Ideal battleship design

[Bgile]

The SD class are fairly good from a BB v BB point of view, but the lower belt extension, while making the ship's citadel relatively invulnerable to diving shells it also makes the torpedo protection weaker than in the NC class.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile and Lutscha,

You know well that I disagree with the notion of the NC and SD classes as the best treaty ships (if the treaties allowed any BB to be "good enough"). The KGV were fairly more balanced designs with the handicap of the 14" guns that, we must admit, the American units surpass by far with their 16".

It is pretty clear that no one can come up with a really superior BB on a 35,000 ton displacement limit. That´s why the USN went to 50K + tons with the Iowa and even more with the Montanas.

[Bgile]

All ships are compromises of course and it depends on what you were trying to achieve. The USN didn't feel the Iowas were well protected against their own guns, but chose to use the gun anyway because it didn't represent a large displacement penalty over the 16"/45. They also had to deal with the 40mm and 20mm batteries which grew substantially as the ships neared completion, and that must have required compromises elsewhere.

In order to build a better protected design (Montana) they had to accept a larger displacement, no Panama canal accessibility, and lower speed. Even Montana would have grown as the AA battery grew. With respect to the secondary battery, the single 5"/54 mounts on the Midway class were not well liked and I expect the twins on Montana would have had some of the same problems, i.e. heavier ammo, tired loaders and slower rate of fire compared to the 5"/38.

[lwd]

..You know well that I disagree with the notion of the NC and SD classes as the best treaty ships (if the treaties allowed any BB to be "good enough"). The KGV were fairly more balanced designs with the handicap of the 14" guns that, we must admit, the American units surpass by far with their 16".....

Part of the problem is you keep equating "better" or "best" and "balanced". If I've got a balanced design that say has 8 15" guns and you have a design with the same armor and speed but carries 9x16" guns you have a better desing. It's not balanced but that's irrelevant.

[yellowtail3]

It is pretty clear that no one can come up with a really superior BB on a 35,000 ton displacement limit.

the USN came up with six battleships around 35K tons, all of which were superior to Bismarck & Tirpitz. I suppose they might be considered unbalanced compared to KGV - but they had longer legs, vastly better main battery, better secondary battery, and were prettier.

I'll take better over balanced, anytime...

[Karl Heidenreich]

Part of the problem is you keep equating "better" or "best" and "balanced". If I've got a balanced design that say has 8 15" guns and you have a design with the same armor and speed but carries 9x16" guns you have a better desing. It's not balanced but that's irrelevant.

Part of the problem here is to forget why the ship must be balanced. When you give more than equated to a certain area you are stealing from another, as you already know. In the case of these two types of ships this has been discussed vastly in another threads so I find it tiresome to continue and re engage in this. So far, aside from the pretty rethoric these two types: SD and NC were seriosly limited in their own defensive array which made them vulnerable to ships armed even with 14"guns.

[Bgile]

SD and NC were seriosly limited in their own defensive array which made them vulnerable to ships armed even with 14"guns.

The SDs had a reasonable immune zone against the 16"/45 with shells about the same weight as the British and Japanese used. Why do you then think they were vulnerable to 14" guns?

[yellowtail3]

SD and NC were seriosly limited in their own defensive array which made them vulnerable to ships armed even with 14"guns.

The SDs had a reasonable immune zone against the 16"/45 with shells about the same weight as the British and Japanese used. Why do you then think they were vulnerable to 14" guns?

not mention, an even more reasonable immune zone against lightweigh 15" shells.

A good powerplant with long legs, a main battery shooting 2700 pound shells, a secondary battery of twenty rapid-fire 5" guns, best-in-the world FC equipment, an incomparable medium/light AA battery, and sufficient armor - what's not to like about NC, let alone of of those follow-on South Dakotas? Add to that she's pretty and... North Carolina looks to be pretty ideal. certainly more capable than any European battleships - now that's balance!

The North Carolina is about two hours away, in Wilmington. It's well worth a visit. I get there every year or so.

[lwd]

Part of the problem is you keep equating "better" or "best" and "balanced". If I've got a balanced design that say has 8 15" guns and you have a design with the same armor and speed but carries 9x16" guns you have a better desing. It's not balanced but that's irrelevant.

When you give more than equated to a certain area you are stealing from another, as you already know.
Part of the problem here is to forget why the ship must be balanced.

It is most emphatically not. There is no reason at all that aa ship must be "balanced". It's a rule of thumb that helps designers build reasonably utilitarian vessels certainly if you go too far from balanced the ships tend to be compromised. Furious is a good example of this. Indeed the whole reason for the balanced rule of thumb was the assumption that one's opponents would be building vessels of approximatly the same characteristics. By your logic the US fast BBs would be better ships if they had been given the older lighter AP round as they would have been more balanced.

... So far, aside from the pretty rethoric these two types: SD and NC were seriosly limited in their own defensive array which made them vulnerable to ships armed even with 14"guns.

And those same ships were even more vulnerable to the US ships. Furthermore most BBs are too some extent vulnerable to even lighter guns.

