[TrashMan]

Wow...never heard of that class.  Very impressive!

The Montana...too bad that one was never built.. It could tear the Yamato appart

[Desert Tyrant]

Wow...never heard of that class.  Very impressive!

The Montana...too bad that one was never built.. It could tear the Yamato appart

Hell, Iowa can do that more than half the time.  the 16/50Cal. shells that the Iowa class used(And South Carolina, as well as What Montana would of used) had virtually the same penatration of the Japanese 18.1 inch.  IOwa was faster, more agile than Yamato, had far superior fire-control systems, and could dictate the terms of battle to the Yamato.

[TrashMan]

Oh, I know htat...

I was only saying the Montana would be even meaner than the Iowa (20" shells  )

[Admiral Nelson]

MONTANA would have had the same 16" guns as IOWA, just 12 of them instead of only nine...

[Desert Tyrant]

Oh, I know htat...

I was only saying the Montana would be even meaner than the Iowa (20" shells  )

No, Did you not this read this part:

(And South Carolina, as well as What Montana would of used)

I stated that the Montana class would of used the same 16/50Cal. guns that the Iowa did, only they had 12 instead of nine(4 batteries on Montana vs. 3 batteries on Iowa).  The South Carolina IIRC also used 16ichers, although they were 45Cal. instead of 50Cal that the Iowa used

[Admiral Nelson]

The only 20" gunned US design known to me was the Maximum Battleship design study of 1934, featuring 8x20" guns on around 70000 tons.



This was intended to explore the design limitations of the Panama Canal, more than a serious plan for construction.

[NGTM-1R]

Hell, Iowa can do that more than half the time.  the 16/50Cal. shells that the Iowa class used(And South Carolina, as well as What Montana would of used) had virtually the same penatration of the Japanese 18.1 inch.  IOwa was faster, more agile than Yamato, had far superior fire-control systems, and could dictate the terms of battle to the Yamato.

It depends on a lot of factors, but properly handled South Dakota or even Nelson could have given Yamato a run for its money at the least.

[Desert Tyrant]

The only 20" gunned US design known to me was the Maximum Battleship design study of 1934, featuring 8x20" guns on around 70000 tons.



This was intended to explore the design limitations of the Panama Canal, more than a serious plan for construction.

I do belive that the Germans might of had a experimental design that would of used 20 inchers, but it never got anywhere off of the drawing board. 

Anyways, I think the Brit battlecruisers and BBs were underrated in WW2, as far as BC/BBs could be.  The KGV was pretty much Bismarck's equal(Despite the fact that the Quad-battery 14in weren't exactly brilliant.).  I think the KGV's less-than-awesome reputation comes from Price of Wales, despite the fact that PoW had a bad luck streak about a mile wide.(Took some fairly nasty hits from Bismarck, although once Hood went down, she probably couldn't do too much more.)

ANd yes, I know it's been about 16 days since the last message, it's justs that this is a interesting topic and I prefer not to make another topic exactly like it.

[jr2]

Well it wasn't a month; don't worry about it. 

[IceFire]

The only 20" gunned US design known to me was the Maximum Battleship design study of 1934, featuring 8x20" guns on around 70000 tons.



This was intended to explore the design limitations of the Panama Canal, more than a serious plan for construction.

I do belive that the Germans might of had a experimental design that would of used 20 inchers, but it never got anywhere off of the drawing board. 

Anyways, I think the Brit battlecruisers and BBs were underrated in WW2, as far as BC/BBs could be.  The KGV was pretty much Bismarck's equal(Despite the fact that the Quad-battery 14in weren't exactly brilliant.).  I think the KGV's less-than-awesome reputation comes from Price of Wales, despite the fact that PoW had a bad luck streak about a mile wide.(Took some fairly nasty hits from Bismarck, although once Hood went down, she probably couldn't do too much more.)

ANd yes, I know it's been about 16 days since the last message, it's justs that this is a interesting topic and I prefer not to make another topic exactly like it.

As I understood it...the KGV class was largely hindered by the fact that the Royal Navy was actually building the ships according to the naval treaties enforced after World War I.  If I remember correctly the KGV was not finished within the bounds of the treaty (because by the time they were ready everyone else had already broken it) but it was furthest along in initial design and did try to conform originally.  Maybe you can comment in a more meaningful fashion

I have heard some argue that, given the restrictions, the KGV is probably the best design possible given the treaty restrictions.

[NGTM-1R]

KGV was not a bad design, actually, but her main battery had significant problems (Prince of Wales achieved something like 40% of her theoritical output by weight of shells fired in the battle with Bismark, and her after turret jammed in train and wasn't cleared until two hours after the action was over.). Before US entry into the war (not that US had anything to do with it, but the date happens to work) she didn't have radar fire control. In 1943, with true "blindfire" radar fire control and the kinks worked out of her main battery operation, KGV could have stood up well to Bismark. Her 14-inchers lacked the power to penetrate the armor you would have found on a US ship, for example, but Bismark was extremely vunerable to plunging fire.

Prince of Wales possibly deserves a lot of the credit for Bismark's eventual sinking: an underwater hit from one of Prince of Wales' guns detonated in the liquid protection portion of Bismark's antitorpedo defense setup, and since Bismark did not have a void space inboard of the liquid portion, the shell apparently had a mining effect on the hull and flooded a lot of the forward compartments, as well as reducing the available fuel supply drastically.

The thing that's not often realized, but is really crucial to these discussions, is that basically by 1943 the best optical firecontrol in the world meant nothing. This means Allied ships had a huge advantage from that point on.

