South Dakota-class Battleships

[Kensei]

 

Name: South Dakota-class

 

Builders And Specifics:

USS South Dakota (BB-57): New York Shipbuilding Corporation

Laid down: 5 July 1939, Launched: 7 June 1941, Commissioned: 20 March 1942, Decommissioned: 31 January 1947, Struck: 1 June 1962. Fate: Sold for scrap.

 

USS Indiana (BB-58): Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company

Laid down: 20 November 1939, Launched: 21 November 1941, Commissioned: 30 April 1942, Decommissioned: 11 September 1947, Struck: June 01, 1962. Fate: Sold for scrap.

 

USS Massachusetts (BB-59): Fore River Shipyard

Laid down: 20 July 1939, Launched: 23 September 1941, Commissioned: 12 May 1942, Decommissioned: 27 March 1947, Struck: 1 June 1962. Fate: Museum ship in Battleship Cove, Fall River, Massachusetts.

 

 

USS Alabama (BB-60): Norfolk Navy Yard

Laid down: 1 February 1940, Launched: 16 February 1942, Commissioned: 16 August 1942, Decommissioned: 9 January 1947, Struck: 1 June 1962. Fate: Museum ship in Battleship Memorial Park, Mobile, Alabama.

 

Operators: United States Navy

 

Preceded by: North Carolina-class

Succeeded by: Iowa-class

 

Cost: US $77,000,000 each. (Inclusive cost, thanks to MM2ss!)

 

General Characterisitcs:

 

Type: Battleship

 

Displacement:

35,000 tons (standard)

44,519 tons (full load)

 

Length: 680 ft (210 m)

 

Beam: 108.2 ft (33.0 m)

 

Propulsion: 130,000 hp (97 MW) steam turbines

 

Speed: 27 knots (50 km/h)

 

Armament: 9 x 16"/45 caliber Mark 6 guns (3x3)

 

20 x 5-inch (127 mm)/38-caliber DP (10x2) (South Dakota 16 {8 x 2})

 

Armor:

12.2" belt

11." bulkheads

11.3"-17.3" barbettes

18" turret faces

16" conning tower

6.1"-5.8" armored deck

 

Aircraft carried:

OS2U Kingfisher (x2)

 

Notes: The USS South Dakota was designed to act as a fleet flag ship, and had an extra deck added to the conning tower specifically for this purpose. The extra weight necessitated the removal of two twin 5-in DP mounts.

[MM2ss]

Inclusive cost officially $$77,000,000 each.  That is building, fitting out, and ready to go to war price.

[Kensei]

MM2ss, on 28 November 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

Inclusive cost officially $$77,000,000 each.  That is building, fitting out, and ready to go to war price.

Could you give me a source for that? I'm interested in finding a lot more info on the ships and looking at fiscal appropriations makes my eyes bleed.

[MM2ss]

FY1939 appropriations bill and other appropriations bills.  Reading them sucks.  You can also find some details here, but it only list the cost as a note.(http://www.voodoo-wo...sa/sdclass.html)

 

Mind you, that is the official inclusive cost, not necessarily the actual cost per unit.

[Kensei]

MM2ss, on 28 November 2012 - 10:12 PM, said:

FY1939 appropriations bill and other appropriations bills.  Reading them sucks.  You can also find some details here, but it only list the cost as a note.(http://www.voodoo-wo...sa/sdclass.html)

Mind you, that is the official inclusive cost, not necessarily the actual cost per unit.

I would assume cost overruns plagued government projects then just as they do now, but I'll take what I can get. Guess I'll have to do some investigating sometime to find out what the actual per unit cost was.

[MM2ss]

That is almost impossible to figure.  For example, the 1939 appropriation list the total amount appropriated...for two battleships, some cruisers, destroyers, and if memory serves three fast tankers as well...  It does not give individual actual cost.

[Kensei]

MM2ss, on 28 November 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

That is almost impossible to figure.  For example, the 1939 appropriation list the total amount appropriated...for two battleships, some cruisers, destroyers, and if memory serves three fast tankers as well...  It does not give individual actual cost.

I would have to find the individual at cost amounts for each of the other ships over the course of construction and remove them from the total appropriations figures, then I'd probably have to find the extra appropriations made over the years for any sort of cost overruns and the like. I suppose I could try to get in contact with the Naval History and Heritage Command or the National Archives to see if they have any information.

