An Example of Pacific vs Atlantic Battleship Construction

[Jracule]

Found and interesting report from the British DNC comparing the King George V and North Carolina class. Figured it would make for an interesting read.

 

In 1942, the Battleship USS Washington was sent over the pond to operate with the British Home fleet. As part of the North Carolina class battleships, the Washington was one of the latest battleships launched in America. She incorporated many new features in American battleship design. These features were not only followed in the US it would seem.  

 

The British DNC, their ship design and construction department, was very interested in examining the Washington when she arrived. They too were aware of the many new features in the design and were curious to examine them. They wanted to know how the Americans achieved such high speeds, protection, and firepower all in one warships. Interestingly enough, the British designers believed that their own warships were being outclassed by the American ones. Therefore, the DNC set up a number of comparisons in three categories.

• Battleships   (North Carolina vs. King George V)

• Cruisers    ( Belfast vs. Cleveland)

• Destroyers   ( Battle vs. Fletcher and Sumner)

As I have only found the Battleships report, I will discuss that one only. For the sake of simplicity, I arranged the DNC findings into the three prime categories in battleship design.

VS.

 

Firepower

The DNC found the American turrets to be much more heavily protected than those on British vessels. However, the Americans used a much more simplified shell hoist and handling system. It was so simple, that it would never have been accepted onto a British vessel. The British were also skeptical of the close placement of the 5" gun mounts on the Washington class, believing that they would be more vulnerable to damage. The DNC also found that because of their style of armoring protection, they could not mount heavy caliber guns like the American vessels.

 

Armor

The DNC found that the Armoring on their own battleships was much more thorough compared to the American battleship. The British battleship having a greater armor freeboard and a stronger deck. The British ships had a stronger Deck due to using a single layer of armor rather the multiple layers of armor that the Americans preferred. The protected volume of the British ships was also much greater than the American vessels. They estimated that the British battleship's magazines would be protected from the American 16"/45 between 23,000 yards and 31,000 yards. Her machinery was protected between 25,000 and 28,000 yards. Keep In mind that this was with the earlier 2,240lb shell, not the super heavy rounds. The British torpedo defense system was also seen to be superior and more resistant to flooding.

 

While the British armoring was stronger in many areas, the DNC found areas were the American design was stronger. In addition to the turrets, the barbettes of the American ship were considerable stronger. The light weight 16" shell being able to penetrate the British barbettes at over 27,000 yards. The American battleship also had a much stronger conning tower. Despite the American ship having a weaker torpedo defense system, the design did cover much more. The system was over 18ft deep compared to the 13ft in the British vessel.

 

Speed / Agility / Endurance

This is the category that the DNC was most distressed about. The first month after the USS Washington joined the Home Fleet, it was used mainly in maneuvers with the British fleet. During these maneuvers It was found that the Washington was easily able to turn around nearly twice as fast as the British battleships and carriers. This was likely due to the twin rudders of the Washington which provided excellent maneuverability. Because of this, British commanders on the other ships severely criticized the DNC. The DNC defended themselves by stating that it was only due to the slower speed of the American ship.

 

However, the DNC found the slightly faster top speed of the King George V to be of little value once they compared the endurance of the ships. They found the American ship to have a 50% greater fuel capacity. The US battleships could economically steam at speed for a much longer duration than the British ones. This was the result of the Americans needing warships with the ability to steam great distances in the Pacific.  

 

*The poor fuel economy of the British battleships became readily apparent in the Pacific.*

 

 

Final Thoughts

The differences in the North Carolina and King George V designs shows the very real differences in battleship design both between the respective countries and the respective oceans of interest.

 

The British design and its emphasis on armor at the cost of endurance and fire power is typical of ships designed for the Atlantic. The stormy north Atlantic ocean required a good sea boat with the armor to resist surprise attacks from vessels at close range. The poor visibility of the ocean being a major factor for  such close engagements. Its solid armor was specifically built for defense against gunnery.  

 

The American design with its balanced design was designed for their vision of the pacific war. They needed a warship able to steam across the vast expanses of the Pacific ocean. Armor was sacrificed for firepower, speed, and endurance.

 

 

 

This concludes the report, an interesting read on how British warships stacked up against their American counterparts. Let me know what you all think.  :Smile_honoring:

[Krieg]

Dude that's awesome. +1. I've never considered matching up a Brit vs US battleship. Always vs Japan or Germany. BTW Washington had a great night battle vs the Japanese going solo at one point with Admiral Lee commanding  :Smile_izmena:

[MalevolentPug]

Now I want to see the cruiser and destroyer comparisons  :Smile_amazed:

[NGTM_1R]

Considering the trouble the KGVs and Nelsons had with their shell hoists and the like, one wonders if the DNC's "this system is too simple to meet our needs" isn't pure covering of their butts. Actually a number of parts read that way; the torpedo defense system commentary doesn't appear to reflect the problems exposed in the loss of Prince of Wales and the commentary about vulnerability to flooding is probably based on the US' more extensive use of void spaces rather than liquid protection, to reduce the mining effect of multiple hits (something else Prince of Wales learned to its cost). I'm also curious about their conclusion that the KGVs were better seaboats; they actually tended to be wet forward, because they were designed for zero-elevation main battery fire over the bow. Their lack of flare and hence ability to ship a huge amount of water over the bow is instantly obvious in most plan views.

