History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedBattleship deathmatch >>> make your bets

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
alexandruu View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 25-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
Post Options Post Options   Quote alexandruu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Battleship deathmatch >>> make your bets
    Posted: 26-Nov-2006 at 01:17
Hello,
 
This topic will try to elucidate which battleship would win on a one-on-one duel with one of its couterparts.
 
We won't be bothered by historical accuracies regarding which country fought which; we are concerned only with the warship's fighting power.
 
The matches are as follows:
 
1. KM Bismarck vs King George V in 1941
2. KM Gneisenau vs IJN Kongo in 1943
3. IJN Yamato vs USS Missouri in 1942
4. RM Littorio vs HMS Rodney in 1942
5. Richelieu vs USS South Dakota in 1942
 
Please back your statements with technical data.
 
Infos about naval guns of WW2:
 
 
Infos about the battleships armour, fire control, speed, maneuvrability, stability, etc:
 
www.wikipedia.org, and the external links. 
 
May the best battleship win !
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2006 at 06:42

1) KGV better Radar, not much diff in gun penetration

2)Gneisenau by a mile. A WWII BB against a pre WWI battlecruiser?
 
3) Yamato wins, but badly damaged. A USN aircraft sinks her.
 
4) Littorio, speed and penetration
 
5) Even heat, I say SODAKS radar might win it.
 
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 966
Post Options Post Options   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2006 at 07:21

George V vs Bismark

(10 x 14" guns and the most advanced armour distribution of the war vs 8 x 15" guns). My money goes on George V, Bismark hit Prince of Wales 14 times and only caused superficial damage, King George V hit Bismark a similar amount of times and crippled her.

 

Gneisenau vs Kongo

A battlecruiser with battleship armour and a popgun vs a battle cruiser with tin foil armour and 8 x 14" guns. I'd go for Kongo, shells pass straight through unarmoured ships not exploding and as 14" could cripple Gneisenau before she even got in range of Kongo.

 

Yamoto vs Missouri

Yamoto has bigger guns and heavier armour and a better hull design, so should win. Though Iowa class was built after the results of the Scapa Flow, so Missouri's armour was better distributed and may have been enough for it to win. Except US designers only partially used the Scapa Flow findings because having a ship with a belt thin enough to pass through the Panama canal was more important.

 

Littorio vs Rodney

9 x 15" guns vs 9 x 16" guns. A bit deceptive because British 16" guns weren't much better than 15". Whereas Littoria's 15" outclassed many other countries 16" guns. Rodney had heavy armour vs lighter Littoria armour. Littorio did have poor fire control and a lousy powder charge which made salvos scatter all over the place.

 

Richelieu South Dakota

9 x 16" guns vs 8 x 15". Us 16" guns were excellent, French 15" the finest around. Both wel armoured and superb fire control, though Richelieu marginally better in both departments. A slugging match to the death this one.

 

How about

6) Strasbourg vs Scharnhorst

7) Renown vs Scharnhorst



Edited by Paul - 26-Nov-2006 at 07:24
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
alexandruu View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 25-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
Post Options Post Options   Quote alexandruu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2006 at 08:20
Originally posted by Paul

George V vs Bismark

(10 x 14" guns and the most advanced armour distribution of the war vs 8 x 15" guns). My money goes on George V, Bismark hit Prince of Wales 14 times and only caused superficial damage, King George V hit Bismark a similar amount of times and crippled her.

 How about

6) Strasbourg vs Scharnhorst

7) Renown vs Scharnhorst

 
I have to disagree with your first conclusion - KGV wasn't that powerfull as it would seem.
During the Bismarck-Hood battle, Prince of Wales scored 3 hits on the Bismarck, none of them causing serious damage, while the german battleship strcuk PoW whit 3 or 4 shells, only one of which exploded, causing serious damage to the ship's superstructure.  
 