[MM2ss]

Good luck on that.  My access to the navy history site seems insufficient for this unfortunately.  Plus there is the minor issue that some ships received funding from multiple appropriations bills.

[Kensei]

MM2ss, on 28 November 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

Good luck on that.  My access to the navy history site seems insufficient for this unfortunately.  Plus there is the minor issue that some ships received funding from multiple appropriations bills.

Yes, it might be a tad bit difficult. Hopefully I might be able to call on a few extra resources not generally available. I'll have to give the Battleship Memorial Park services a ring to see if they have a historian or two dusting around to see if I can pull something up. Might be able to do that next week.

[_Jeremiah_Gottwald]

A very nice ship. Sleek and powerful.

[nTwo]

The good old days with that ship in NF. I still think I have "Gates" crew. lol

[_Jeremiah_Gottwald]

I only made it to the Atlanta in NF. Couldn't take the short range of the 5' anymore.

[Coldt]

Say hello to the U.S. tier 8 XD

[sharlin648]

I always liked the look of the US battleships, the refitted Standards (with basically her susperstructure) look powerful.  English ships were sleek, Germans very buisness like and imposing, the US BBs were always tenacious looking, I belive the term rugged would apply.

[Treveli]

Hope to see the class in game. I walked in and around the 'Bama enough when I was a kid that I think of her when I first see any battleship.

[Wunderwaffen1945]

May the force be with you

[NGTM_1R]

SoDak is probably, for the weight, the best-protected battleship design ever built.

 

First, a uniquely US extravagance: from the North Carolinas on, US battleships did not use structural-quality steel in their construction. All internal and external structural and superstructural portions of the ship were made out of Special Treatment Steel, which was armor quality. This was expensive; no other battleship-building nation could afford to do such a thing. While all these misc. bulkheads will not stop a shell, this arrangement would provide superior protection from splinters and blast effects if a round got through the main armor.

 

Second: SoDak and her sisters were relatively small in comparison to their contemporaries. This is again a result of the US being richer than most, and thus able to pour considerable money into an efficent powerplant that took up less space. This smaller size meant that the weight of armor could be used more efficently. (Witness the Iowas taking ten thousand more tons for another 60 meters length, and a net minor loss in protection.)

 

Third, the armor plating design was very efficent. Inclined armor saved weight and increased the difficulty of penetrating the armor at short ranges. An outboard shell decapping plate decreased the effectiveness of high-angle fire by removing the shell's ballistic cap and ruining its high-angle penetration characteristics. The shell decapping plate would also set off an incoming round's fuze, keeping the shell from penetrating as deeply if it still went on to pierce the main armor or ensuring highly oblique shots destroyed themselves before ever reaching the main plate. The torpedo bulkheads made good use of mixed liquid and void-space protection, achieving a superior explosive load limit to that of the Yamato despite not being nearly as wide.

 

It is ironic, then, that South Dakota herself would go on to be something of a hard-luck ship, tearing her bottom open for a very long stretch of the ship's length on an uncharted rock while manuvering at Tongatabu which delayed her participation in the South Pacific, taking a bomb during the Battle of Santa Cruz that rendered part of her main battery inoperable and wounded her captain, fighting the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal with only eight of her guns working and setting her own floatplanes on fire with the blast of her main battery then knocking out her electrical system from shock damage via her own main battery and blundering into a position where she took 42 shell hits, and serving two stints in the North Atlantic out of Iceland both before her Pacific service and after she was returned to the yard for repairs following Guadalcanal. Eventually returning to the Pacific in time for the Gilberts operation, her career after that was like most of the fast battleships: solid, but undistingushed.

[HaradaTaro]

MM2ss, on 28 November 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

Inclusive cost officially $$77,000,000 each.  That is building, fitting out, and ready to go to war price.

Never heard of the purchase price.  Only know it has been sold for scrap on 25 octobre 1962 for $466,425 to Lipsett Division Luria Brothers

The sole price I know is the Bismarck one 71.642 millions ReichMark.  source :

http://www.bismarck-...th_place_08.jpg

Can't find a better source than the original bill.