[Desert Tyrant]

As I understood it...the KGV class was largely hindered by the fact that the Royal Navy was actually building the ships according to the naval treaties enforced after World War I.  If I remember correctly the KGV was not finished within the bounds of the treaty (because by the time they were ready everyone else had already broken it) but it was furthest along in initial design and did try to conform originally.  Maybe you can comment in a more meaningful fashion

I have heard some argue that, given the restrictions, the KGV is probably the best design possible given the treaty restrictions.

IIRC The restrictions were loosened by 1935, from 35 to 45,000 tons. IIRC 1935 was when when the Brits began design of the KGV.  Technically KGV was able to have heavier armour because the now slightly-less lax restrictions. 

In a fair fight, the KGV was at least fairly equal to the Bismarck-class.  Sure it's 14in shells weren't as rawly(New word apparently) powerful as Bismarck's 15inchers, but it was pretty vulnerable to plunging fire, at best.

To expand a bit more on my point about Brit ships being a bit underrated, HMS Repulse was said to be a crack-gunnery ship(IIRC she wasn't deployed to follow the Bismarck because of her thin armour.  The Renown-class Battlecruisers, IIRC weighed something about 26,000 tons.)

HMS Hood would up blowing due to a freak hit.  Hell, I don't think we really know for sure what took her down, ranging from Bismarck just hitting at the right moment, to one of Prinz Eugen's 8in shells punching through the deck armour.  Hell, I even heard that Bismarck somehow hit 2 out of 4 shells and one went through the deck armour.

It's odd, at best.  (Somebody suggested to me what would of happened if for some reason USS Iowa took the Bismarck's place...)

[NGTM-1R]

Actually, the Hood hit was not so much a freak as it sounds. Bear with me here.

The Brits, and most nations, armored their turret barbettes heavily, but Hood's magazines had little extra protection against a round that penetrated the main deck armor. There was a one-inch antisplinter bulkhead seperating Hood's after main magazines from her engineroom. This bulkhead could not reasonably be expected to stop splinters from a heavy-calibur round which penetrated the main deck armor and detonated in the engine room compartment.

By all available testimony, Hood died in one of two fashions. Either a shell from Bismark or Prinz Eugen penetrated her main deck armor and detonated the after secondary battery magazine, which would have blasted the engine room to shreds and thrown splinters of what was left of the engine room through the bulkhead to detonate the after main magazines, or a shell from Bismark (Prinz Eugen's shells didn't throw out the necessary size of splinter) penetrated the engine room and detonated there, splinters penetrated the engine room/after main magazine bulkhead, and detonated the magazine.

(It is possible Bismark could have directly penetrated the magazine armor on Hood, but the turret barbette armor is right out, and any penetration of the magazine armor would have been by a shell that was in pieces and wouldn't have detonated properly if at all.)

This is actually a fairly common situation. Only US battleships, due to the experience of Arizona at Pearl Harbor, had sufficent splinter protection for their magazines. It was a very late addition to the South Dakota's design, but Iowa had them from the keel up.

[Wanderer]

AFAIK Hood was designated to go to extensive overhaul in 1941 exactly to improve the lack of armor.. And to get rid of the rather unsuccessful qualities of Fisher's battlecruisers - concept which proved doomed already in Jutland. Though battlecruisers were never ever meant (originally) to engage battleships in fleet action but were more of a reminder of the WW1 era cruiser (and commerce raiding) warfare.

[Knight Templar]

YOU SHOULD OPEN UP FRED AND PUT THEM BOTH IN A MISSION AND SEE WHO WINS KEKEKE

[Desert Tyrant]

YOU SHOULD OPEN UP FRED AND PUT THEM BOTH IN A MISSION AND SEE WHO WINS KEKEKE

Remember people, crack is whack 8).

@Ngtm1r: Interesting.  IIRC somebody on spacebattles said that if Bismarck had fired 15 seconds earlier, or 30 seconds later Hood possibly wouldn't of gone down.  I'll try to dig up the exact quote...

[TrashMan]

MONTANA would have had the same 16" guns as IOWA, just 12 of them instead of only nine...

I distincly remeber reading it would use 460mm cannons insted of 406mm ones.

[Desert Tyrant]

MONTANA would have had the same 16" guns as IOWA, just 12 of them instead of only nine...

I distincly remeber reading it would use 460mm cannons insted of 406mm ones.

460mm roughly equals about eighteen inches, not twenty.

[Admiral Nelson]

The MONTANAs were to be 16" gunned battleships.

Official US Navy Site

    Montana class design characteristics:
  # Displacement: 60,500 tons (standard); 70,965 tons (full load)
  # Dimensions: 921' 3" (length overall); 121' 2" (maximum beam)
  # Powerplant: 172,000 horsepower steam turbines, producing a 28 knot maximum speed
  # Armament (Main Battery): Twelve 16"/50 guns in four triple turrets
  # Armament (Secondary Battery): Twenty 5"/54 guns in ten twin mountings (ten guns on each side of the ship)

The USN did not like 18" guns.  See Navweps for details.  In summary, the USN felt that an 18" gun offered only marginal improvement over a 16" gun but with a much lower rate of fire.

[Desert Tyrant]

18 inchers in general weren't needed, espcially by the USN, who's 16/50Cal. shells had virtually the same penatration.

While the 18inch shell might be slightly more powerful, it also bring too many drawbacks to be useful, yes.  (Although the 18in shell was definately not a drawback for the Yamato-class, not at least in comparison with the piece of crap 25mm magazine-fed AA battery.)