From the depths of the interwebs: an interesting read on American battleships.

[DokturProfesur]

Hey all, I found a very interesting document on the interwebs. It's basically a survey of the American "Standard Type" battleships and how they measured up to their contemporaries in other nations. I won't share it all here, as I really recommend you give the full paper a read by clicking here, but I'll share some bits to whet your appetite.

 

 

While tactically coherent, the US battle line ended up being several knots slower than its chief rivals, a point of constant retrospective criticism.  As a matter of individual performance, the US designs were certainly outclassed by individual foreign designs in speed, however, the US ships were never intended to operate singly or as separate formations by class.  As a matter of the collective whole known as the battle line, the difference was not so great.  A British or Japanese admiral had to operate his Line at its fastest common speed (23 or 22.5 knots respectively, assuming all ships are in good repair), or separate a portion of his line to allow it to exploit its superior speed.  In doing so, he would violate the principle of Concentration of Force while potentially gaining a positional advantage.  If he failed in his coordination or timing, he risked either the faster or slower wing being engaged separately and defeated in detail by a consolidated USN line.  If a British or Japanese admiral chose keep his ships concentrated, the 1.5 to 2 knot speed advantage was hardly decisive nor even necessarily capable of allowing him to “dictate the range” given the other dynamics that influence maneuver in battle.  In practice, any battle line could be slower than its theoretical maximum common speed.  USS Oklahoma at times dragged the US battle line down to 19 knots, but the RN and IJN were hobbled by their “dogs” as well.  The British “R” class ships in particular were badly maintained after their final refits in the mid-1930s and the Japanese Fuso class were perennially handicapped by their cramped machinery arrangement.  Nothing could predict which fleet might be having a “bad machinery day” in battle, but in that regard USN ships enjoyed an enviable reputation for reliable machinery.

 

 A further criticism of the speed of the Standards is in regards to their suitability as carrier escorts.  As aviation and carriers assumed the lead role in naval warfare, high speed became of value for battleships in order for them to accompany carriers.  However, this retrospective complaint about escorting carriers is fallacious in regards to the era in which these battleships were designed.  Carriers simply did not exist at that time and anticipating this sort of future need would have verged on clairvoyance.  Furthermore, sacrificing protective and offensive qualities to achieve higher speeds with 1912-1917 technology would have demanded major design changes.  Seeking speed for its own sake, or as its own form of “protection” in the 1912-1917 era would have most likely have proven as catastrophically foolish for the USN as it did for the RN.  It would also, through the usual course of design compromise, have deprived this series of ships of their best characteristics.

 

 

How “Standard Type” war performance justified the General Board’s choices:

 

Evaluating the performance of the “Standard Type” is frustrating.  None of these ships ever managed to take a heavy shell hit in battle.  Similarly, none of them suffered a heavy bomb hit or a torpedo hit in the heart of the torpedo defense system except while berthed in an unprepared peacetime condition at Pearl Harbor.  Even then, unprepared in harbor, the ships displayed some grace.  Maryland’s anti-aircraft gunners fought back early and well, the Tennessee held up to heavy bomb hits, the California sank only due to her unprepared condition, and the West Virginia sank in a salvageable condition due to her inherent design features and their prompt exploitation by a sharp damage control crew.  Nevada managed to get underway and nearly sortie despite a considerable pounding.

 

Only Oklahoma and Arizona turned in truly unsatisfactory performances, but even these must be qualified.  Oklahoma suffered between seven and nine torpedo hits in rapid succession in an unprepared state, something only (perhaps) Yamato and Musashi could have withstood.

 

Arizona’s forward magazines exploded (exact cause not known with certainty to this day) but these may have been touched off by black powder for aircraft catapults unwisely stored in proximity to the forward main magazines.  Was this a design failing, or procedural one?  Vessels of similar vintage in foreign service fared much more poorly.  Warspite was seriously damaged when struck by one German bomb and near-missed by a second one off Crete in 1941.  She suffered extensive damage and flooding, causing her to be sent to the USA’s Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for repairs.