When KGV opened fire on the Bismarck, the german ship had been crippled by torpedoes, and doing 7 knots. Analysis of the wreck proved that only 4 shells penetrated the Bismarck's main armour, all of them coming from Rodney.
 
The german 15" guns had 25% more penetrating power than the British 14", higher rate of fire, and bigger range.   
 
I go with the germans on this one.
 
Strasbourg vs Scharnhorst - a very heated battle !. 8*330mm vs 9*280mm. The german battlecruiser had better armour, better fire control, and, very importantly, 2 times higher rate of fire (3.5 salvos/minute compared to 1.5-2 for the french battleship).
On the other hand, the french had bigger shells (522kg compared to 331kg), and superior armour penetration (292-342mm vs 205-305mm).
 
I think that in 6 matches out of 10, the germans would win this one.
 
Renown vs Scharnhorst - 6*380mm vs 9*280mm. Both of them huge, fast, menacing battlecruisers. The Scharnhorst had longer gunfire range (40km vs 33 km), and faster rof (3.5 salvos/minute vs 2s/m), while the Renown had giant 880 kg shells.
 
I go with the Scharnhorst again - 7 times out of 10 it would win against the Renown.
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2006 at 08:36

You should not go for gun calibre only, the modernity of the weapon also counted. The 11" of the Scharnhorst had a lot more penetrating power than the 15"/45 (unmodernized) of the Renown, or the 14"/50 of the Kongo.

The actual Bismarck battledamage is a bit misleading. KGV and Rodney's gunfire, disabled all her turrets within half an hour. A lot of the shells fired were on the super structure since both the ships were at point blank range at the time.
 
 
And we should not discard the effects of radar. Or ship speed.
 
 
 


Edited by Sparten - 26-Nov-2006 at 08:37
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 901
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2006 at 20:52
Originally posted by Sparten

3) Yamato wins, but badly damaged. A USN aircraft sinks her.
Originally posted by Paul

Yamoto vs MissouriYamoto has bigger guns and heavier armour and a better hull design, so should win. 
 
Quality fire control is more important than having the heaviest guns and the heaviest armour.   By even 1942, US battleships had good quality Radar and quality optics.  Yamatos's fire control optics were rumored to be mediocore at best.   Then add possible construction quality issues with the 18" guns as well as slow reload and traverse times.
 
Yamato was a clumsy giant.  My bet would be on Missouri.   


Edited by Cryptic - 26-Nov-2006 at 20:58
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2006 at 10:00
1. KM Bismarck vs King George V in 1941. Bismarck wins. The 14"/45 is not even close as powerful as the 15"/47. KGV armor is better than Bismarck especially when talking about high trajectory. So, the chance for her to get away with it is to stay at range and try to make use of the radar. But back in 1941 the radar did not offer to much in terms of fire control. And Bismark is faster so she can come in closer. The German gun is also very accurate and has a very high rate of fire. The optics of KGV were absolutely outclassed by Bismarck's.
 
2. KM Gneisenau vs IJN Kongo in 1943. This must be a joke. Although Gneisenau was a beutiful ship she was not designed to face a foe of such category. Kongo was a very sturdy design, improved by the japanese both in terms of firepower, armor and speed. Gneisenau should run, she can barely, outspeed Kongo. The 11" guns were beautiful weapons but no sane commander would engage a fight with the chance of getting clubbered by a 14" salvo.
 
3. IJN Yamato vs USS Missouri in 1942. This is a tough one but I think that if the Missouri stays at range (beyond horizon) she wins. Better fire control and better chances of hitting Yamato. She is faster and can break any time. If Yamato gets close enough to make good use of it's 18" then Missouri is in trouble. The optics of Yamato were excellent, probably the best ever a battleship could wish. The 16" of Missouri are far bettter if used at range. She has good armor and excellent damage control but no ship can withstand multiple hits from the 18". So, she keeps the distance, keep pounding on Yamato, and she wins.
 