[Sampsonite]

Graded by several comparisons as the best "all around" battleship design of WWII. I agree having walked the deck of USS Massachusetts "Big Mamie" several times because she's only 40 mi from me and she has a great layout. The only thing that seems odd is, having walked the North Carolina and Iowa, it almost looks like she should be longer. So much stuff on deck in such a small space.

[Coldt]

Uhg...  I really don't like the South Dakota class.  Everything about the ship was a compromise to the NC for the sake of making her about 50 feet shorter.  The armor was almost as good, the speed was not quite to par, the AA protection was close but still less, and she could almost take a punch as well as her bigger older brother.  Not to mention that there was a plan floating around to upgrade the NC with the Iowa's 16/50's because they could take the extra weight, while the SD could not.  It's because of that fact that I honestly believe the SD will be a tier 8 ship and the NC will be one tier above her.

 

Quote

(Witness the Iowas taking ten thousand more tons for another 60 meters length, and a net minor loss in protection.)

And this was used to bash on the Iowa, lets make some things right here.  The Iowas was 25% heavier than the SD, it was also 30% longer.  Only 25% heavier and 30% longer, that means it lost weight relative to length so yes, a minor decrease in armor(the heaviest part of the ship) thickness can be expect, however the particular armor layout of the Iowa was more efficient than on her little sisters with a slightly more angled belt and particular emphasis being put on vital areas.  So, the relative armor quality is slightly better on the Iowa and, the Iowa also gained a MASSIVE improvement with her guns.  It's the classic American construction style:  Get more with less, then use less to get more.

[Sampsonite]

I agree with you. This always comes back to tonnage. The US in it's building program was constrained by many things. They even followed the Washington Naval Treaty in the design of the Iowas'. After they found out about Yamato, the Montanas' were on the drawing board.  The battleship was the arms race of an earlier time.

[NGTM_1R]

Coldt, on 28 December 2012 - 08:28 AM, said:

however the particular armor layout of the Iowa was more efficient than on her little sisters with a slightly more angled belt and particular emphasis being put on vital areas.

There's actually very little difference between the two armor layouts. The inclined belt increase is a mixed bag, because it improves protection against flat-trajectory fire but it also means that plunging fire is more effective. SoDak was really at an ideal place in this scheme because normal to her plates took place at a range that doesn't match engagement ranges for a night action with visual spot per Japanese SOP nor a day action with OTH radar spot or visual spot per US SOP. Iowa was edging out towards a comfortable visual spot daylight action range when normal to her plates took place, which reduces the effectiveness and utility of both her decapping plate and her armor in general.

Quirk of how ships actually fight.

[Elouda]

NGTM_1R, on 28 December 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

There's actually very little difference between the two armor layouts. The inclined belt increase is a mixed bag, because it improves protection against flat-trajectory fire but it also means that plunging fire is more effective. SoDak was really at an ideal place in this scheme because normal to her plates took place at a range that doesn't match engagement ranges for a night action with visual spot per Japanese SOP nor a day action with OTH radar spot or visual spot per US SOP. Iowa was edging out towards a comfortable visual spot daylight action range when normal to her plates took place, which reduces the effectiveness and utility of both her decapping plate and her armor in general.

Quirk of how ships actually fight.

Firstly; Iowa's layout was in no way superior to South Dakotas. She had the same incline, slightly thinner belt, same decapping plate and less protected length (53.8% vs 55.8%). She had slightly better deck protection, and Missouri and Wisconsin had thicker end bulkheads.

Secondly; How does inclined armour reduce protection against plunging fire? If anything, its the opposite.

For example,
200mm plate inclined at 0 degrees, shell angle of fall 5 degrees (short range) - total angle 5 degrees, effective thickness 201mm
200mm plate inclined at 15 degrees, shell angle of fall 5 degrees (short range) - total angle 20 degrees, effective thickness 213mm
200mm plate inclined at 0 degrees, shell angle of fall 30 degrees (long range) - total angle 30 degrees, effective thickness 231mm
200mm plate inclined at 15 degrees, shell angle of fall 30 degrees (long range) - total angle 45 degrees, effective thickness 283mm

As you can see, the difference between the flat and inclined plates is only 12mm of protection up close, but at long range amounts to 52mm of protection.

In fact, I would say the complete opposite - flat plates are most effective against short range fire, with inclined plates being more effective against long range fire.

