Big Ships, Deep Seas

[David Knight]

My grandfather used to make these 15" guns which shows how far technology advanced in a few years.

 

[Mr. King]

I love me some Dreadnaughts. The downfall of the battleships due to obsolescence and technology is almost as painful as that of the war horse.

My favorite British battleships are HMS Rodney and HMS Nelson. They were beautiful boats.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

I'm not convinced the day of the battleship is truly forever over. It might be called something else, and it might not be exerting its force in the same ways, but it seems to me that the role of a vessel that can both deal out and take heavy punishment is a niche that won't permanently go away. It's currently unnecessary, true... I look at the U.S. Navy in the antebellum period, which could have had a sailing battlefleet if one was needed-- but it wasn't; the Navy's mission of forward presence, diplomatic contacts, exploration, and "small wars" was amply fulfilled by frigates and smaller vessels, particularly sloops-of-war; and I think we're sort of in a strategically similar situation (though the technology is very different). (In fact, that was essentially true all the way up until Theodore Roosevelt's time; the Civil War was really something of an anomaly in the naval development of the U.S. prior to that.)

My favorite British battleships are HMS Rodney and HMS Nelson. They were beautiful boats.

I'll try to understand that, but I have difficulty thinking of them as "beautiful" with that turret arrangement!

I think my vote would be for the Queen Elizabeth class (original configuration), or the Arizona and Pennsylvania on this side of the pond (after removal of the lattice masts).

 

[Mr. King]

I'm not convinced the day of the battleship is truly forever over. It might be called something else, and it might not be exerting its force in the same ways, but it seems to me that the role of a vessel that can both deal out and take heavy punishment is a niche that won't permanently go away. It's currently unnecessary, true... I look at the U.S. Navy in the antebellum period, which could have had a sailing battlefleet if one was needed-- but it wasn't; the Navy's mission of forward presence, diplomatic contacts, exploration, and "small wars" was amply fulfilled by frigates and smaller vessels, particularly sloops-of-war; and I think we're sort of in a strategically similar situation (though the technology is very different). (In fact, that was essentially true all the way up until Theodore Roosevelt's time; the Civil War was really something of an anomaly in the naval development of the U.S. prior to that.)




I'll try to understand that, but I have difficulty thinking of them as "beautiful" with that turret arrangement!

I think my vote would be for the Queen Elizabeth class (original configuration), or the Arizona and Pennsylvania on this side of the pond (after removal of the lattice masts).

The USS Pennsylvania was a nice boat. There is a photo of her sitting in a floating dry dock, and her torpedo blisters gave her a very stout appearance.
Honestly, the US Navy perfected the battleship with the Iowa Class. South Dakota Class was the perfect treaty battleship, but as far as unrestricted design goes, Iowa tops any and all ever built.
I even liked the Alaska Class Battlecruiser.... the mini Iowa.
I wish the USS Montana had been built. That would have been awesome.

 

[rebelatsea]

I'm not convinced the day of the battleship is truly forever over. It might be called something else, and it might not be exerting its force in the same ways, but it seems to me that the role of a vessel that can both deal out and take heavy punishment is a niche that won't permanently go away. It's currently unnecessary, true... I look at the U.S. Navy in the antebellum period, which could have had a sailing battlefleet if one was needed-- but it wasn't; the Navy's mission of forward presence, diplomatic contacts, exploration, and "small wars" was amply fulfilled by frigates and smaller vessels, particularly sloops-of-war; and I think we're sort of in a strategically similar situation (though the technology is very different). (In fact, that was essentially true all the way up until Theodore Roosevelt's time; the Civil War was really something of an anomaly in the naval development of the U.S. prior to that.)




I'll try to understand that, but I have difficulty thinking of them as "beautiful" with that turret arrangement!

I think my vote would be for the Queen Elizabeth class (original configuration), or the Arizona and Pennsylvania on this side of the pond (after removal of the lattice masts).

Mark, I'll go along with that and add HMS Tiger, but I prefer your BBs with the cagemasts in original configuration.

