Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
dseehafer

A Comparison of Modern Fast Battleships of WWII

42 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,717
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

Greetings all,


    Here is a special treat for you. One that will hopefully prove a useful tool for many of you. Tracking down information and statistics of certain ships can be difficult and time-consuming. Even more difficult and time consuming, is finding reliable and accurate statistics and information for the ships. For over a week I have been doing just that. I have decided to compare the classes of modern fast battleships that served in WWII as these repesent the final evolutionary step over many decades of battleship design philosphy. I would like to stress that this is in no way an attempt on my behalf to decide "the best" or "the worst" among these. This is purely and simply a convenent comparison of these ships in one place. 

I have compared and contrasted many sources in able to bring you the most accurate information possible. However, If you have a correction, please provide a source for the correction and we can certainly discuss how to move forward.

    In order to present each class in the best light possible, I have elected to present their statistics in a "best case scenario" setting. All stats listed are the best mechanically possible under a well-trained crew, while still adhering to historical limitations where they are present. 
    While the rate of fire for any gun may inevitably decrease over time of battle it is impossible to measure to what point rof will drop to the point where it is sustainable. That is why maximum possible rof is used in these comparisons. In either event, the ratios of loading time between the guns should remain static. That is to say that a faster-firing gun will decrease in rof at the same (or similar) rate to a slower firing gun (If you start off firing 3 seconds faster than the competition you will likely end still firing 3 seconds faster than the competition despite the gradual loss of rof over time). 
    For top speed, I have decided to go with design speed. The fact is that most ships can exceed their top design speed by a knot or two and even trial speeds are not an accurate representation of service speed as most speed trials are done under a light load. Further, some ships never achieve their design speed for one reason or another, but that does not mean that it is unattainable. In the end, design speed seemed the only static enough statistic worth using.
    For armor protection, I have elected to only show protection over vital areas such as magazines, machinery spaces, and gun turrets. Forward, rear, and upper belts and splinter bulkheads are therefore not listed. Further, non-armor protection such as concrete, wood, or hull plating is also not included.
    Finally, in order to ensure that each class is represented in the best light possible, I will be comparing the biggest/most-advanced/largest/last of each class and each in it's final/most powerful form achieved before the end of the war.

 

The Scharnhorst-class will be represented by Scharnhorst herself as she appeared during her final battle on the 26th of December, 1943.

Image result for scharnhorst 1943

 

The Dunkerque-class will be represented by Dunkerque's sub-sister Strasbourg as she appeared before her scuttling on the 27th of November, 1942.

Image result for strasbourg 1942

 

The Richelieu-class will be represented by Richelieu herself as she is the only eligible member of the class since Jean Bart wasnt completed until after the war. Richelieu will be shown as she appeared at the end of the War on September 2nd, 1945.

Image result for richelieu 1945

 

The Bismarck-class will be represented by Tirpitz as she appeared during her final operation at sea on September 8th, 1943.

Image result for tirpitz color

 

The King George V-class will be represented by Howe as she appeared at the end of the War on September 2nd, 1945.

Related image

 

The Vittorio Veneto-class will be represented by Roma as she appeared on the day of her demise, September 9th, 1943.

Related image

 

The North Carolina-class will be represented by North Carolina herself as she appeared at the end of the War on September 2nd, 1945.

0155013.jpg

 

The Yamato-class will be represented by Yamato herself as she appeared on the day of her destruction, April 7th, 1945.

Related image

 

The South Dakota-class will be represented by Alabama as she appeared at the end of the War on September 2nd, 1945.

Image result for uss alabama 1945

 

The Iowa class will be represented by Wisconsin as she appeared at the end of the War on September 2nd, 1945.

0164046.jpg

 


Before we begin... if you see a (*) followed by a number that means that there is a note on that particular statistic at the end. You will see all notes in order as they appeared near the bottom of the page. Please make sure you have read all notes before submitting a correction as the issue may be covered/explained in the notes. Main sources are also listed at the bottom of the page.

 


Full Displacement
Scharnhorst - 39,643 t
Strasbourg - 36,380 t
Richelieu - 48,500 t
Tirpitz - 53,500 t
Howe - 45,226 t
Roma - 46,215 t
North Carolina - 46,700 t
Yamato - 72,809 t
Alabama - 44,519 t
Wisconsin - 58,000 t


Length Overall
Scharnhorst - 235.4 m
Strasbourg - 215.5 m
Richelieu - 247.9 m
Tirpitz - 253.6 m
Howe - 227.1 m
Roma - 238.8 m
North Carolina - 222.1 m
Yamato - 263 m
Alabama - 207.3 m
Wisconsin - 270.4 m


Beam
Scharnhorst - 30 m
Strasbourg - 31.1 m
Richelieu - 33 m
Tirpitz - 36 m
Howe - 31.4 m
Roma - 32.9 m
North Carolina - 33 m
Yamato - 36.9 m
Alabama - 33 m
Wisconsin - 33 m


Draught at Full Load
Scharnhorst - 9.93 m
Strasbourg - 9.82 m
Richelieu - 9.63 m
Tirpitz - 10.6 m
Howe - 9.9 m
Roma - 10.5 m
North Carolina - 10 m
Yamato - 10.86 m
Alabama - 10.7 m
Wisconsin - 11 m


Main Battery Size (AP Muzzle Velocity)
Scharnhorst - 280 mm (890 mps)
Strasbourg - 330 mm (870 mps)
Richelieu - 381 mm (800 mps)
Tirpitz - 380 mm (820 mps)
Howe - 356 mm (757 mps)
Roma - 381 mm (850 mps)
North Carolina - 406 mm (701 mps)
Yamato - 460 mm (780 mps)
Alabama - 406 mm (701 mps)
Wisconsin - 406 mm (762 mps)


Number of Main Battery Guns able to fire to a Broadside 
Scharnhorst - 9
Strasbourg - 8
Richelieu - 8
Tirpitz - 8
Howe - 10
Roma - 9
North Carolina - 9
Yamato - 9
Alabama - 9
Wisconsin - 9


Main Battery Firing Range
Scharnhorst - 40.93 km
Strasbourg - 41.7 km
Richelieu - 41.7 km
Tirpitz - 36.52 km
Howe - 35.26 km
Roma - 42.8 km
North Carolina - 33.74 km
Yamato - 42.03 km
Alabama - 33.74 km
Wisconsin - 38.72 km


Maximum Main Battery max Rate of Fire
Scharnhorst - 3 rpm *1
Strasbourg - 2 rpm
Richelieu - 1.33 rpm *2
Tirpitz - 2.72 rpm  *3
Howe - 2 rpm
Roma - 2.02 rpm
North Carolina - 2 rpm
Yamato - 2 rpm
Alabama - 2 rpm
Wisconsin - 2 rpm