 

This damage could be considered similar to numerous Kamikaze hits sustained by “Standard Type” ships (including Nevada once, New Mexico twice, Mississippi twice, Idaho once, Tennessee once, California once, Colorado twice, Maryland twice and West Virginia once), all of which were largely shrugged off as all of the “Standards” remained in the battle zone for extended periods before departing for repairs.  There was also Warspite’s subsequent encounter with a German guided missile-bomb (FX1400) which hit midships and left the ship drifting helplessly.  Warspite was left permanently lamed and with X-turret inoperative.  By contrast, Maryland's Kamikaze hit in way of her forward magazines was thoroughly repaired and a second that dished the roof of Turret #3 did not effect the main armament, and the roof armor was easily replaced upon return to port.

 

The final insult to Warspite’s honored hull came in the form of an influence mine, which left her permanently “bent.”  In this regard, Pennsylvania performed as badly when hit by a torpedo off Okinawa and was similarly written off with minimal repairs.

 

 

The theoretical weakness of "all or nothing" armoring to having "soft" (unarmored) areas torn up by light and medium caliber hits to a sufficient enough degree to reduce the ship's combat efficiency was disproved by wartime experience.  Several of the Standards sustained multiple hits from shore batteries, most particularly the Colorado off Tinian.  She suffered 22 medium caliber hits from a shore battery, which peppered the starboard side forward from the superstructure to the bow.  Minor fires were ignited and the blister holed, but no degradation occurred to the ship's fighting efficiency.  The armored box, barbettes, turrets, conning tower and critical buoyancy compartments remained inviolate.  The “Standard Type” armor scheme of "all or nothing" thus proved its validity.  In contrast, the theoretical weakness of an incremental armoring scheme to heavy shellfire was dramatically proven with Hood's loss.

 

The Japanese record is worse.  The redesignated former battlecruisers of the Kongo class performed miserably.  The Kongo apparently sank from progressive fire or flooding due to two torpedo hits.  Hiei was rendered sufficiently combat ineffective by medium and light caliber shells to be further assaulted by aircraft and eventually scuttled.  Kirishima attempted to face a true battleship, was blasted into a blazing ruin by heavy and light caliber hits and sank off Savo Island.  Haruna succumbed to a dozen bomb hits and / or near misses in harbor and settled to the bottom.  The only real analog for her situation was Nevada which had also been torpedoed in the same region as three bombs struck and additionally suffered a aviation gasoline explosion in that area at Pearl Harbor.

 

Fuso broke in half, capsized and sank in a full battle-ready condition from only two torpedo hits.  Even the unready Oklahoma required three hits to start her over, and the California went down from two only because she was prematurely abandoned and lacked any semblance of watertight integrity at Pearl Harbor.  Yamashiro took four torpedoes and sustained bombardment from 14” and 16” shells to sink, but still lost the services of three turrets from a single one of those torpedo hits.  In contrast, “Standard Type” ships tended to remain in action with their fighting qualities unimpaired, Pearl Harbor and the Pennsylvania’s Okinawa episode aside.  Both Ise and Hyuga went the way of the Haruna.

[AquaSquirrel]

Well this seems to be something that WG got right, I've always felt that the standards felt incredibly tough in game.

 

Thanks for posting this Professor. I'll read the rest when I get home from work.

 

 Tell the missus I said hi.

 

[DokturProfesur]

Well this seems to be something that WG got right, I've always felt that the standards felt incredibly tough in game.

 

Indeed, before Germany came along you played the USN to be #texastough, but nowadays Germany is the tough guys not due to their turtleback, but more due to the game's compression and the lack of real plunging fire.

[AquaSquirrel]

 

Indeed, before Germany came along you played the USN to be #texastough, but nowadays Germany is the tough guys not due to their turtleback, but more due to the game's compression and the lack of real plunging fire.

 

I honestly prefer NM and AZ over Bayern so far. Very tough and I find the guns are more useful at the mid ranges I prefer to play at.

[kyle26_2016]

 

Indeed, before Germany came along you played the USN to be #texastough, but nowadays Germany is the tough guys not due to their turtleback, but more due to the game's compression and the lack of real plunging fire.