4. RM Littorio vs HMS Rodney in 1942. Well, I don't know much about Rodney but my guess is that she might win. The 15" of the Italian ship packs quite a punch. On the other hand it's slow firing and the optics and fire control are not that good. So, what Rodney should to is get closer and score some hits before she gets pounded too hard. If she manages land some 4-5 16" on the deck of Littorio I think she wins. If Littorio manages to hit Rodney hard before she gets pounded then the British are doomed.
 
5. Richelieu vs USS South Dakota in 1942. That's a really tough match. My gues is that SD would win but after the battle she may be just good for scrapping. Maybe if she uses the same tactics as Missouri vs Yamato she could get the edge. After all, radar is what the French BB cannot use.
 
This is a site that actually gives a lot of info about battleships: www.combinedfleet.com.
 
Here's something from that place:
 
And the Heavyweight Champion is...

All right, it's time to add up the points and see who comes out on top for both the Heavy and Middleweight categories. Judges, your scorecards please...

Score:
148
Score:
166
Score:
121
Score:
147.5
Score:
131.5
Score:
117.5
Score:
155.5

 


And in the Middleweight Category...

Score:
121
Score:
147.5
Score:
131.5
Score:
117.5
Score:
155.5
Back to Top
alexandruu View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 25-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
Post Options Post Options   Quote alexandruu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2006 at 10:34
Originally posted by Cezar

 2. KM Gneisenau vs IJN Kongo in 1943. This must be a joke. Although Gneisenau was a beutiful ship she was not designed to face a foe of such category. Kongo was a very sturdy design, improved by the japanese both in terms of firepower, armor and speed. Gneisenau should run, she can barely, outspeed Kongo. The 11" guns were beautiful weapons but no sane commander would engage a fight with the chance of getting clubbered by a 14" salvo.
 
 
I don't think Gneisenau would be so defenseless. After all, it has greater gun range, much faster rate of fire, accuracy and armour. Yes, armour. Even if Kongo's shells were twice as heavy, their penetration power wasn't any better than Scharnhorst's class.
 
Also, you should keep in mind the operational history of ships from those classes - Scharnhorst and Gneisenau both hit mines, were torpedoed, shelled, hunted down, and they withstood tremendous beatings (even 14" shells, by the way).
 
On the other hand, we have Kirishima - reduced to rubble in 7 minutes by USS Washington, Hiei - incapable of fending destroyers, Kongo - that hit an american destroyer 3 times with its heavy guns, without sinking it, and so on.
The Kongo's were weak battleships - and their displacement (36600 t)  confirms that.  
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2006 at 11:09
I didn't say that Gneisenau is defenseless. I just said that the duel is not quite OK regarding the fact that Scharnhorst class was not designed to fight with battleships (or upgraded battlecruisers). The superior range of her guns is useless if she doesn't have a radar to make good use of it. If it gets into a fight with Kongo, she gets it, not because of lack of protection but because of lack of punch. Japanese optics were just as good as Germans, if not superior. My guess is that the rangefinder on Kongo is better that that of Gneisenau. Even on the site you mentioned the 14" Kongo beared was considered the best naval gun of IJN.
If you take a look and read this post of mine ( http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11832&PN=3) you'll know that I'm aware of what Scharnhorst and Gneisenau have achieved. Nevertheless, only Scharnhorst was engaged by a battleship and I think you know the outcome. It was about the same with what happened with Kirishima though you must not forget that she managed to hit South Dakota and take her out of action (yeah, I know it wasn't the hits, a power failure or something but still...).
If you fire a 14" shell at a destroyer it would probably pass through it without exploding so the damage would be insignificant. Battleships are not designed to deal with destroyers, at least not by using their main guns. That's why they carry secondary artillery.
Why not try a lighter category match: KM Prinz Eugen vs IJN Mogami?
Back to Top
alexandruu View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 25-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
Post Options Post Options   Quote alexandruu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2006 at 12:25

Originally posted by Cezar

If it gets into a fight with Kongo, she gets it, not because of lack of protection but because of lack of punch. Japanese optics were just as good as Germans, if not superior. My guess is that the rangefinder on Kongo is better that that of Gneisenau. Even on the site you mentioned the 14" Kongo beared was considered the best naval gun of IJN.