Main Battery Broadside RPM at max ROF
Scharnhorst - 27 shells
Strasbourg - 16 shells
Richelieu - 10.64 shells
Tirpitz - 21.76 shells
Howe - 20 shells
Roma - 18.18 shells
North Carolina - 18 shells
Yamato - 18 shells
Alabama - 18 shells
Wisconsin - 18 shells


AP Shell Weight
Scharnhorst - 330 kg
Strasbourg - 560 kg
Richelieu - 885 kg
Tirpitz - 800 kg
Howe - 721 kg
Roma - 884.8 kg
North Carolina - 1,255 kg
Yamato - 1,460 kg
Alabama - 1,255 kg
Wisconsin - 1,225 kg


AP Shell Bursting Charge
Scharnhorst - 7.84 kg
Strasbourg - 20.3 kg
Richelieu - 20.14 kg
Tirpitz - 18.8 kg
Howe - 22 kg
Roma - 10.16 kg
North Carolina - 18.55 kg
Yamato - 33.85 kg
Alabama - 18.55 kg
Wisconsin - 18.55 kg


Total Main Battery Broadside AP weight
Scharnhorst - 2,970 kg
Strasbourg - 4,480 kg
Richelieu - 7,080 kg
Tirpitz - 6,400 kg
Howe - 7,210 kg
Roma - 7,963.2 kg
North Carolina - 11,295 kg
Yamato - 13,140 kg
Alabama - 11,295 kg
Wisconsin - 11,295 kg


Total Main Battery Broadside AP Explosive Weight
Scharnhorst - 70.56 kg
Strasbourg - 162.4 kg
Richelieu - 161.12 kg
Tirpitz - 150.4 kg
Howe - 220 kg
Roma - 91.44 kg
North Carolina - 166.95 kg
Yamato - 304.65 kg
Alabama - 166.95 kg
Wisconsin - 166.95 kg


AP Belt Penetration at 22,000 yards (British Cemented Armor)
Scharnhorst - 246.38 mm
Strasbourg - 368.3 mm
Richelieu - 414.02 mm
Tirpitz - 386.08 mm 
Howe - 368.3 mm 
Roma - 436.88 mm
North Carolina - 401.32 mm
Yamato - 429.26 mm
Alabama - 401.32 mm
Wisconsin - 452.12 mm


AP Deck Penetration at 22,000 yards (British Cemented Armor)
Scharnhorst - 53.34 mm
Strasbourg - 60.96 mm
Richelieu - 76.2 mm
Tirpitz - 68.58 mm
Howe - 76.2 mm
Roma - 71.12 mm
North Carolina - 101.6 mm
Yamato - 88.9 mm
Alabama - 101.6 mm
Wisconsin - 96.52 mm


Fire-Control Effectiveness
Scharnhorst - Best Possible (Proved capable of straddle or hit on first salvo) *5
Strasbourg - Unknown/Unproven
Richelieu - Best Possible (Proved capable of straddle or hit on first salvo) *6
Tirpitz - Best Possible (Proved capable of straddle or hit on first salvo) *5
Howe - Best Possible (Proved capable of straddle or hit on first salvo) *6
Roma - Good (Proved capable of straddle or hit within first 3-5 salvos)
North Carolina - Best Possible (Proved capable of straddle or hit on first salvo) *7
Yamato - Good (Proved capable of straddle or hit within first 3-5 salvos)
Alabama - Best Possible (Proved capable of straddle or hit on first salvo) *7
Wisconsin - Best Possible (Proved capable of straddle or hit on first salvo) *7


Secondary Batteries
Scharnhorst - 12x 150 mm, 14x 105 mm (15 mounts)
Strasbourg - 16x 130 mm (5 mounts)
Richelieu - 9x 152 mm, 12 x 100 mm (9 mounts)
Tirpitz - 12x 150 mm, 16x 105 mm (14 mounts)
Howe - 16x 133 mm (8 mounts)
Roma - 12x 152 mm (6 mounts)
North Carolina - 20x 127 mm (10 mounts)
Yamato - 6x 155 mm, 24x 127 mm (14 mounts)
Alabama - 20x 127 mm (10 mounts)
Wisconsin - 20x 127 mm (10 mounts)


RPM of Secondary Battery Broadside at Max ROF
Scharnhorst - 192 shells
Strasbourg - 120 shells
Richelieu - 132 shells
Tirpitz - 192 shells
Howe - 64 shells
Roma - 27 shells
North Carolina - 220 shells
Yamato - 204 shells
Alabama - 220 shells
Wisconsin - 220 shells


Secondary Battery Range
Scharnhorst - 17.7 km (105), 23 km (150)
Strasbourg - 20.8 km
Richelieu - 15.8 km (100), 24.96 km (152)
Tirpitz - 17.7 km (105), 23 km (150)
Howe - 21.4 km
Roma - 24.9 km
North Carolina - 16.07 km
Yamato - 14.8 km (127), 27.4 km (155)
Alabama - 16.07 km
Wisconsin - 16.07 km


Weight of Secondary Broadside (HE)
Scharnhorst - 392.6 kg
Strasbourg - 321 kg
Richelieu - 442.5 kg
Tirpitz - 392.6 kg
Howe - 290.4 kg
Roma - 266.4 kg
North Carolina - 240 kg
Yamato - 616.62 kg
Alabama - 240 kg
Wisconsin - 240 kg


Heavy AA Guns
Scharnhorst - 14x 105 mm (7 mounts)
Strasbourg - 16x 130mm (5 mounts)
Richelieu - 12x 100 mm, 9x 152 mm (9 mounts)
Tirpitz - 16x 105 mm (8 mounts)
Howe - 16x 133 mm (8 mounts)
Roma - 12x 90 mm (12 mounts)
North Carolina - 20x 127 mm (10 mounts)
Yamato - 24x 127 mm (12 mounts)
Alabama - 20x 127 mm (10 mounts)
Wisconsin - 20x 127 kg (10 mounts)


Heavy AA Guns Shell Weight
Scharnhorst - 23.5 kg
Strasbourg - 29.5 kg
Richelieu - 13.5 kg (100), 47 kg (152)
Tirpitz - 23.5 kg
Howe - 36.3 kg
Roma - 18.4 kg
North Carolina - 25 kg
Yamato - 23 kg
Alabama - 25 kg
Wisconsin - 25 kg


Heavy AA Guns Range (Ceiling)
Scharnhorst - 12.5 km
Strasbourg - 12 km
Richelieu - 10 km (100), 14 km (152)
Tirpitz - 12.5 km
Howe - 14.17 km
Roma - 10.8 km
North Carolina - 11.89 km
Yamato - 9.4 km
Alabama - 11.89 km
Wisconsin - 11.89 km


Heavy AA Gun Broadside RPM at max ROF
Scharnhorst - 144 shells
Strasbourg - 120 shells
Richelieu - 132 shells
Tirpitz - 144 shells
Howe - 64 shells
Roma - 96 shells
North Carolina - 220 shells
Yamato - 168 shells
Alabama - 220 shells
Wisconsin - 220 shells