 

ik its been said before the game mechanics and the US ship designs dont mesh...... although the New Mexico and Arizona seem to be bright spots and Colorado isnt as bad as most ppl seem to think(definitely bottom rung when compared to the other 2 but again japanese 410 mms with MUCH better pen values and torpedoes that adorn Gneisenau and Scharnhorst respectively)

[KnightFandragon]

Yeah, the whole "all or nothing' armor scheme is alot better then its led to be in this game.  Those T6 USN BBs are the only real durable ones in the game.  Arizona, New Mexico, I suspect the Nevada will be as well when it happens. 

 

Its kinda funny seeing how easy the Japanese ships sank....almost like the Iowa, Montana and NC do now....just a few hits and down they go.

[kyle26_2016]

Yeah, the whole "all or nothing' armor scheme is alot better then its led to be in this game.  Those T6 USN BBs are the only real durable ones in the game.  Arizona, New Mexico, I suspect the Nevada will be as well when it happens. 

 

Its kinda funny seeing how easy the Japanese ships sank....almost like the Iowa, Montana and NC do now....just a few hits and down they go.

 

sadly out of the three North Carolina is the only  truly competitive 1 as well the other 2 are just absolutely terrible....now im aware that its only a game and im not saying i want them to be dominant just competitive and for the most part theyre just simply NOT  but so as to avoid repeating myself from an earlier post ill leave it at that,although there are those who ADAMANTLY  disagree with that and seem to forget that this is supposed to be an arcade style "balanced"game and when the disparity in statistics gradually gets larger n larger with the US battleships falling further n further behind -_- then what else am i supposed to believe

[GrandAdmiral_2016]

Texas, New Mexico and Arizona all have pride of place in my USN fleet. The in-game ballistics issue soured me completely on Colorado despite her toughness and she is gone, never to return, despite the buff.

 

The only KM/DKM BB I own is Bayern, which I won in the Admiral Graf Spee campaign challenge, and the only IJN BB (ARPs excepted-I have all of them-freebees are freebees-take 'em all!) I own is Fuso, also won in the challenge. They all see regular play. I have enough XP to move up those lines in T7 to Nagato and Gneisenau but won't bother with it, as I also have Scharnhorst.

 

I await the RN BB line with some anticipation. Still have some significant grinding of reserve RN captains to do (for T9 and T10 CLs and the BBs), plus there are two CA/CLs in the upcoming French MN line that I will have to grind to get (I don't own Dunkerque!).

[TheDreadnought]

Colorado is softer than she ought to be.  A lot of the others are ok.  At Tier 8 is where the line falls apart.  The high tier ships are so fragile that bow-tanking is the only workable playstyle.  Which is boring.  Hopefully the changes to their citadels will help some.

[kyle26_2016]

Colorado is softer than she ought to be.  A lot of the others are ok.  At Tier 8 is where the line falls apart.  The high tier ships are so fragile that bow-tanking is the only workable playstyle.  Which is boring.  Hopefully the changes to their citadels will help some.

 

would love nothin more than to see it go back to the way it was in CBT even OBT and shortly after the game went live(before auto bounce more polygons etc etc etc to reduce amount of penetrating hits PARTICULARLY from battleships)the reason i say this is that ever since then.....the US seem to deal less than anyone else while TAKING more 

[RipNuN2]

Interesting reading, thank you for sharing.

[urk_the_red]

Interesting read thanks for sharing.

 

I'm curious. The author implied that the South Dakota classes were ill-fated and a poor design. I've frequently seen it stated here that the SoDaks were one of the best, if not the best treaty battleship design.

 

Why the discrepancy in perception of SoDaks efficacy?

[DokturProfesur]

Interesting read thanks for sharing.

 

I'm curious. The author implied that the South Dakota classes were ill-fated and a poor design. I've frequently seen it stated here that the SoDaks were one of the best, if not the best treaty battleship design.

 

Why the discrepancy in perception of SoDaks efficacy?

 

It's not that the SoDaks are bad, the author is discussing how they fail to live up to the philosophy of the "standard types". I guess the circles he visited considered the South Dakota class to be the last of the standard battleships.