 

It'd be interesting to compare this to the British postwar assays of their fleet after their Pacific operations experience and the shakeup when Mountbatten and his subordinates came home.

[Wunderwaffen1945]

Finally, one topic that can show how it can be awesome...+1 man

[Super_Dreadnought]

great topic +1

[JeeWeeJ]

Very nice topic! +1! :Smile_great:

[zcr19]

NGTM_1R, on 03 February 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

I'm also curious about their conclusion that the KGVs were better seaboats; they actually tended to be wet forward, .

Taking water over the bow dosent mean she was a bad sea boat, it just means she was a wet boat.
take it from someone who knows.

[lapon2046]

Great research! I guess different requirement give different designs, but collaboration is always helpful. Its nice to peer over the divider and see what the other person has come up with.

[Elouda]

zcr19, on 03 February 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

Taking water over the bow dosent mean she was a bad sea boat, it just means she was a wet boat.
take it from someone who knows.

If you look at British battleships before Vanguard you will notice they all share this trait. This was because of an insistence when designing them that they be able to fire the forward turrets directly ahead at minimum elevation - something the North Carolina for example was incapable of doing. This necessitated the lack of a notably raised stem like the US or Japanese BBs. I'm not sure it was a sensibile decision, as I can see little tactical advantage to be gained from such an ability, but I suppose this was probably more the result of design and doctrinal tradition rather than tactical ultility.

Jracule, on 03 February 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

However, the DNC found the slightly faster top speed of the King George V to be of little value once they compared the endurance of the ships. They found the American ship to have a 50% greater fuel capacity. The US battleships could economically steam at speeds that to many British battleships was their top speed. This was the result of the Americans needing warships with the ability to steam great distances in the Pacific.

This is a fairly severe misrepresentation of the report - what it actually reads is that US ships were designed with their machinery being most economical in the 18 to 25 knot range, whereas British ships were designed with their machinery designed for most economical operation at maximum speed. This meant that the British ships were more efficient if 'sprinting' short distances, but less efficient if cruising for longer distances as part of a task force. This, coupled with their smaller bunkerage, made them poorly suited for Pacific operations.

A summary of the entire report can be found in U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman, pages 277-279. I have seen the actual report somewhere on the net as well, but could not find it with a quick search.

[Jracule]

Elouda, on 03 February 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

This is a fairly severe misrepresentation of the report - what it actually reads is that US ships were designed with their machinery being most economical in the 18 to 25 knot range, whereas British ships were designed with their machinery designed for most economical operation at maximum speed. This meant that the British ships were more efficient if 'sprinting' short distances, but less efficient if cruising for longer distances as part of a task force. This, coupled with their smaller bunkerage, made them poorly suited for Pacific operations.

A summary of the entire report can be found in U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman, pages 277-279. I have seen the actual report somewhere on the net as well, but could not find it with a quick search.

A thousand pardons mate, it was four in the morning when I completed that section so you'll have to forgive me for one flaw.  I'll be sure to fix it right away to conform to your higher level of refinement.  :Smile_smile:

[Jracule]

Ramahu, on 03 February 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

Now I want to see the cruiser and destroyer comparisons  :Smile_amazed:

I've been searching archives for them, If I can locate them I will post the information as soon as possible.

I'm actually quite curious to see how the Belfast compares to the Cleveland class.

[Finjok]

What about the quality of the armour ?

It's been said in some sources that American armour plates was about 10% weaker, than British cemented armour and German Krupp  wotan armour.

 

American's clearly could produce much better power plant's for their ships than British.

US. ships use double reduction gears in their turbines, while British turbines was single reduction gears.

Also the steam system and boilers was much more sophisticated in US. ships.

 

In his book "The man aroud the engine"  Vice Admiral Louis Le Bailly makes very interesting comparsion about King George V vs. USS Missouri.

 

Senior Lieutenant(E) from KGV swapped duties with his opposite number in Missouri.

The British engineer found it difficult to realise that US ship was steam driven, as there was no steam  leaks and everything was tidy.

US engineer claimed his time on board the KGV was nearest thing to hell he had experienced, as most of the steam seemed to be outside the pipes.

 

Also the modern US ships needed much less boiler cleaning time, than did British modern ships.

So it was not only the operating radius without refueling, but also the time what ship could be out of harbour and that area too the US ships were superior.

