from this projectile, but some shells did manage to penetrate the belt armor system before breaking up. Similar tests indicated that the 70-mm outer plating was sufficient to withstand the effects of the detonation of a 203-mm high-explosive shell.

Who knows ? G. Elder wrote that there were many more tests done, but information about them did not survive or did not surface.
The tests of VV armor array are not easily comparable. My suspicion is that RMB received documentation from Ansaldo and put up their tests using already conceptualized work done by Umberto Pugliese. What is important is that the theory was tested in Italy and in Germany. They arived at similar results*.

British tests did not produce conceptualized work to be cross-referenced with other conceptualized work. So far I've seen examples of tests organized for various thicknesses, shells and distances, but no attempt at a formula to encompass them.

*However, the final practice in building own battleships was different in Germany then in Italy. The Germans used one very thick main plate in front, and one thinner plate (Wh) behind (Bismarck - 320mm KC + 110mm Wh). The Italians did exactly the opposite (80mm homogenous + 280mm KC).

[Maciej]

Standard displacement was something not used by Germans in any practical sense, it has to be calculated.
data 1940/41
Full load displacement of Bismarck ~53 000 ( actually a bit more ). Fuel, feed water, gas for planes and so one 9 900 tons ( say 10 000 )
So displacement 43 000. Fiquids in SPS 1800 tons - so standard displacement ~41 200 tons ( actually something like 400-500 tons more, so fit quite well with 41700 tons standard )

KGV - full load displacement 42600 ton. Liquids 5200 tons. So standard ~37400, lets say 5000 tons ( to avoid preference of KGV ), so 37500.

Difference ~3 700 to 4 000 tons ( more or less ), in Standard displacement. In full load over 10 000. ( remember I removed from full load of Bismarck more than should, to avoid imputation of overestimation of Bismarck's displacement, so in reality it was closer to 4500 tons )
In the same point of time, excluding war additions of AA guns, radars, splinter protection and so one.

If wee allow comparizons of configuration with different years, soon we can "prove" that US South Dakota or North Carolina was actually larger than Bismarck ( take 1945 configuration of SD or NC and compare with Bismarck of 1941 - quite easy ).

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi,
from E.Bagnasco, here the displacement values for the Littorio class ships:

Standard: 41167 VV, 41377 Littorio, 41650 Roma.
Normal Load: 43624 VV, 43835 Littorio, 44050 Roma.
Full Load: 45752 VV, 45963 Littorio, 46215 Roma.
Measured based on draft at extreme load : 46593 VV (31/12/1942), 46000 Littorio (01/01/1943), 46203 Roma (01/01/1943). This last set of values is from the RM "Quarterly Efficiency Reports" of the three ships.

They are very similar to (slightly more than) Garzke&Dulin values kindly posted by Maciej above.
For Littorio's (as well as for Bismarck's), the liquids around the Pugliese's inner cylinder are integral part of the UW protection system. They are not included in standard displacement.

The displacement values did not change significantly during the life of the ships (additions of few light AA armament, compensated basically by the disembarkation of service boats).

Bye, Alberto

[Maciej]

Thank You.
BTW what was increase of light AA guns on Tirpitz?
On allied battleships considerable. On Tirpitz? I remember many 20 mm guns, others?
What was weight increase?