[R_Razor]

Hey all, I found a very interesting document on the interwebs. It's basically a survey of the American "Standard Type" battleships and how they measured up to their contemporaries in other nations. I won't share it all here, as I really recommend you give the full paper a read by clicking here, but I'll share some bits to whet your appetite.

 

 

 

 

 

Good read, thanks for sharing it. 

[urk_the_red]

 

It's not that the SoDaks are bad, the author is discussing how they fail to live up to the philosophy of the "standard types". I guess the circles he visited considered the South Dakota class to be the last of the standard battleships.

Ah that makes sense.

[icyplanetnhc]

 

It's not that the SoDaks are bad, the author is discussing how they fail to live up to the philosophy of the "standard types". I guess the circles he visited considered the South Dakota class to be the last of the standard battleships.

 

Interesting read thanks for sharing.

 

I'm curious. The author implied that the South Dakota classes were ill-fated and a poor design. I've frequently seen it stated here that the SoDaks were one of the best, if not the best treaty battleship design.

 

Why the discrepancy in perception of SoDaks efficacy?

 

Just to clarify, the South Dakota-class that the author refers to in the paper is the 1920 BB-49 class, not the 1939 BB-57 class of treaty battleships.

 

1920 BB-49 South Dakota-class

 

And just for kicks, the 1939 BB-57 South Dakota-class

[urk_the_red]

 

 

Just to clarify, the South Dakota-class that the author refers to in the paper is the 1920 BB-49 class, not the 1939 BB-57 class of treaty battleships.

 

1920 BB-49 South Dakota-class

 

And just for kicks, the 1939 BB-57 South Dakota-class

That makes a lot more sense. I always forget about those.

[Lampshade_M1A2]

Despite its very impressive armament the 1920s BB-49 South Dakota class was a rather poor design in several respects. Besides for the slow speed the level of armor protection had not improved since the "standard" class battleships. 13.5" of vertical belt armor was outstanding when first introduced on the Nevada class and still respectable by the time of the Colorado class. Yet on the South Dakota class that same armor scheme was a poor response to increasing levels of firepower and the deck armor was unacceptably thin too.

 

By comparison the 1939 BB-57 South Dakota class was probably the best battleship design you could ever fit into the 35,000 ton Washington treaty limit.

[TheOssifrage]

 This is a very interesting article, certainly a lot of points not usually discussed. The Standard-type battleships' "all or nothing" armour scheme was by far better than foreign contemporaries. However, I get the general feeling that the author is downplaying some of the issues with the USN dreadnoughts, and unfairly criticising foreign battleships. For example, while it's true that they were built to very good ideas and designs, the problem was that they aged poorly - as fast carriers and aircraft took precedence, their slow speed would have been a massive hindrance. They were only capable of achieving their wartime careers because America was on the offensive and they no longer had any threat from air attacks, so they could bombard land targets with little opposition.

 The Kongo-class battleships did not perform miserably. Hiei's rudder, which is a notorious weak point for many battleships, was jammed and the ship was peppered by shells and fire. If they had managed to repair the rudder, Hiei could have limped away to survive another day. And no-one expected a WWI vintage battleship with 8" armour and 14" guns to beat a heavily armoured, modern USN battleship using frag shells. Given the circumstances, the ships themselves were not at fault. The same could not be said of the people in control.

 It is also widely acknowledged now that Fuso didn't break in half - the burning 'stern' of the ship was actually just a large oil fire. The ship didn't suffer a magazine detonation, just flooding followed by it capsizing.

 Comparing a Fritz-X guided bomb hit amidships to a kamikaze strike is just ridiculous. USS Maryland's first hit penetrated the armour but didn't damage anything important, nor did it destroy the bow and hinder the ship's ability to sail. The HMS Warspite, on the other hand, took a guided bomb nearly four times heavier into the boiler rooms that snuffed out all power and blew out the double-bottomed hull from the inside. The amount of punishment suffered are on different levels of magnitude, and they just can't be compared. Kamikaze attacks did little damage to heavily armoured targets such as battleships, and fared best against thin-skinned vessels which could be easily penetrated.