Medium AA Guns
Scharnhorst - 16x 37 mm (8 mounts)
Strasbourg - 8x 37mm (4 mounts)
Richelieu - 56x 40 mm (14 mounts)
Tirpitz - 16x 37 mm (8 mounts)
Howe - 8x 40 mm/56 (2 mounts), 64x 40 mm/39 (8 mounts)
Roma - 20x 37 mm (12 mounts)
North Carolina - 60 x 40 mm (15 mounts)
Yamato - 0 
Alabama - 48x 40 mm (12 mounts)
Wisconsin - 80x 40 mm (20 mounts)


Medium AA Guns Shell Weight
Scharnhorst - 1.49 kg
Strasbourg - 0.725 kg
Richelieu - 0.9 kg
Tirpitz - 1.49 kg
Howe - 0.894 kg (40/56), 0.91 kg (40/39)
Roma - 0.823 kg
North Carolina - 0.9 kg
Yamato - 0 kg
Alabama - 0.9 kg
Wisconsin - 0.9 kg


Medium AA Guns Range (Ceiling)
Scharnhorst - 4.8 km
Strasbourg - 5 km
Richelieu - 6.8 km
Tirpitz - 4.8 km
Howe - 6.4 km (40/56), 3.96 km (40/39) *8
Roma - 5 km
North Carolina - 6.8 km
Yamato - 0 km
Alabama - 6.8 km
Wisconsin - 6.8 km


Medium AA Guns Broadside RPM at Max ROF
Scharnhorst - 640 shells
Strasbourg - 170 shells
Richelieu - 3,360 shells
Tirpitz - 640 shells
Howe - 480 shells (40/56), 4,600 shells (40/39)
Roma - 1,440 shells
North Carolina - 3,840 shells
Yamato - 0 shells
Alabama - 3,360 shells
Wisconsin - 5,280 shells


Light AA Guns
Scharnhorst - 30x 20 mm (15 mounts)
Strasbourg - 28x 13.2mm (7 mounts)
Richelieu - 48x 20 mm (48 mounts)
Tirpitz - 62x 20 mm (22 mounts)
Howe - 34x 20 mm (34 mounts)
Roma - 32 x 20 mm (32 mounts)
North Carolina - 46x 20 mm (46 mounts)
Yamato - 160x 25 mm (56 mounts)
Alabama - 52x 20 mm (52 mounts)
Wisconsin - 61x 20 mm (55 mounts)


Light AA Guns Shell Weight
Scharnhorst - 0.148 kg
Strasbourg - 0.051 kg
Richelieu - 0.123 kg
Tirpitz - 0.148 kg
Howe - 0.123 kg
Roma - 0.134 kg
North Carolina - 0.123 kg
Yamato - 0.24 kg
Alabama - 0.123 kg
Wisconsin - 0.123 kg


Light AA Guns Range (Ceiling)
Scharnhorst - 3.7 km
Strasbourg - 4.2 km
Richelieu - 3.05 km
Tirpitz - 3.7 km
Howe - 3.05 km
Roma - 2.9 km
North Carolina - 3.05 km
Yamato - 3 km
Alabama - 3.05 km
Wisconsin - 3.05 km


Light AA Guns Broadside RPM at max ROF
Scharnhorst - 7,160 shells
Strasbourg - 7,200 shells
Richelieu - 11,250 shells
Tirpitz - 13,200 shells
Howe - 8,550 shells
Roma - 3,840 shells
North Carolina - 10,350 shells
Yamato - 20,800 shells
Alabama - 11,700 shells
Wisconsin- 13,950 shells


Torpedoe Tubes
Scharnhorst - 6x 53 cm (2 mounts)
Strasbourg - 0
Richelieu - 0
Tirpitz - 8x 53 cm  (2 mounts)
Howe - 0
Roma - 0
North Carolina - 0
Yamato - 0
Alabama - 0
Wisconsin - 0


Armor Tonnage
Scharnhorst - 14,245 t
Strasbourg - 11,785 t
Richelieu - 16,045 t
Tirpitz - 18,700 t
Howe - 12,500 t
Roma - 13,684 t *9
North Carolina - 15,370 t
Yamato - 22,534 t
Alabama - 11,400 t
Wisconsin - 17,056 t


Armor Quality
Scharnhorst - 1.0
Strasbourg - 0.85 *10
Richelieu - 0.85 *10
Tirpitz - 1.0
Howe - 1.0
Roma - 1.0
North Carolina - 1.0
Yamato - 0.95
Alabama - 1.0
Wisconsin - 1.0


Belt Armor Thickness
Scharnhorst - 350 mm
Strasbourg - 283 mm (inclined at 11 degrees)
Richelieu - 330 mm (inclined at 15 degrees)
Tirpitz - 315mm
Howe - 373 mm (magazines), 349 mm (machinery)
Roma - 350 mm (composite 70+280 mm with 250 mm cellulite between, inclined at 15 degrees)
North Carolina - 305 mm (inclined at 15 degrees)
Yamato - 410 mm (inclined at 20 degrees)
Alabama - 310 mm (inclined at 19 degrees)
Wisconsin - 307 mm (inclined at 19 degrees)


Main Deck Armor Thickness
Scharnhorst - 95 mm (magazines), 80 mm (machinery)
Strasbourg - 125 mm (magazines), 115 mm (machinery)
Richelieu - 170 mm (magazines), 150 mm (machinery)
Tirpitz - 100 mm (magazines), 80 mm (machinery)
Howe - 152 mm (magazines), 127 mm (machinery)
Roma - 162 mm (magazines), 112 mm (machinery) (composite 150+12, 100+12)
North Carolina - 135 mm (magazines), 127 mm (machinery)
Yamato - 200 mm
Alabama - 146 mm
Wisconsin - 152 mm


Upper Deck Armor Thickness
Scharnhorst - 50 mm
Strasbourg - 40 mm (actually lower deck below main deck)
Richelieu - 40 mm (actually lower deck below main deck)
Tirpitz - 80 mm (magazines), 50 mm (machinery)
Howe - 31.75 mm (38.1 mm splinter deck over shell room under main deck)
Roma - 45 mm (composite 36+9)
North Carolina - 38 mm (also 16 mm splinter deck below main armor deck)
Yamato - 50 mm
Alabama - 38 mm (also 16 mm splinter deck below)
Wisconsin - 38 mm (also 16 mm splinter deck below)


Deck Slopes Thickness
Scharnhorst - 105 mm
Strasbourg - 50 mm
Richelieu - 50 mm
Tirpitz - 120 mm (magazines), 110mm (machinery)
Howe - 0 mm
Roma - 0 mm
North Carolina - 0 mm
Yamato - 0 mm
Alabama - 0 mm
Wisconsin - 0 mm