[nixxxie]

Finjok, on 03 February 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

Senior Lieutenant(E) from KGV swapped duties with his opposite number in Missouri.
The British engineer found it difficult to realise that US ship was steam driven, as there was no steam  leaks and everything was tidy.
US engineer claimed his time on board the KGV was nearest thing to hell he had experienced, as most of the steam seemed to be outside the pipes.

It's all about BSP vs NPT threads...  :Smile_trollface:

[Daltron]

I thought immediately that it was a weird notion to think 'that handling is too simple'. I mean, I understand if an explosion happens there's a possibility of a runaway explosion, but still.

[Gigaton]

NGTM_1R, on 03 February 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

Considering the trouble the KGVs and Nelsons had with their shell hoists and the like, one wonders if the DNC's "this system is too simple to meet our needs" isn't pure covering of their butts.

Since they are probably (I have not read the report) talking about flash safety measures the American arrangement might very well not have met the British criteria of the day. As I recall, there was similar criticism from British regarding USS New Mexico shortly after WW1. I suppose one could argue that the British went overtly nuts with this post-Jutland, as the flash tight doors were among the troublemakers on both KGVs and Nelsons.

[Jracule]

Gigaton, on 04 February 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:

Since they are probably (I have not read the report) talking about flash safety measures the American arrangement might very well not have met the British criteria of the day. As I recall, there was similar criticism from British regarding USS New Mexico shortly after WW1. I suppose one could argue that the British went overtly nuts with this post-Jutland, as the flash tight doors were among the troublemakers on both KGVs and Nelsons.

Britain was still very post-Jutland if the report indicates anything. When the DNC was criticized over how agile the Washington was compared to the British Battleships, they argued that the battle cruisers in Jutland were equipped with twin rudders just like the Washington, making them more vulnerable to damage.  I was surprised to see Jutland mentioned even in the report.

[gzcwnk]

One point and possibly the biggest, in the 1930s the UK was broke it couldnt really afford to compete in a battleship building program as the Washington treaty was abandoned. Hence the battleships built had compromises due to cost, for instance they ran 14inch guns to comply with the treaty and not 15inch which I think was the desired gun originally probably explains why there were still 15inch guns in storage for Vanguard (left over from WW1).

 

Actually the last  british one (If not last one world wide launched), Vanguard might be a more interesting/fair comparison Or the never built Lion class.

 

Im not sure just why Jutland was a surprise? its a valid real world test, in a way the US ships are a bit more battlecrusier like....ie vunerable. The British had had a huge mental blow from Jutland from their battlecruiser losses, really it was almost a German win.  Also the Bismark class apparantly had a lot of the WW1 german battleship heritage even the WW2 era U boats were surprisingly similar to WW1 so Jutland shouldnt be a surprise it was what they had to design with.

 

Its interesting how external political factors caused compromises that if given a limitless purse simply wouldnt have been an issue.

[gzcwnk]

I will throw this in as well  "The stormy north Atlantic ocean required a good sea boat"  the King George class were very wet ships, the front end was kept low to allow the A turret to fire at 0 elevation straight ahead...

 

Poor fuel economy was definately a cockup, (but then bunker space costs weight, back to the Treaty). It will be interesting to see if WofWarships can integrate that sea conditions into the design.  For instance the British destroyers were built to be very sea worthy....and they even had sub-clases where experienced yards were allowed leeway in building...one a vaguely recall lost 1 knot in calm conditions but in severe weather rolled less and could maintain speed.

[NGTM_1R]

gzcwnk, on 05 February 2013 - 04:51 AM, said:

Im not sure just why Jutland was a surprise?

The tactical lessons of Jutland were of dubious applicability given the increasing range and speed of the ships, the introduction of radar and voice radio, the aircraft, etc. The destroyer as a weapon developed by leaps and bounds, represented physically by the creation of Fubuki in Japan and the night action at Jutland would have been far more devastating to the Germans if fought with the weapons of WW2.That tactical and strategic paradigms changed drastically from Jutland to Pearl Harbor, or even Taranto.

This sort of overcorrective swing is detrimental to force structure. Japan won Tsushima and the Russo-Japanese War, and based on what lessons they learned from that went on to create a force that was neither mentally nor materially prepared to fight WW2. The Brits concentrated on catastrophic damage control, preventing massive explosions and fires, and failed to emphasize the more prosaic aspects of fighting fires and shoring bulkheads, which came back to haunt them several times and was something they weren't really cured of until after the Falklands. Germany and the UK built their navies up to fight the next battle of Jutland and ended up in WW2 with forces that the USN and IJN would eat alive.

[nixxxie]

gzcwnk, on 05 February 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

For instance the British destroyers were built to be very sea worthy....and they even had sub-clases where experienced yards were allowed leeway in building...one a vaguely recall lost 1 knot in calm conditions but in severe weather rolled less and could maintain speed.

Nope, Vian's squadron going after Bismarck (Tribals + N-class) couldn't do more that 2kts faster that the battleship due to very severe weather.

On Jutland: do you see Gulf War as valid test now? Jutland wasn't much older to them.