If you fire a 14" shell at a destroyer it would probably pass through it without exploding so the damage would be insignificant. Battleships are not designed to deal with destroyers, at least not by using their main guns. That's why they carry secondary artillery.
Why not try a lighter category match: KM Prinz Eugen vs IJN Mogami?

Yup, it's a close one, but I'll back my favourite :)

Scharnhorst class: displacement~ 39000 t; penetration - 205-335mm from 25-15 km; firing rate - 3.5 salvos/min; shell weight - 330 kg
Kongo class: d ~36600t; p - 220-320mm form 25-15 km; firing rate -  2 spm; shell weight - 720 kg

Also, let's think about their battle results: Scharnhorst scored a hit on a british carrier at 24 km, and it took one battleship, one heavy cruiser, 3 light cruisers and 4 destroyers to take her down.

And what did the Kongo's do ? Kirishima could't spot Washington at 6 miles; Kongo was useless at Leyte, Hiei got slaughtered, etc.

In fact, the Kongo's didn't scored any useful hits on any naval targets (except a few lucky hits on american destroyers) during the war; also, they tended to sink rapidly under enemy fire. It's quite the opposite for the german big ships.

I think the duel would go on like this:
The Gneisenau opens fire at 20 miles; Kongo returns fire. Both ships are approaching fast, and are firing at their best rof; Gneisenau launches 30 280 mm shells each minute, while the Kongo can only fire 16 356 mm. That's why, at 13 miles, the german battlecruiser scores a hit on the japanese battleship, and concentrates its fire much better. 5 minutes later, the Kongo makes her first hit, at 10 miles. The Gneisenau rains death upon the Kongo, with many shells hiting below the waterline and seriously damaging the japanese ship; consequently, the Kongo destroys much of Gneisenau's superstructure, one turret, and has a lot of near-misses, which don't cause that much damage because the germans know how to protect their ship's bellies. 10 minutes later, each of the battleships only has one turret left; the Kongo bearly moves at 7 knots, having its body eaten below the waves by the 330kg AP shells; the Gneisenau is moving at 10 knots, and fires 10 shells/minute, completely silencing the Kongo 5 minutes later. With great efforts, the germans stear their ship towards the japanese warship, and launch a salvo of torpedoes that send the Kongo to teh bottom.
--------

Mogami vs Prinz Eugen, you say ? Well, I don't know crap about their armour protection, stability as gun platforms, or real rate of fire, but... hell, I'm a Kriegsmarine fan !

Prinz Eugen has 17000 t vs 13000 t - that means extra armour; the german guns are more accurate at long ranges, and have better ballistics. The Mogami is faster, has more guns, and it's deadly at close quarters (9 miles or less). I'd say it's a very close one - 55% for the Prinz Eugen :P 

Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2006 at 19:53

I don't think that Scharnhorst would have any trouble in dipatching Kongo.  Never mind the weight of the shot, what is important is the muzzel velocity of the weapons, and in that I believe that Scharnhorst had a higher one. Remember KE= 1/2 MV^2

The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2006 at 09:02
alexandruu I think you're wrong about Schranhorst class displacement
 
Here's the data I have:
Displacement: 29.000 tons oficial - 34.540 tons real
Dimensions: L 229.8/226 m, l 30 m, d 9.10/9.90 m
Engines: 3x Brown, Boveri & Co turbines, 3x4.8m propellers, 12x Wagner 58 atm, 450deg. Boilers up to 54.5t/h steam - total power 165.930 HP
Armor: belt 200-350mm, bulkheads 150-200mm, deck 20-50mm(that's rhe weak spot!), upper deck 50 mm, main turrets 150-360mm, barbetes 200-350mm, secondary turrets 150mm, tower 100-350mm
Weapons: 9x280mm/L54.5, 12x150mm/L55, 14x105 mm AA/L65, 16x37 mm Flak 38, 10-38 20mm MG, 6x533mm torpedo tubes
Other: 2(then 1) catapults; 4xArado 196 floatplanes
Speed: 31.5+knots
Crew: 1669.
 