 

[rebelatsea]

The USS Pennsylvania was a nice boat. There is a photo of her sitting in a floating dry dock, and her torpedo blisters gave her a very stout appearance.
Honestly, the US Navy perfected the battleship with the Iowa Class. South Dakota Class was the perfect treaty battleship, but as far as unrestricted design goes, Iowa tops any and all ever built.
I even liked the Alaska Class Battlecruiser.... the mini Iowa.
I wish the USS Montana had been built. That would have been awesome.

I'm not quite sure the Iowas were the "perfect" battleship, in that their seakeeping abilities, which of course affects fighting ability, left a lot to be desired when not in the Pacific. Ideally the perfect BB should be quite happy at sea anywhere, and perhaps HMS Vanguard is the best example of that.

 

[Mr. King]

I'm not quite sure the Iowas were the "perfect" battleship, in that their seakeeping abilities, which of course affects fighting ability, left a lot to be desired when not in the Pacific. Ideally the perfect BB should be quite happy at sea anywhere, and perhaps HMS Vanguard is the best example of that.

I did not even have to look to see that you were in England... LOL.

"Perfect".... OK, I'll concede that. But I will stick to the "Best All Around Battleship Class Ever Built"

The Vanguard was a beautiful boat as well, but she came a little too late. I hate the fact that she was scrapped having never fired a shot in anger. I understand the British post-war austerity and debt problems, but they should have kept at least one battleship as a museum. I mean, come on. You've already spent the money to build it.... Why not keep one.... the last one...
I applaud the British Navy's economical use of turrets left over from WW1, but the North Carolina Class, South Dakota Class, and the Iowa Class all had more guns, bigger guns, and less turrets. But to British credit, when the greatest threats you face are the Bismark and the Tirpitz, why go any further than matching their firepower? I read somewhere that the British Navy had far more success and experience with the 14" and 15" guns than they did with the 16" guns on the Rodney and Nelson.

Now I'm no naval architect, but doesn't that look like a North Atlantic Bow to you?

For comparison purposes:

BROADSIDES
Yamato Class had 9 -18.1" guns @ 28,971 lbs w/ a range of 45,960 yds
Iowa Class has 9 - 16" guns @ 24,300 lbs w/ a range of 42,345 yds
South Dakota & North Carolina Classes have 9 - 16" guns @ 24,300 lbs w/ a range of 36,900 yds
Nelson Class had 9 - 16" guns @ 18,432 lbs w/ a range of 39,780 yds
King George V had 10-14" guns @ 15,900 lbs w/ a range of 38,560 yds
Vanguard had 8 - 15" guns @ 15,504 lbs w/ a range of 37,870 yds
Bismark Class had 8 - 15" guns @ 14,112 lbs w/a range of 38,880 yds (this always makes me think Bismark & Tirpitz were paper tigers...)
HMS Hood had 8 - 15" guns @ 15,360 lbs w/ a range of 30,180 yds

SPEED
HMS Vanguard -30 knots
USS Iowa - 32.5 knots (up to 35.2 knots on light load)
Bismark - 30 knots
HMS King George V - 28.3 knots

DISPLACEMENT
HMS Vanguard - 45,200 tons (standard), 52,250 tons (deep load)
USS Iowa - 45,000 tons (standard), 57,000 tons (pre 1980s full load)
Bismark - 41,700 tons (standard), 50,300 tons (full load)
HMS King George V - 42,200 tons

LENGTH, BEAM, DEPTH
HMS Vanguard - 814.33' long, 108' beam, 36' deep
USS Iowa - 887' long, 108' beam (dang canal), 36' deep
Bismark - 823' long, 118' beam, 31' deep
HMS King George V - 745' long, 103' beam, 32.6' deep

RANGE
HMS Vanguard - 8,250 NM @ 15 Knots (British Navy designs had shorter range due to the many ports in the empire)q
USS Iowa - 12,858 NM @ 15 Knot (long range for Pacific use)
Bismark - 8,870 NM @ 19 knots (seems low for a "commerce raider" with few ports to refuel in.
HMS King George V - 5,400 NM @ 18 knots

ARMOR
HMS Vanguard - 14" Armored Belt, 13" Turret Armor
USS Iowa - 12.1" Belt, 19.7" Turret, 7.5" deck
Bismark - 12.6" belt, 14" turret, 4.7" deck
HMS King George V - 14.7" belt, 12.75" turret, 5.38" deck

 

[Mr. King]

Mark, I'll go along with that and add HMS Tiger, but I prefer your BBs with the cagemasts in original configuration.