Transverse Bulkheads Thickness
Scharnhorst - 200 mm
Strasbourg - 210 mm (forward), 180 mm (aft)
Richelieu - 355 mm (forward), 233 mm (aft)
Tirpitz - 220 mm
Howe - 305 mm (fore), 254 mm (aft)
Roma - 200 mm (fore), 280 mm (aft)
North Carolina - 282 mm
Yamato - 300 mm (inclined at 25 degrees)
Alabama - 287 mm
Wisconsin - 368 mm


Longitudinal Bulkhead Thickness
Scharnhorst - 45 mm
Strasbourg - 30 - 50 mm
Richelieu - 30 - 50 mm
Tirpitz - 45 mm (additional 53 mm bulkheads for magazines)
Howe - 44 mm
Roma - 40 mm (curved torpedo bulkhead), 36 mm (inclined), 25 mm (declined)
North Carolina - #15+#15+#25+#30+#17.5 mm (layered MS), 56-95 mm (magazines)
Yamato - 230-270 mm (inclined at 15 degrees)
Alabama - #35+#25 (HTS) + 167.5 (average thickness of lower belt) + #25 (STS) mm
Wisconsin - 19 (STS) +16+16 (HTS) + 174 (average thickness of lower belt) + 16 (STS) mm


Main Battery Turret Face Thickness
Scharnhorst - 360 mm
Strasbourg - 340 mm
Richelieu - 430 mm
Tirpitz - 360 mm
Howe - 324 mm
Roma - 380 mm
North Carolina - 406 mm
Yamato - 650 mm
Alabama - 457 mm
Wisconsin - 432 mm (+ 63mm STS)


Main Battery Turret Sides Thickness
Scharnhorst - 180 mm
Strasbourg - 250 mm
Richelieu - 300 mm
Tirpitz - 220 mm
Howe - 174 - 224 mm
Roma - 200 mm
North Carolina - 249 mm
Yamato - 250 mm
Alabama - 241 mm
Wisconsin - 241 mm (+19 mm STS)


Main Battery Turret Roof Thickness
Scharnhorst - 180 mm (slopes) 130 mm (flat roof)
Strasbourg - 160 mm
Richelieu - 170 - 195 mm
Tirpitz - 180 mm (slopes) 130 mm (flat roof)
Howe - 149 mm
Roma - 150 - 200 mm
North Carolina - 178 mm
Yamato - 270 mm
Alabama - 184 mm
Wisconsin - 184 mm


Main Battery Barbette Max Thickness
Scharnhorst - 350 mm
Strasbourg - 340 mm
Richelieu - 405 mm
Tirpitz - 340 mm
Howe - 330 mm
Roma - 350 mm
North Carolina - 406 mm
Yamato - 560 mm
Alabama - 440 mm
Wisconsin - 440 mm


Secondary Battery Max Thickness
Scharnhorst - 140 mm (15 cm twin), 25 mm (15 cm single), 20 mm (10.5 cm twin)
Strasbourg - 135 mm (13 cm quad), 20 mm (13 cm twin)
Richelieu - 130 mm (15.2 cm triple)
Tirpitz - 100 mm (15 cm twin), 20 mm (10.5 cm twin)
Howe - 38 mm
Roma - 280 mm (15.2 cm triple), 40 mm (9 cm single)
North Carolina - 50 mm
Yamato - 75 mm (15.5 cm triple), 25 mm (12.7 cm twin)
Alabama - 50 mm
Wisconsin - 64 mm


Torpedo Protection Depth
Scharnhorst - 4.5 m
Strasbourg - 7.5 m
Richelieu - 7 m
Tirpitz - 5.5 m
Howe - 4.1 m
Roma - 7.6 m
North Carolina - 5.64 m
Yamato - 5.1 m
Alabama - 5.45 m
Wisconsin - 5.45 m


Torpedo Protection Explosive Resistance
Scharnhorst - 250 kg
Strasbourg - 300 kg
Richelieu - ?  (system was copied from Dunkerque-class albeit .5m shallower)
Tirpitz - 250 kg *11
Howe - 454 kg
Roma - 350 kg
North Carolina - 317 kg
Yamato - 400 kg
Alabama - 317 kg
Wisconsin - 317 kg


Top Designed Speed
Scharnhorst - 32 kn
Strasbourg - 29.5 kn
Richelieu - 30 kn
Tirpitz - 31.5 kn 
Howe - 28.5 kn
Roma - 30 kn
North Carolina - 27 kn
Yamato - 27 kn
Alabama - 27.5 kn
Wisconsin - 33 kn


Fuel Economy/Range
Scharnhorst - 7,100 nm at 19 kn
Strasbourg - 7,850 nm at 15 kn
Richelieu - 9,850 nm at 16 kn
Tirpitz - 8,870 nm at 19 kn
Howe - 6,000 nm at 15 kn
Roma - 3,690 nm at 18 kn
North Carolina - 16,320 nm at 15 kn
Yamato - 7,200 nm at 16.5 kn
Alabama - 16,960 nm at 15 kn
Wisconsin - 16,630 nm at 15 kn


Machinery Power
Scharnhorst - 160,050 shp
Strasbourg - 131,960 shp
Richelieu - 150,000 shp
Tirpitz - 163,026 shp
Howe - 134,000 shp
Roma - 160,000 shp
North Carolina - 121,000 shp
Yamato - 153,533 shp
Alabama - 133,070 shp
Wisconsin - 212,000 shp


Shafts
Scharnhorst - 3
Strasbourg - 4
Richelieu - 4
Tirpitz - 3
Howe - 4
Roma - 4
North Carolina - 4
Yamato - 4
Alabama - 4
Wisconsin - 4


Rudders
Scharnhorst - 2
Strasbourg - 1
Richelieu - 1
Tirpitz - 2
Howe - 1
Roma - 3 (1 large, 2 small)
North Carolina - 2
Yamato - 2 (1 large, 1 small)
Alabama - 2
Wisconsin - 2


Radar and Search Equipment
Scharnhorst - 2x FuMO 27, 1x FuMB 1, 1x FuMB 3, 1x FuMB 4, 1x FuMB 7
Strasbourg - 4x Sadir M.E. 140 / M.E. 126
Richelieu - Mk 4, SA-2, SF, type 284, Type 281B, 285, SG-1
Tirpitz -  3x FuMO 27, 1x FuMB 7
Howe - Type 274, Type 277, Type 281B, 6x Type 282, Type 284, Type 285, Type 293
Roma - 1x Type EC 3/ter "Gufo"
North Carolina - 2x Mk 8, 2x Mk 4, 3x Mk 12, Mk 27, 2x SG, SK-2, SR, SCR-720
Yamato - 2x 21-go, 2x 13-go, 2x 22-go, E27
Alabama - 2x Mk 13, 4x Mk 12/22, Mk 27, 2x SG, SK-2, SU
Wisconsin - 2x Mk 13, 4x Mk 12/22, SK, 2x SG, Mk 27, SR