Now, let's see Kongo:
Displacement: 36.601 tons
Dimensions:  L 185m, l 25m, d 8.1m
Armor: belt ~200mm, deck ~60mm (1913 - later strenghtened), turrets 215mm)
Weapons: 8x356mm/L45, 16/14 152mm/L50, 8x127mm DP/L40, up to 118 25mm AA (these really suck!)
Speed: 30+knots
Crew: 1360
Speed: 30 knots
 
My point is that Scharnhorst really must come close to make use of it's superior belt armor and rate of fire. But Kongo can keep the distance and if she scores a long shot with her 356's it's very bad for Schranhorst. Both ships lack protection from high angled shells but Kongo is packing more punch. It's not just about kinetic damage, both decks are thin, but about the damage the shell will cause after it goes boom inside the ship.
Surely Scharnhorst might win a long range battle if staying out of Kongo's range and using the floatplanes to direct the fire. Then after scoring some hits she can close in for the kill.
I still honestly think that this match is not correct. Scharnhorst class, though as big as a battleship, and considered a battleship, was not designed for engaging foes like Kong. If that would be the case, they would have ugraded them to the 6x380mm guns. Now, that kind of Scharnhorst would have really meant trouble for the old Kongo.
 
As for Prinz against Mogami, though I hold Mogami as my favourite CA, unless she can make good use of her torpedoes she buys it. But since the Japanes were experts in torpedoes and the Type 93 has a range beyond the 203mm...
 
Model Diameter Length OA Total Weight Explosive Charge Range Wander (max) Comments
6th Year Type 21" 22' 5" 3157 lbs. 441 lbs. 7,000m @ 36 kts
10,000m @ 32 kts
15,000m @ 26 kts
? An older torpedo still used in some of the older RO-class submarines.
8th Year Type 24" 27' 7" 5207 lbs. 761 lbs. 10,000m @ 38 kts
15,000m @ 32 kts
20,000m @ 28 kts
? A large conventional wet-heater torpedo still used aboard some older cruisers and destroyers, notably Nagara.
Type 92 21" 23' 5" 3792 lbs. 661 lbs. 7000m @ 30 kts 120m / 7,000m An electric torpedo for submarines, used extensively throughout the war.
Type 93 24" 29' 6" 5952 lbs. 1080 lbs. 20,000m @ 48 kts
32,000m @ 40 kts
40,000m @ 36 kts
500m / 20,000m
1000m / 32,000m
1500m / 40,000m
The Long Lance. 'Nuff said.
Type 95 21" 23' 5" 3671 lbs. 893 lbs. 9,000m @ 49 kts
12,000m @ 45 kts
170m / 9,000m
250m / 12,000m
A smaller version of the Type 93 intended for submarines.
Type 97 17.7" 18' 5" 2161 lbs. 772 lbs. 5,500m @ 44 kts 80m /5,500m A miniaturized Type 93 intended for midget submarines. Very unsuccesful (its oxygen flasks leaked a lot), it was used operationally only once - at Pearl Harbor
Again, thanks to www.combinedfleet.com
 
 
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 901
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2006 at 13:39
Double Post. 


Edited by Cryptic - 28-Nov-2006 at 13:40
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 901
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2006 at 13:39
In addition to weapons data and armour, one most also factor in crew quality, experience and officer leadership.  In this area, the IJN had a huge advantage.  Japan had invested a large amount of their leadership talent in their surface navy.  The Germans did not (favored Army, U Boats).  Thus, the Japanese were in a far better postion to get the most out of their ships.
 