[Karl Heidenreich]

The SDs had a reasonable immune zone against the 16"/45 with shells about the same weight as the British and Japanese used. Why do you then think they were vulnerable to 14" guns?

South Dakota´s upper deck was not capable to de fuze, in time, incoming ordnance that will hit and penetrate it´s armor deck.

[Karl Heidenreich]

not mention, an even more reasonable immune zone against lightweigh 15" shells.

A good powerplant with long legs, a main battery shooting 2700 pound shells, a secondary battery of twenty rapid-fire 5" guns, best-in-the world FC equipment, an incomparable medium/light AA battery, and sufficient armor - what's not to like about NC, let alone of of those follow-on South Dakotas? Add to that she's pretty and... North Carolina looks to be pretty ideal. certainly more capable than any European battleships - now that's balance!

The North Carolina is about two hours away, in Wilmington. It's well worth a visit. I get there every year or so.

This whole post lacks of the appropiate language and understanding. The Treaty limitations in the 30ies and the Panama Canal beam limitation seriosusly affected the design of both classes of BB. These issues have been brought to attention by Friedman and then by Raven & Roberts. It´s quite clear, from the British experience in both, the Nelsons and KGV classes which class of compromise must be endured in order to abide to the 35K ton displacement and get a functional BB.

The great advantages of the USN BBs was the industrial capability of that country to produce enough of them to keep the strategical compromises in two oceans. That with the appropiate naval doctrine, which the USN had, produced the victorious results we know of.

However the mere concept of the AoN instead of the space arrayed armor scheme, added to the multiple (because they are not only isolated but shared) criticism on these two types of vessels (and the Iowa as an adding) leave a lot to be desired. Now, if this discussion is nationalistic based, then I have nothing to say in that respect.

Just one last thought: about this feet issue: when were NC or SD faster then Bismarck? One of the compromises the USN designers took was in machinery.

[lwd]

...The Treaty limitations in the 30ies and the Panama Canal beam limitation seriosusly affected the design of both classes of BB....

And your point is? Certainly the desing displacement is going to have a huge affect on the design. LIke wise the limits on beam.

...However the mere concept of the AoN instead of the space arrayed armor scheme, added to the multiple (because they are not only isolated but shared) criticism on these two types of vessels (and the Iowa as an adding) leave a lot to be desired.

All the major navies except Germany went with AoN armor schemes. Indeed an AoN armor scheme is the recognitiion that by the end of WWI it was no longer possible to armor an entire BB vs another BB and still have a ship that could move at a reasonable speed and carry reasonable armament. The AoN scheme at this point says lets just protect the most vital areas and hope that AP rounds will pass through the less critical ones.

Now, if this discussion is nationalistic based, then I have nothing to say in that respect.

From my POV it's not. I can't speak for others.

Just one last thought: about this feet issue: when were NC or SD faster then Bismarck? One of the compromises the USN designers took was in machinery.

And why wasn't Bismarck faster than Iowa? One of the compromises the German designers took was in machinery.

[yellowtail3]

This whole post lacks of the appropiate language and understanding.

Oh, I don't think so.

The Treaty limitations in the 30ies and the Panama Canal beam limitation seriosusly affected the design of both classes of BB.

they certainly did!

The great advantages of the USN BBs was the industrial capability of that country to produce enough of them to keep the strategical compromises in two oceans.

That is true, so far as it goes. Technically speaking, the great advantages of USN BBs was their very good design and equipment, which manifested itself in very good endurance, firepower substantially exceeding all foreign ships except the Yamatos, very good FC equipment, best secondary batteries of any nations BBs, and very good armor.

Now, if this discussion is nationalistic based, then I have nothing to say in that respect.

it's not - that the USN's fast battleships were so capable for their displacement, has nothing to do with nationalism, much to do with intelligent design and industrial technique.

Just one last thought: about this feet issue: when were NC or SD faster then Bismarck? One of the compromises the USN designers took was in machinery.

I'm not sure what the feet issue refers to, but... Bismarck and Tirpitz were both a couple knots faster than the first six fast battleships the USN built - that's what the BIsmarck's extra displacement was good for. The USN added 200 feet and another 10K tons to the South Dakotas for more emphasis on speed, and... we got the Iowas, which were pretty fast as I understand.

[Bgile]

The SDs had a reasonable immune zone against the 16"/45 with shells about the same weight as the British and Japanese used. Why do you then think they were vulnerable to 14" guns?

South Dakota´s upper deck was not capable to de fuze, in time, incoming ordnance that will hit and penetrate it´s armor deck.

Karl, fuze initiation is irrelevant if the shell can't penetrate the armor deck. I'm sure there is some range where a 14" shell could do that, but I'm sure it's quite long.

[lwd]

... South Dakota´s upper deck was not capable to de fuze, in time, incoming ordnance that will hit and penetrate it´s armor deck.

I read this quickly and just passed on. After a couple more posts on it I'm confused about what our point is.
From what I remember most BB caliber AP rounds have a base detonating fuse so essentially no armor is likely to "de fuze" such a round that will penetrate otherwise. From what I recall SoDak's upper deck was designed to initiate the fuse of AP bombs. So couldn't this critique be applied to any battleship? Just what particulars are you considering here?