Range-Finders
Scharnhorst - 4x 10.5 m, 1x 6 m, 4x 4 m, 1x 3 m
Strasbourg - 3x 12 m, 1x 8 m, 5x 6 m, 1x 5 m
Richelieu - 3x 14 m, 5x 8 m, 2x 6 m, 4x 4 m, 1x 3 m, 4x 1.5 m, 6x 1 m
Tirpitz - 5x 10.5 m, 1x 7 m, 2x 6.5 m, 4x 4 m, 2x 3 m
Howe - 2x 12.5 m, 1x 9.1 m, 2x 4.57 m, 2x 14" DCTs, 4x 5.25" DCTs
Roma - 6x 12 m, 2x 7.2 m, 4x 6.3 m, 2x 5 m, 3x 3 m, 4x 2 m
North Carolina - 3x 50', 2x 26.5', 4x Mark 37
Yamato - 4x 15 m, 1x 10 m, 2x 8 m, 4x 4.5 m
Alabama - 3x 50', 2x 26.5', 4x Mark 37
Wisconsin - 3x 50', 2x 26.5', 4x Mark 37


Aircraft
Scharnhorst - 4
Strasbourg - 3
Richelieu - 0
Tirpitz - 6
Howe - 2
Roma - 3
North Carolina - 3
Yamato - 7
Alabama - 3
Wisconsin - 3


Catapults
Scharnhorst - 1
Strasbourg - 1
Richelieu - 0
Tirpitz - 2
Howe - 1
Roma - 1
North Carolina - 2
Yamato - 2
Alabama - 2
Wisconsin - 2


Crew
Scharnhorst - 2,004
Strasbourg - 1,431
Richelieu - 1,550
Tirpitz - 2,608
Howe - 1,521
Roma - 1,849
North Carolina - 2,339
Yamato - 2,767
Alabama - 2,350
Wisconsin - 2,911

 

 

Notes (*)
1 - Navweaps states rof as high as 3.5 rpm. However, it is very unlikely that this rof could have been achieved in normal combat conditions because of the firing angle of the guns. 3rpm is much more realistic.
2 - Gunnery trials carried out in Spring 1940 proved a rof of no greater than 1.33 rpm due to hoist problems despite being designed for a rof of up to 2.2 rpm. These problems were not solved until after the war and improved the rof slightly to 1.88 rpm. 
3 - Although the designers claimed a rof of 3rpm was possible with a well-trained crew, and even though the loading cycle granted a theoretical rof of up to 3.3rpm, the maximum rof ever achieved in-practice by these guns was 2.72 rpm.
4 - I have heard some claims that this the guns could achieve a rof of 2rpm but was limited to 1.3 rpm to preserve barrel life. However, I have found no source to verify this claim and Bagnasco's book clearly states that a rof of even 1.3 rpm was only possible with a well-trained crew and at an elevation of 15 degrees. It therefore appears very unlikely that these guns could have achieved a rof approaching 2 rpm.
5 - Admiral Hipper during The Battle of the Barents Sea scored at least two first-salvo hits in extremely adverse weather and lighting conditions. During the same battle Lutzow fired 7 salvos at the enemy convoy and, though she claimed no hits, recorded all 7 salvos as straddles. Two ships received splinter damage because of how close Lutzow's shells were landing. There can be no doubt that by the end of 1942 German fire-control was good enough to land straddles or hits on the first salvo, even in such adverse conditions as were fought in during BoBS.
6 - Duke of York (Howe's sister) scored  first salvo hit on Scharnhorst during the North Cape Battle in heavy seas and in the dark. Richelieu received the same fire-control radar as was on DoY and, on top of this, boasted superior optical range-finders over the British type as well. It can be safely assumed that Richelieu would be more than capable of landing a first-salvo straddle/hit in combat.
7 - Among other examples, West Virginia scored a first salvo hit during The Battle of the Surigao Strait. I don't think anyone is going to doubt the ability of American battleships to score first salvo straddles/hits.
8 - The 40mm shells of the British Bofors were set to explode at a maximum of 6.4km which is why Howe's ceiling is slightly inferior to the American BBs and Richelieu.
9 - Sources vary on this number and it doesn't help that none of the three completed Littorio's had the same armor tonnage. All numbers are in the 13,000s, however. Bagnasco's book lists the armor tonnage as being 36.2% of 37,801t and it is that number that I have chosen to use.
10 - While not listed in the source for these armor quality numbers, we do know that French naval armor quality was very poor during WWII. Specifically, because French armor plates reviewed by the Germans were found to have a host of metallurgical defects. Having taken this into consideration i have assigned the rating of .85 to the armor of Strasbourg and Richelieu. Take that for what you will, in either event French armor is certainly the most inferior of the lot.
11 - The torpedo protection of the Bismarck class was based off of the torpedo protection of the previous Scharnhorst class which had been extensively tested on the old battleship Pruessen. However, additional corridors for electrical cables were added behind the torpedo bulkhead and was incorporated into the overall TDS making it even wider. Thus the torpedo protection of the Bismarck class was improved over the previous Scharnhorst class. Indeed it proved effective in tests against up to 350 kg of TGA which is equivalent to approximately 500kg of TNT.


Sources
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.php
http://www.navypedia.org/ships_index.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_index.php
http://seawarpeace.ru/deutsch/schlachtschiff/01_main/30_bismark.html
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Fuel/Fuel-BB.html
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php
"The Littorio Class: Italy's Last and Largest Battleships" by Ermingo Bagnasco
"French Battleships 1922-1956" by John Jordan and Robert Dumas
"Battleships of the Bismarck class: Warships of the Kriegsmarine" by Koop and Schmoelke
"Battleships of the Scharnhorst class: Warships of the Kriegsmarine" by Koop and Schmoelke
"U.S. Battleships" by Norman Friedman
"Battleships Yamato and Musashi" by Janusz Skulski

  • Cool 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,710
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles

A truly excellent work, I'm glad to see the fruits of your labor over the past week! :Smile_great:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,512
[NSF]
Beta Testers
4,995 posts
5,951 battles

Secondary battery turrets for the USN have 64 mm faces on the Iowas and South Dakotas, and 50 mm faces on North Carolina. Also, isn't the 180 mm value for Tirpitz only on the "forehead" of the turret, with the actual roof being 130 mm? You're also missing the additional 63 mm STS plate laminated to the back of the Iowas turret face.

 

Overall, a good infodump though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
198
[90THD]
[90THD]
Members
2,755 posts
2,067 battles

Fuel Range: pretty damned obvious what the USN battleships were designed for. Pacific Theater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,717
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
6 minutes ago, Big_Spud said:

Secondary battery turrets for the USN have 64 mm faces on the Iowas and South Dakotas, and 50 mm faces on North Carolina. Also, isn't the 180 mm value for Tirpitz only on the "forehead" of the turret, with the actual roof being 130 mm? You're also missing the additional 63 mm STS plate laminated to the back of the Iowas turret face.

 

Overall, a good infodump though.

 

1: Source for secondary turrets? (I did ask for sources for corrections) Atlanta and other cruisers with these mounts only boasted a maximum of 25mm armor on their twin 127/38s for splinter protection. I assumed the protection of all twin 127/38s was therefore universal since I found no specific info on the battleship weapons. 