Although Japanese crew quality later declined, the German surface navy  never developed a truly lethal edge as indicated by the following examples.
 
- Bismarck    Leadership (even before the rudder damage) was not exactly inspiring.   Following rudder damage, Captain does not visit compartments etc.  to offer support and guidiance.  Instead he reads a "we are doomed" message to crew and later removes himself from the situation.
 
-Graf Spee   Scuttles when facing two light cruisers and a heavy cruiser.  Does not even attempt to break out and escape.  Many reasons were offered, none have proven to be valid.  (possible British reinforcements, lack of ammo, critical damage to ship).   Captain later commits suicide
 
-Navirik Nine(?) new German destroyers sunk by inferior British destroyers.   German infantry Colonel observing battle later complains that destroyer crews prematurely abandoned or beached servicable ships.     
 
-Scharnhorst  Out shot in initial engagement (1943) by cruisers, earlier took a very long time to sink a British auxillary cruiser.   Convoy scatters most ships escape.   
 
Contrast this to the IJN of 1941-1943. 


Edited by Cryptic - 28-Nov-2006 at 14:09
Back to Top
aghart View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 05-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 232
Post Options Post Options   Quote aghart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2006 at 14:25
In the question & answer page of the UK Daily Mail newspaper 28 Nov 2006. a reader has asked  " if the Japanese Battleship Yamato had met the British battleship Vanguard in a one on one encounter who would win?"
 
I will post the answers received when they are printed.  I don't know who would win but I suspect many of you with more technical knowledge have an idea or two.
Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 966
Post Options Post Options   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2006 at 15:40
At night Vanguard, in daylight Yamoto. Advanced Radar and remote controlled guns vs raw power and optics.
 
Vanguard is a misunderstood ship, it was a battlecruiser not a battleship. Towards the end of wwii speed over armour was coming back into fashion.
 
It had gone out of fashion after Jutland and building super heavy armoured ships like George V and  Yamoto were the rage. But the in the Pacific both Britain and the US struggled to catch lighter and faster Japanese ships. So in war builds like Iowa and Vanguard speed was more important than armour.
 


Edited by Paul - 28-Nov-2006 at 15:46
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
alexandruu View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 25-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
Post Options Post Options   Quote alexandruu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Nov-2006 at 09:33
Originally posted by Cezar

alexandruu I think you're wrong about Schranhorst class displacement
 
Here's the data I have:
Displacement: 29.000 tons oficial - 34.540 tons real
 
 
Wikipedia: Gneisenau - 38900T; EconomicExpert.com - 38000T.
 
Originally posted by Cezar

 
My point is that Scharnhorst really must come close to make use of it's superior belt armor and rate of fire. But Kongo can keep the distance and if she scores a long shot with her 356's it's very bad for Schranhorst. Both ships lack protection from high angled shells but Kongo is packing more punch. It's not just about kinetic damage, both decks are thin, but about the damage the shell will cause after it goes boom inside the ship.
 
 
 Yup. But the underwater protection is crucial - Kirishima was sank by 16" shells that pierced it from below.
Originally posted by Cezar

As for Prinz against Mogami, though I hold Mogami as my favourite CA, unless she can make good use of her torpedoes she buys it. But since the Japanes were experts in torpedoes and the Type 93 has a range beyond the 203mm...
  
 
I think that at long ranges, the PE has the upper hand, while the Mogami is deadly at medium and short ranges.
Back to Top
alexandruu View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 25-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
Post Options Post Options   Quote alexandruu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Nov-2006 at 09:47
The Vanguard's guns were very weak compared to Yamato's armour. The japanese had good night battle tactics, and, if the Vanguard would have been targeted, it could't escape the 18" salvos. Even if the Yamato could't spot the British ship, it don't think it could have been sank by its 15" shells.
 
I say 75% Japanese victory.
--------------
 
Yes, leadership and crew training are crucial; still, this is mainly a technical post. I agree that the germans had pathetic naval commanders during the war.
 