Those cage mast were not very flattering. The tripods looked much better.

I do like the Pagoda style of the Jap Navy.

 

[Mr. King]

As far as the Naval Gunfire Support Debate goes, I do not see how the USS Zumwalt or an deliver the same effect on an enemy as even a Des Moines Class Heavy Cruiser. OK... you have smart weapons like guided missiles. That is a very scary weapon... But at $1 Million a pop, how many do we want to fire?

Fire for effect... OVER

 

[rebelatsea]

I did not even have to look to see that you were in England... LOL.

"Perfect".... OK, I'll concede that. But I will stick to the "Best All Around Battleship Class Ever Built"

The Vanguard was a beautiful boat as well, but she came a little too late. I hate the fact that she was scrapped having never fired a shot in anger. I understand the British post-war austerity and debt problems, but they should have kept at least one battleship as a museum. I mean, come on. You've already spent the money to build it.... Why not keep one.... the last one...
I applaud the British Navy's economical use of turrets left over from WW1, but the North Carolina Class, South Dakota Class, and the Iowa Class all had more guns, bigger guns, and less turrets. But to British credit, when the greatest threats you face are the Bismark and the Tirpitz, why go any further than matching their firepower? I read somewhere that the British Navy had far more success and experience with the 14" and 15" guns than they did with the 16" guns on the Rodney and Nelson.

Now I'm no naval architect, but doesn't that look like a North Atlantic Bow to you?

For comparison purposes:

BROADSIDES
Yamato Class had 9 -18.1" guns @ 28,971 lbs w/ a range of 45,960 yds
Iowa Class has 9 - 16" guns @ 24,300 lbs w/ a range of 42,345 yds
South Dakota & North Carolina Classes have 9 - 16" guns @ 24,300 lbs w/ a range of 36,900 yds
Nelson Class had 9 - 16" guns @ 18,432 lbs w/ a range of 39,780 yds
King George V had 10-14" guns @ 15,900 lbs w/ a range of 38,560 yds
Vanguard had 8 - 15" guns @ 15,504 lbs w/ a range of 37,870 yds
Bismark Class had 8 - 15" guns @ 14,112 lbs w/a range of 38,880 yds (this always makes me think Bismark & Tirpitz were paper tigers...)
HMS Hood had 8 - 15" guns @ 15,360 lbs w/ a range of 30,180 yds

SPEED
HMS Vanguard -30 knots
USS Iowa - 32.5 knots (up to 35.2 knots on light load)
Bismark - 30 knots
HMS King George V - 28.3 knots

DISPLACEMENT
HMS Vanguard - 45,200 tons (standard), 52,250 tons (deep load)
USS Iowa - 45,000 tons (standard), 57,000 tons (pre 1980s full load)
Bismark - 41,700 tons (standard), 50,300 tons (full load)
HMS King George V - 42,200 tons

LENGTH, BEAM, DEPTH
HMS Vanguard - 814.33' long, 108' beam, 36' deep
USS Iowa - 887' long, 108' beam (dang canal), 36' deep
Bismark - 823' long, 118' beam, 31' deep
HMS King George V - 745' long, 103' beam, 32.6' deep

RANGE
HMS Vanguard - 8,250 NM @ 15 Knots (British Navy designs had shorter range due to the many ports in the empire)q
USS Iowa - 12,858 NM @ 15 Knot (long range for Pacific use)
Bismark - 8,870 NM @ 19 knots (seems low for a "commerce raider" with few ports to refuel in.
HMS King George V - 5,400 NM @ 18 knots

ARMOR
HMS Vanguard - 14" Armored Belt, 13" Turret Armor
USS Iowa - 12.1" Belt, 19.7" Turret, 7.5" deck
Bismark - 12.6" belt, 14" turret, 4.7" deck
HMS King George V - 14.7" belt, 12.75" turret, 5.38" deck

Two great photos of the Class, but no ,its not an Atlantic bow unfortunately, and in a NATO excersize , the Iowa was awash forward at speed , unable to operate A turret, whereas Vanguard was dry and able to operate all turrets.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

We should probably get back to Civil War XV-inch guns... Sorry!