 

2: Yes, derp. Will edit.

 

4: I did not include plating that armor is mounted on. That's part of "non-armor". The only reason I included the STS and HTS plates for the longitudinal bulkheads was to present the full torpedo protection and because they are separate plates. If I included the plates that armor was mounted on I'd have to go back and add them for every ship. So yes, I'm aware such plates exist, I made a conscious decision not to include them on any ship, not just the USN BBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,717
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
20 minutes ago, SparvieroVV said:

Littorio class. :Smile_hiding:

 

I've heard both. Technically Roma herself is a "Series 2" along with the never completed Impero. I'll consider changing it to Littorio if enough people complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles

When looking at penetration values from Navweaps, you might be taking values from different columns: EFF (effective penetration), PP (partial penetration), and NL (naval limit). Make sure that you're only using one of those for consistency. Also, by 1944 the USN fast BBs have the AP Mark 8 mod 6-8, which has ~10% more penetration than the previous mod 1-5.

 

The Yamato's torpedo SPS depth is 5.1 m, not 8. It's been discussed here. You can measure with cross sections yourself.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,717
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
4 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

When looking at penetration values from Navweaps, you might be taking values from different columns: EFF (effective penetration), PP (partial penetration), and NL (naval limit). Make sure that you're only using one of those for consistency. Also, by 1944 the USN fast BBs have the AP Mark 8 mod 6-8, which has ~10% penetration than the previous mod 1-5.

 

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll double check to make sure I'm consistent. 

 

Concerning the late-war shells, I only have the info for the shells given by navweaps. But I will add a note. Nevermind, the also have the data for the late-war shells! Will edit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
7 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

 

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll double check to make sure I'm consistent. 

 

Concerning the late-war shells, I only have the info for the shells given by navweaps. But I will add a note.

The penetration for the mod 6-8 is given in the table right below the mod 1-5 on Navweaps.

 

SoDak deck is 127- 135 mm Class B on 19 mm STS. The secondary mounts on NC and SoDak have 50 mm armor, while the Iowas have 64 mm.

 

As I've mentioned, the Yamato torpedo SPS is 5.1 m depth, not 8 m. It's discussed here and you can easily verify using a ruler on the cross sections.

 

KGV belt armor is actually 373 mm by magazines and 349 mm by machinery, due to the way the British order their armor in precise lbs/sq ft rather than raw thickness. 40 lb/sq ft is one nominal inch, while an actual inch thick steel is 40.8 lb/sq ft. The KGV's belt by the magazines is 600 lb/sq ft, or 373 mm, and 560 lb/sq ft, or 349 mm by machinery.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,717
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

Armor penetration numbers corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,717
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

Please make sure to provide sources with any corrections you present! Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles

In terms of crew, Wisconsin had 2,911 in 1945 mainly due to all the additional AA guns. The SoDaks had ~2,300 to 2,350 in 1945 as well. The ~1,900 crew on the Iowas was during the 1980s refit.

 

Turret side plates on SoDaks is 241 mm, same as Iowas. Their back plate is 305 mm. Furthermore, the splinter deck on all USN fast battleships is 16 mm STS. The torpedo bulkheads on the SoDak and Iowa are all 16 mm as well.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,512
[NSF]
Beta Testers
4,995 posts
5,951 battles
1 hour ago, dseehafer said:

 

1: Source for secondary turrets? (I did ask for sources for corrections) Atlanta and other cruisers with these mounts only boasted a maximum of 25mm armor on their twin 127/38s for splinter protection. I assumed the protection of all twin 127/38s was therefore universal since I found no specific info on the battleship weapons. 

 

4: I did not include plating that armor is mounted on. That's part of "non-armor". The only reason I included the STS and HTS plates for the longitudinal bulkheads was to present the full torpedo protection and because they are separate plates. If I included the plates that armor was mounted on I'd have to go back and add them for every ship. So yes, I'm aware such plates exist, I made a conscious decision not to include them on any ship, not just the USN BBs.

 

It’s 2” on both the South Dakota and North Carolinas secondary mounts according to G&D as well as Friedman’s, as is the 2.5” on the Iowas. A specific note is made of this in at very least the North Carolina chapter (I don’t have my copy with me, but it is there). You can also compare the weights of the marks of twin turret used for the new fast battleships and the cruiser/refit slow BB mounts.

 

The additional 2.5” STS backing plate on Iowas turrets is specifically intended to add to the armor protection of the turret face against the 16”/50. It’s not just structural steel or a half inch piece of STS backing the belt. This is all according to Friedman’s. I know DF probably has his copy on hand for sources.

 

One other thing, the North Carolinas also have a 2” deck plate over the magazines beneath the main armor deck, information about this can also be found in the NC chapter of Friedman’s. I don’t think you’re listing internal armor to that extent, but it is there just in case you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,464 posts
16 battles

Maximum Rate of Fire on the RN 5.25" is somewhat dependent on the conditions. Rates of Fire up to 10RPM could be achieved for short bursts of 2-3 minutes. 

One example of that would be what is described on the wiki page for the 5.25", with HMS Euryalus giving a demonstration, firing approximately 200 shells in 2 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
289
[JFSOC]
Members
934 posts
2,818 battles

Damage control (passive / active)

Scharnhorst - excellent / good
Strasbourg - average / poor
Richelieu - average / average
Tirpitz - excellent / good
Howe -  average / average
Roma - average / average
North Carolina - above average / excellent
Yamato - average / poor
Alabama -  above average / excellent
Wisconsin - above average / excellent

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,409
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,258 posts
2,029 battles

Awesome job dseehafer, it's not small task to collect and compile so much information!

I would personally still refer to Roma & Impero as members of the Littorio-class, the differences honestly being as minor as they are if we called them a separate class you'd have to refer to Tirpitz as the same, and the Iowa-class split in half as well. 

 

Also, I would note: for all the penetration tables on Navweaps, the deck penetration does not refer to Cemented armor, but rather the homogenous armor used on decks for the respective nations.

SnGeXPj.png

 

 

 

Moving on, there's a couple of things I'd like to point out about the entry for Roma - 

Her standard power output, at least during much of her life, was correct as you listed. Her maximum, however, was 160,000, although this was only ever run on individual screws in emergency situations (propeller speed war raised from 250rpm to 270). This number was not, however, emergency power. I figured that would be worth noting as you said this was "the best mechanically possible under a well-trained crew, while still adhering to historical limitations where they are present," so I figured this would be a number worth noting. Information is mentioned in several places in Bagnasco's "The Littorio class," I can give chapter + page number for each mention if you'd like. However, for the sake of historical average, 128,200-130,000 hp is pretty much true for the average 29.5-30 knot top speed the class maintained in service.