Why? Because inclining a plate means it covers a smaller vertical area, which means less protected volume. At long ranges this is worth the trade off as you gain a lot of protection from the incline. At short ranges, the gain is marginal, but the lost volume is not.

Also, from an earlier post;

Quote

Third, the armor plating design was very efficent. Inclined armor saved weight and increased the difficulty of penetrating the armor at short ranges. An outboard shell decapping plate decreased the effectiveness of high-angle fire by removing the shell's ballistic cap and ruining its high-angle penetration characteristics. The shell decapping plate would also set off an incoming round's fuze, keeping the shell from penetrating as deeply if it still went on to pierce the main armor or ensuring highly oblique shots destroyed themselves before ever reaching the main plate. The torpedo bulkheads made good use of mixed liquid and void-space protection, achieving a superior explosive load limit to that of the Yamato despite not being nearly as wide.

Decapping plates did not set off fuzes, unless the shell in question was a contact fuzed HE shell. Base-fuzed AP would typically only arm after striking several bulkheads, or the main armour deck/belt.

The main purpose of decapping plates was to remove or dislodge the armour-piercing cap (very distinct from the ballistic cap, which was nothing but a thin shell of metal that would be torn away on impact with anything), which served to normalise the shell on impact with the main plate. By removing it, the shell was more likely to remain in the 35+ degree impact angle zone where it was likely to shatter, as a result of the nose failing to penetrate and the shells body striking the plate.

[NGTM_1R]

Elouda, on 31 December 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

How does inclined armour reduce protection against plunging fire?

I'll draw you a simple picture.

This is an inclined plate: \

This is a flate plate: l

You will notice that impact at 90 degrees to the plate, the ideal angle for penetration, occurs at a downward angle on an inclined plate, which is an angle that would happen with plunging fire. Sloped plates offer superior protection to flat-trajectory rounds. If the round has a significant arc to it, a sloped plate offers less protection than a flat plate would because of the angle of obliquity being lessened. Basic physics. You've probably played Tanks. You should know this.

Elouda, on 31 December 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

Decapping plates did not set off fuzes

Fuzes are set off by a base amount of resistence. A decapping plate, of sufficent thickness, would set off a fuze; most of them won't decap without setting off the base fuze on an AP round as well because of the way the existing rounds were designed. Unless you can prove your ballistics knowledge is superior to Nathan Okun, who was actually employed for this purpose, and who said exactly what I was talking about in his analysis of Bismarck's guns vs. various protective schemes (read here), I'm going to believe the world expert over you.

[Elouda]

NGTM_1R, on 31 December 2012 - 04:09 AM, said:

I'll draw you a simple picture.

This is an inclined plate: \

This is a flate plate: l

You will notice that impact at 90 degrees to the plate, the ideal angle for penetration, occurs at a downward angle on an inclined plate, which is an angle that would happen with plunging fire. Sloped plates offer superior protection to flat-trajectory rounds. If the round has a significant arc to it, a sloped plate offers less protection than a flat plate would because of the angle of obliquity being lessened. Basic physics. You've probably played Tanks. You should know this.

Here is a simple representation of the South Dakota armour layout.



The red line is an impact at 0 degrees angle of fall, the blue at 15 degrees angle of fall, and the green at 30 degrees angle of fall. Notice that in all cases, the angle the trajectory makes with the vertical outer bulkhead is less than what it makes with the inclined plate. This is true regardless of angle of fall. The inclination of the plate means that whatever the angle of fall of the shell in question, the plate adds its inclination to it. This is more effective the larger the angle of fall is due to simple rules of trigonometry.

Quote

Fuzes are set off by a base amount of resistence. A decapping plate, of sufficent thickness, would set off a fuze; most of them won't decap without setting off the base fuze on an AP round as well because of the way the existing rounds were designed. Unless you can prove your ballistics knowledge is superior to Nathan Okun, who was actually employed for this purpose, and who said exactly what I was talking about in his analysis of Bismarck's guns vs. various protective schemes (read here), I'm going to believe the world expert over you.

You are correct that fuzes are armed with after a certain amount of resistance, but as Okuns article details, Bismarcks 15in, is slowed only by 3m/s on impact with the decapping plate on South Dakota. While I am unfamiliar with the precise details of German naval fuzes, I can tell you this level of deceleration is insufficient to arm any of the US or Japanese large caliber fuzes, with perhaps the exception of that used on the new US 12in.