 

TL;DR I think the author is biased.

 

[Aiser50]

Mind blown.

 

Hard to find this style of writing any more.

 

+1

[KnightFandragon]

The 1920 South Dakota just got alot cooler.  How the crap was it gunna carry 12 16 inch guns on a ship only 680 feet long? 

 

Either way, can we have that as a T7 premium?

 

Does it even carry any AA?  Looking it up on Wiki I see a bunch of 127mms and 4 DPs...that all it has for AA?  4 guns?

[Freecloud]

This was definitely an interesting read, especially since I kinda have a soft spot for the Standard-type Battleships .

[UrPeaceKeeper]

 This is a very interesting article, certainly a lot of points not usually discussed. The Standard-type battleships' "all or nothing" armour scheme was by far better than foreign contemporaries. However, I get the general feeling that the author is downplaying some of the issues with the USN dreadnoughts, and unfairly criticising foreign battleships. For example, while it's true that they were built to very good ideas and designs, the problem was that they aged poorly - as fast carriers and aircraft took precedence, their slow speed would have been a massive hindrance. They were only capable of achieving their wartime careers because America was on the offensive and they no longer had any threat from air attacks, so they could bombard land targets with little opposition.

 The Kongo-class battleships did not perform miserably. Hiei's rudder, which is a notorious weak point for many battleships, was jammed and the ship was peppered by shells and fire. If they had managed to repair the rudder, Hiei could have limped away to survive another day. And no-one expected a WWI vintage battleship with 8" armour and 14" guns to beat a heavily armoured, modern USN battleship using frag shells. Given the circumstances, the ships themselves were not at fault. The same could not be said of the people in control.

 It is also widely acknowledged now that Fuso didn't break in half - the burning 'stern' of the ship was actually just a large oil fire. The ship didn't suffer a magazine detonation, just flooding followed by it capsizing.

 Comparing a Fritz-X guided bomb hit amidships to a kamikaze strike is just ridiculous. USS Maryland's first hit penetrated the armour but didn't damage anything important, nor did it destroy the bow and hinder the ship's ability to sail. The HMS Warspite, on the other hand, took a guided bomb nearly four times heavier into the boiler rooms that snuffed out all power and blew out the double-bottomed hull from the inside. The amount of punishment suffered are on different levels of magnitude, and they just can't be compared. Kamikaze attacks did little damage to heavily armoured targets such as battleships, and fared best against thin-skinned vessels which could be easily penetrated.

 

TL;DR I think the author is biased.

 

 

No doubt there is some bias by the author but he does have some very good points.  His analysis of US Standards is pretty spot in with regards to damage received compared to other nations.  Remember, all of the US Standards except the New Mexico's and Colorado were at Pearl Harbor and received enough damage to sink.  Many of them taking on Yamato levels of torpedoes before finally succumbing to the damage... of course, as he points out, while in a 100% peace time operation while preparing for inspections.  IE:  No real water tight conditions aboard any of the ships.  A few of the Standards took damage elsewhere as well from torpedoes after their refits and survived with relative ease.

 

As for the Fritz X vs Kamikaze... the Fritz X was 3000lbs in total weight, but only 320kg of that was actual warhead.  The Japanese utilized a number of different aircraft weighing in the 2500-3000lb range with armament on board.  Many were loaded with bombs, plus fuels, etc.  I'd say that aside from the Fritz X having some level of armor piercing whereas an aircraft would most likely break up on contact, things are pretty comparable.  I do believe the Japanese used bombs on board their Kamikazes that could add to any penetration capabilities.

 

Overall, the US Standard Design was a brilliant design for the era in which the ships were intended to operate and even while operating well outside their intended life span, after refits, they performed their duties quite well.  Most other nations were running battleships of the same era well into WWII and only a few nations were able to actually build new ones in any quantity to evaluate so most of the major naval battles happened with pretty old WWI era battleships modernized to fight a war in the 1940's.  I'd say they did pretty well.  They were definitely ahead of their time though with their emphasis on advanced deck armor layouts and heavier deck armor.  Something that other nations wouldn't learn the hard lessons of until the Battle of Jutland forced the idea forward.