 

As for things that aren't correct: 

 

Turret faces were in fact 380mm thick (Bagnasco, Ch.3, pg 61)

 

Rate of Fire:

Quote

4 - I have heard some claims that this the guns could achieve a rof of 2rpm but was limmited to 1.3 rpm to preserve barrel life. However, I have found no source to verify this claim and Bagnasco's book clearly states that a rof of even 1.3 rpm was only possible with a well-trained crew and at an elevation of 15 degrees. It therefore appears very unlikely that these guns could have achieved a rof approaching 2 rpm.

*Bolds & Italics are my own (because highlighting doesn't work apparently...?)

You're deriving a very different interpretation from what's written than what's actually written. To quote directly;

Quote

The rate of fire, with a trained crew and at average elevations (that is to say, around 15º), was in the order of 1.3 rounds per minute, or one round every 45 seconds for each gun.

I don't mean to sound to aggressive or accusatory, so I apologize if that's what this comes across as (tone doesn't translate into text well lol), but what you're saying is vastly different to what Bagnasco was saying. You state a rate of fire of even 1.3 rpm, implying that it is a ceiling of what could be reached, was only possible (again, implied ceiling) with a well-trained crew, (implication seems to be above average crew) and at an elevation of 15º, which is picking out a particular number when Bagnasco is using it as an example in a range (although that doesn't confuse accuracy of the statement that much, so I wouldn't consider it inaccurate).

Bagnasco's statement is saying something much different. With crew that can competently operate the gun, the average rate of fire is 1.3 rpm, at average elevations, which is generally around 15º. There's nothing about 1.3 rpm being a maximum, and nothing about it needing a well trained crew to even reach that maximum.

(Ch. 3, pg 73)

 

However, you asked for proof of lower RoF times, so that's exactly what I'm here to give; the data for firing tables, 1940-1941, in the back of Bagnasco's book (Appendix 3, pg. 345)

Gun (make) Charge Training    Year Range (km) % Rounds on Target Average RoF (seconds) Longitudinal dispersion* Range Span**
O.T.O. Second 1940-1 20.0 7.3 29.7 422.0 500.0
Ansaldo Second 1940-1 18.8 6.3 30.6 309.0 360.0

*Average of the deviation in range x2 (meters)

**Range span [Range of shortest - longest round] (meters)

 

That's an average of 2.02 rpm and 1.96 rpm respectively for the two firing trials.

 

I cannot answer as to whether or not the gun was limited to 1.3 rpm because of concerns for barrel life. All I can state is that 1.3 was not the maximum rate of fire possible for the gun. It is quite clear that the gun was able to manage times under 30 seconds, as otherwise an average time of 30 or below would be impossible.

1.3 rpm is much more likely an average rate of fire in combat. Deliberate fire in combat is well known to fall to around one round per minute per gun, and it was a well known feature of Italian gunnery during the second world war to favor deliberate shooting over more rapid rates found in other nations (such as the Royal navy).

 

The only other thing I'd like to point out is the main armor deck listed for Wisconsin - is 121mm a typo, or intended? I thought the Iowa-class had a much thicker deck, in the order of 6-7"?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
18 hours ago, dseehafer said:

4: I did not include plating that armor is mounted on. That's part of "non-armor". The only reason I included the STS and HTS plates for the longitudinal bulkheads was to present the full torpedo protection and because they are separate plates. If I included the plates that armor was mounted on I'd have to go back and add them for every ship. So yes, I'm aware such plates exist, I made a conscious decision not to include them on any ship, not just the USN BBs.

Not all backing plates are equal; the type of plate that armor is mounted on most definitely matters; you only have to compare the material properties of the backing plate materials to see why it matters. Here's some material properties to illustrate, as extracted from Navweaps (note that I'm using upper range values when given a range, see below for reason).

 

Backing plate Yield (ksi) Tensile (ksi) %Elongation Brinell Hardness
Typical High Tensile Steel (HTS) 47 78 22% 160
German Schiffbaustahl III 51 80 18% 160
Extra-high-strength D-steel 55 89 22% 170
Special Treatment Steel (STS) 85 125 25% 240

To give better context, here are material properties of actual homogeneous armor (used for battleship deck armor).

Homogeneous Armor Type Yield (ksi) Tensile (ksi) %Elongation Brinell Hardness
German Wotan Harte 79 127 20% 250
British NCA 85 120 25% 225
USN Class B 83 120 25% 240
Special Treatment Steel (STS) 85 125 25% 240

The material property values speak for themselves; to put it bluntly, STS is straight up homogeneous armor in terms of protection characteristics, and its strength and ductility is considerably higher than the typical HTS or even extra-high-strength D-steel used by other navies.

 

Thus, there's a reason why instead of using HTS or D-steel, the USN ships had STS for backing plates; the USN consciously chose to use STS to reduce weight for a given level of protection, which was important since both the SoDaks and Iowas were still trying to remain within treaty limits of 35,000 tons of the WNT and 45,000 tons of the LNT's Escalator Clause. Note that this is an expensive approach that only the US did because it had the economic and industrial resources to do so, given how much armor-grade material like STS costs (UK, Italy, and Japan used D-steel instead). I'm sure some people will hound me as some pro-USN [edited] for this, but the material properties don't lie.

 

It's for this reason that many have argued that USN STS backing plates should be taken into account; STS backing plates were consciously applied to increase protection. For instance, the Iowas, 121 mm Class B + 32 mm STS is often referred to by shipfitters as just a 152 mm (6 inch) deck.

 

Note: The material properties of various homogeneous armors are given a range; in the context of STS, according to the Navweaps article, the formula for STS was improved and modified in 1930, which explains why 1910-spec STS has 0.95 quality, while 1930-spec STS has 1.00 quality.  Furthermore, WW2 era thin STS plates manufactured for blast protection, i.e. 40 mm Bofors gun shields, have 0.95 quality. As such, it stands to reason that the higher range values correspond to the 1930-spec STS, while the lower range values correspond to 1910-spec and blast/frag protection STS.

 

Note2: Carnegie Illinois Steel Company actually sold the specs of the 1910-spec STS to Japan. However, even with the armor spec, Japan decided to not use it extensively due to how expensive it is. Instead it developed methods to expedite and reduce the cost of producing armor, some of which were successful and some weren't.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,717
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
3 hours ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Awesome job dseehafer, it's not small task to collect and compile so much information!

I would personally still refer to Roma & Impero as members of the Littorio-class, the differences honestly being as minor as they are if we called them a separate class you'd have to refer to Tirpitz as the same, and the Iowa-class split in half as well. 

 

Also, I would note: for all the penetration tables on Navweaps, the deck penetration does not refer to Cemented armor, but rather the homogenous armor used on decks for the respective nations.