I'll ad up 2 new matches:
 
- Old geezer class: USS Tennessee vs IJN Yamashiro in 1939
 
- Hot blood class: KM Tirpitz vs USS Alabama in 1942
 
- Rampage class: USS Washington vs IJN Nagato in 1943


Edited by alexandruu - 29-Nov-2006 at 09:52
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Nov-2006 at 10:24
Originally posted by alexandruu

The Vanguard's guns were very weak compared to Yamato's armour. The japanese had good night battle tactics, and, if the Vanguard would have been targeted, it could't escape the 18" salvos. Even if the Yamato could't spot the British ship, it don't think it could have been sank by its 15" shells.
 
I say 75% Japanese victory.
--------------
 
Yes, leadership and crew training are crucial; still, this is mainly a technical post. I agree that the germans had pathetic naval commanders during the war.
 
I'll ad up 2 new matches:
 
- Old geezer class: USS Tennessee vs IJN Yamashiro in 1939
 
- Hot blood class: KM Tirpitz vs USS Alabama in 1942
 
- Rampage class: USS Washington vs IJN Nagato in 1943
 
I'll go 100% for Yamato against Vanguard. The British ship just cannot afford such an encounter. She can alway run though.
 
That's three new matches, alexWink
 
- Old geezer - My bet is on Yamashiro. Tennessee is just too old style and in 1939 there are no guidance radars to talk about. Yamashiro was upgraded (not much) and she carries more guns. Fuso class has probably the talleast superstructures. Nice look.
 
- Hot blood. I'll put my money on Alabama. Definitely better armor, fire and damage control. On broad daylight Tirpitz might have make good use of her superior optics and precision of the guns but Alabama could hold and fire back. Deck armor is too thin for Tirpitz and even at close range I don't think she has the upper hand.
 
- Rampage class. Nagato and Mutsu are my favourite battleships but in this match they are not going to win. Washington is just a too good ship compared to the two Japanese BB. Only if they are lucky they could win such a battle.
 
Here's a K1 match: KM BB Tirpitz vs IJN DD Shimakaze (night encounter)
Back to Top
alexandruu View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 25-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
Post Options Post Options   Quote alexandruu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Nov-2006 at 14:36
Originally posted by Cezar

 
That's three new matches, alexWink
 
 
Damn, I suck at math ! Smile
 
Originally posted by Cezar

- Old geezer - My bet is on Yamashiro. Tennessee is just too old style and in 1939 there are no guidance radars to talk about. Yamashiro was upgraded (not much) and she carries more guns. Fuso class has probably the talleast superstructures. Nice look.
 
- Hot blood. I'll put my money on Alabama. Definitely better armor, fire and damage control. On broad daylight Tirpitz might have make good use of her superior optics and precision of the guns but Alabama could hold and fire back. Deck armor is too thin for Tirpitz and even at close range I don't think she has the upper hand.
 
- Rampage class. Nagato and Mutsu are my favourite battleships but in this match they are not going to win. Washington is just a too good ship compared to the two Japanese BB. Only if they are lucky they could win such a battle.
 
Yup, I'd go 60% Yamashiro, 65% Alabama, 65% Washington.
 
Originally posted by cezar

Here's a K1 match: KM BB Tirpitz vs IJN DD Shimakaze (night encounter)
 
Lol Tirpitz vs Shimakaze - Raw power vs speed and agility. Continuing the K1 analogy, it would be something like Mighty Mo vs Gao Glai :) Still, I don't know if the outcome would be the same, because the Shimakaze must close in very much in order to score enough torpedo hits to kill the Tirpitz. I'd say the japanese should come as close as 3000-4000 meters to hit the german battleship with at least 5-7 torpedoes. And 3000-4000 meters is a very hard to reach objective, especially against a 8*380mm, 12*150mm and 16*105mm target, even during a night battle.
 
My bet goes on the Tirpitz - 80% chances of winning this one.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.