 

 

[TheOssifrage]

@UrPeaceKeeper

 

 I agree that the USN standards are very tough nuts to crack, and are excellent dreadnoughts - unfortunately for them, slow dreadnoughts became obsolete by WW2. Didn't mean they couldn't perform and conduct shore bombardment, but the clock was definitely ticking.

 However, I can't agree that a kamikaze aircraft could be compared to a guided bomb. My reasoning is this: A kamikaze Mitsubishi A6M, which normally carried a 250kg bomb, and a full load of aviation fuel, could devastate a destroyer, but they would easily shatter upon contact with heavy armour, like a battleship's belt. The bomb might detonate close to the hull but it wouldn't have picked up the kinetic energy to punch through, unless the plane hit the superstructure or thin bow armour (like what happened to USS Maryland). Burning fuel could cause a lot of damage to wooden decks and AA mounts, but highly unlikely to cause more than superficial damage. A kamikaze attack on a battleship never seriously damaged it, with most US standard-types conducting spot repairs and continuing on their mission unhindered. Fritz-X guided bombs, however, were responsible for critically damaging the battleships Italia and HMS Warspite, heavy cruiser USS Savannah, light cruiser HMS Uganda and sinking the modern, heavily armoured Italian fast battleship Roma. Their anti-ship capabilities were an order of magnitude above kamikaze attacks (on battleships) and thus I believe that the author comparing and belittling the Warspite's ability to survive such an attack was misguided by a fair amount of bias.

 

Cheerios.

[Azumazi]

@UrPeaceKeeper

 

 I agree that the USN standards are very tough nuts to crack, and are excellent dreadnoughts - unfortunately for them, slow dreadnoughts became obsolete by WW2. Didn't mean they couldn't perform and conduct shore bombardment, but the clock was definitely ticking.

 However, I can't agree that a kamikaze aircraft could be compared to a guided bomb. My reasoning is this: A kamikaze Mitsubishi A6M, which normally carried a 250kg bomb, and a full load of aviation fuel, could devastate a destroyer, but they would easily shatter upon contact with heavy armour, like a battleship's belt. The bomb might detonate close to the hull but it wouldn't have picked up the kinetic energy to punch through, unless the plane hit the superstructure or thin bow armour (like what happened to USS Maryland). Burning fuel could cause a lot of damage to wooden decks and AA mounts, but highly unlikely to cause more than superficial damage. A kamikaze attack on a battleship never seriously damaged it, with most US standard-types conducting spot repairs and continuing on their mission unhindered. Fritz-X guided bombs, however, were responsible for critically damaging the battleships Italia and HMS Warspite, heavy cruiser USS Savannah, light cruiser HMS Uganda and sinking the modern, heavily armoured Italian fast battleship Roma. Their anti-ship capabilities were an order of magnitude above kamikaze attacks (on battleships) and thus I believe that the author comparing and belittling the Warspite's ability to survive such an attack was misguided by a fair amount of bias.

 

Cheerios.

 

To be honest, it really depends on what plane we are talking about.

 

The later war most common Kamikaze was the Yokosuka D4Y2 and D4Y3s which could get off the ground with an 800kg AP bomb. These being the same bombs used at Pearl Harbor and a few newer types for faster production. Depending on the distance, the bomber would be on average around 4000kg in total weight moving in a terminal dive at around 650kph. That's a lot of force and there is a reason why Japan was pushing for these in that role over many other aircraft, at least for the Navy. Of the near 2100 produced, nearly 850 were converted to a kamikaze fitting. Along side these started into production with around the same amount were the Model 11 Oka.

 

The Imperial Army however mostly operated the Ki-51 in a suicide role and it carried a 250kg bomb when in such a fitting. There are a few cases of the Ki-84 being converted for the role, but the Army didn't like the idea of sacrificing fighters that were proving to be capable of engaging enemy aircraft in the interceptor role and opted mostly not to do such.