SnGeXPj.png

 

 

 

Moving on, there's a couple of things I'd like to point out about the entry for Roma - 

Her standard power output, at least during much of her life, was correct as you listed. Her maximum, however, was 160,000, although this was only ever run on individual screws in emergency situations (propeller speed war raised from 250rpm to 270). This number was not, however, emergency power. I figured that would be worth noting as you said this was "the best mechanically possible under a well-trained crew, while still adhering to historical limitations where they are present," so I figured this would be a number worth noting. Information is mentioned in several places in Bagnasco's "The Littorio class," I can give chapter + page number for each mention if you'd like. However, for the sake of historical average, 128,200-130,000 hp is pretty much true for the average 29.5-30 knot top speed the class maintained in service.

 

As for things that aren't correct: 

 

Turret faces were in fact 380mm thick (Bagnasco, Ch.3, pg 61)

 

Rate of Fire:

*Bolds & Italics are my own (because highlighting doesn't work apparently...?)

You're deriving a very different interpretation from what's written than what's actually written. To quote directly;

I don't mean to sound to aggressive or accusatory, so I apologize if that's what this comes across as (tone doesn't translate into text well lol), but what you're saying is vastly different to what Bagnasco was saying. You state a rate of fire of even 1.3 rpm, implying that it is a ceiling of what could be reached, was only possible (again, implied ceiling) with a well-trained crew, (implication seems to be above average crew) and at an elevation of 15º, which is picking out a particular number when Bagnasco is using it as an example in a range (although that doesn't confuse accuracy of the statement that much, so I wouldn't consider it inaccurate).

Bagnasco's statement is saying something much different. With crew that can competently operate the gun, the average rate of fire is 1.3 rpm, at average elevations, which is generally around 15º. There's nothing about 1.3 rpm being a maximum, and nothing about it needing a well trained crew to even reach that maximum.

(Ch. 3, pg 73)

 

However, you asked for proof of lower RoF times, so that's exactly what I'm here to give; the data for firing tables, 1940-1941, in the back of Bagnasco's book (Appendix 3, pg. 345)

Gun (make) Charge Training    Year Range (km) % Rounds on Target Average RoF (seconds) Longitudinal dispersion* Range Span**
O.T.O. Second 1940-1 20.0 7.3 29.7 422.0 500.0
Ansaldo Second 1940-1 18.8 6.3 30.6 309.0 360.0

*Average of the deviation in range x2 (meters)

**Range span [Range of shortest - longest round] (meters)

 

That's an average of 2.02 rpm and 1.96 rpm respectively for the two firing trials.

 

I cannot answer as to whether or not the gun was limited to 1.3 rpm because of concerns for barrel life. All I can state is that 1.3 was not the maximum rate of fire possible for the gun. It is quite clear that the gun was able to manage times under 30 seconds, as otherwise an average time of 30 or below would be impossible.

1.3 rpm is much more likely an average rate of fire in combat. Deliberate fire in combat is well known to fall to around one round per minute per gun, and it was a well known feature of Italian gunnery during the second world war to favor deliberate shooting over more rapid rates found in other nations (such as the Royal navy).

 

The only other thing I'd like to point out is the main armor deck listed for Wisconsin - is 121mm a typo, or intended? I thought the Iowa-class had a much thicker deck, in the order of 6-7"?

 

Very well, I'm convinced. Will edit.

 

No, not a typo, Wisco's actual deck armor was 121mm on like 32mm STS. Most sources just call it 152 mm. DF makes a good argument for the inclusion of STS plates, so I may edit that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,717
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
8 hours ago, DeliciousFart said:

In terms of crew, Wisconsin had 2,911 in 1945 mainly due to all the additional AA guns. The SoDaks had ~2,300 to 2,350 in 1945 as well. The ~1,900 crew on the Iowas was during the 1980s refit.

 

Turret side plates on SoDaks is 241 mm, same as Iowas. Their back plate is 305 mm. Furthermore, the splinter deck on all USN fast battleships is 16 mm STS. The torpedo bulkheads on the SoDak and Iowa are all 16 mm as well.

 

I need sources mate. It would be unfair of me to request sources and have Big_Spud comply and list his sources just to turn around and take your word for it. That is NOT to say that I doubt anything that you have said. I just need sources to point to in case someone does look at wiki or navypedia and see the 1,900 crew number and mention it. That way I can say "Look at this source here" instead of "Blame DF, he's the one who told me to change it!" Catch my drift?

 

As for my source on Sodak's turret armor... navypedia says 457 mm face, 305 mm sides, 300 mm rear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,512
[NSF]
Beta Testers
4,995 posts
5,951 battles
35 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

 

I need sources mate. It would be unfair of me to request sources and have Big_Spud comply and list his sources just to turn around and take your word for it. That is NOT to say that I doubt anything that you have said. I just need sources to point to in case someone does look at wiki or navypedia and see the 1,900 crew number and mention it. That way I can say "Look at this source here" instead of "Blame DF, he's the one who told me to change it!" Catch my drift?

 

As for my source on Sodak's turret armor... navypedia says 457 mm face, 305 mm sides, 300 mm rear.

 

Friedman quotes 9.5" turret sides with 12" turret rears for the SoDaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
1 hour ago, dseehafer said:

 

I need sources mate. It would be unfair of me to request sources and have Big_Spud comply and list his sources just to turn around and take your word for it. That is NOT to say that I doubt anything that you have said. I just need sources to point to in case someone does look at wiki or navypedia and see the 1,900 crew number and mention it. That way I can say "Look at this source here" instead of "Blame DF, he's the one who told me to change it!" Catch my drift?

 

As for my source on Sodak's turret armor... navypedia says 457 mm face, 305 mm sides, 300 mm rear.

For SoDak, I pulled my values fro G&D pages 99-102. For Iowa, it's pages 146-148.

 

Now, as a disclaimer, I generally would like to pull values directly from primary source documents. Friedman and G&D are good, but they're not error free, as members here have discovered over the years; in fact, the book occasionally contradicts itself on the same page, i.e. G&D on Montana's weather deck. The best approach is generally to use the most frequently listed value from multiple reputable sources and books, i.e. in both G&D and Friedman, 57 mm is the most frequently given value for the weather deck. Unfortunately there's often nothing available that's better, since primary source documents like the Booklet of General Plans or detailed armor schematics are often not publicly available.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles

By the way, you made a typo. The crew requirement for SoDaks is 2,350. From G&D, the crew for the NC in 1945 was 2,339. The crew requirements of USN fast battleships was at its peak in late WW2 due to the sheer number of AA gun mounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles

And finally, some more corrections. For the 5.25" secondary mounts on the KGV, the face thickness was 38 mm, while the sides, rear, and roof were 25 mm. This is from the Navweaps page on the 5.25" guns.

 

On the SoDak, the underwater hull plates are 20# HTS, or 12.7 mm. The holding bulkheads should also be 20-25# HTS, or 12.7-16 mm. I'm not sure why you have the SoDak's torpedo bulkheads listed differently from the Iowa, as they're largely the same conceptual design, barring several improvements on the Iowa (i.e. thicker lower belt, closer longitudinal bulkhead spacing, etc.). See below for the Booklet of General Plans.

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/BB57/BOGP/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×