 

[Mr. King]

We should probably get back to Civil War XV-inch guns... Sorry!

Alrighty...
Since we have a Brit and a ACW Naval Genius present, I'll pose a question I've often pondered....

HMS Warrior was a very large and advanced ship in it's day... I've often wondered how it compared with the US Fleet during the ACW. Was there an equivalent?
We had our ironclads, timberclads, tinclads, monitors, etc... It seems like out technology was differing somewhat from the Royal Navy.

If the British had decided to go to war over the Trent Affair, I've always assumed their strategy would have been to protect Canada, and lift the blockade.

In your opinions, could the Royal Navy have lifted the blockade?

 

[TinCan]

Note to pfcjking: A battleship is not a boat, yes that's right, it's a ship....a battleSHIP, big difference.

 

[AUG]

The AP rounds on an Iowa Class or South Dakota Class Battleship with 16" guns weighed 2,700 lbs each. That's like shooting a car out of the barrel. I believe the barrel weighed about 95 tons on a 16"/50 cal. Mark 7 that was carried by the Iowa Class.

I believe that artillery, naval or otherwise, was perfected during WW2, considering the technology of the day.

I read somewhere that the analog Ford computers that aimed the guns on the WW2 era US Battlewagons was superior in accuracy to anything the navy tried to replace them with during the 1980s refit and modernization of the Iowas. It was decided to just leave them as they were. Those "computers" are literally the size of a studio apartment.

One of my grandfathers served on the USS South Dakota (BB-57). When those things went off he said it felt like an earthquake!

 

[Carronade]

Alrighty...
Since we have a Brit and a ACW Naval Genius present, I'll pose a question I've often pondered....

HMS Warrior was a very large and advanced ship in it's day... I've often wondered how it compared with the US Fleet during the ACW. Was there an equivalent?
We had our ironclads, timberclads, tinclads, monitors, etc... It seems like out technology was differing somewhat from the Royal Navy.

If the British had decided to go to war over the Trent Affair, I've always assumed their strategy would have been to protect Canada, and lift the blockade.

In your opinions, could the Royal Navy have lifted the blockade?

The two fleets were very different, although it was more a matter of needs than technological capability. The RN was a blue-water navy, primarily concerned with rivals like the French, who were also building ironclad frigates and suchlike. American ironclads were intended primarily to counter Confederate ironclads in coastal waters around their home harbors, or occasionally on rivers. No doubt we could have built armored frigates if the need arose; in fact a New York yard built two of them for the Italian navy while the Civil War was ongoing.

The blockade was maintained mainly by wooden steamers, many of them purchased civilian ships or captured blockade runners and not very heavily armed. Any pretence of maintaining a legal blockade would have been swept away, mainly by the RN's wooden frigates and sloops. If we were formally at war, the US would be entitled to capture Confederate or British flagged merchant ships - and they ours - as in other wars, but the likely net result would be significantly more shipping in and out of southern ports, while northern trade (and immigration) would be curtailed.

The Union would no longer be able to maintain troops or bases along the southern coastlines at places like Port Royal, Pensacola, or New Orleans.

 

[Mr. King]

Note to pfcjking: A battleship is not a boat, yes that's right, it's a ship....a battleSHIP, big difference.

The USS North Carolina is nicknamed "ShowBOAT"...

I'm sure the old girls are not offended.

 

[Mr. King]

One of my grandfathers served on the USS South Dakota (BB-57). When those things went off he said it felt like an earthquake!

According to nearly every navy vet I've ever met, he had a dream assignment!

I've always been told that when they modernized the Iowas in the 80s, the flood of requests for assignment to one of them was unprecedented. Even retired old men were trying to re-enlist for a chance to serve on one.

 

[Mr. King]

The two fleets were very different, although it was more a matter of needs than technological capability. The RN was a blue-water navy, primarily concerned with rivals like the French, who were also building ironclad frigates and suchlike. American ironclads were intended primarily to counter Confederate ironclads in coastal waters around their home harbors, or occasionally on rivers. No doubt we could have built armored frigates if the need arose; in fact a New York yard built two of them for the Italian navy while the Civil War was ongoing.

The blockade was maintained mainly by wooden steamers, many of them purchased civilian ships or captured blockade runners and not very heavily armed. Any pretence of maintaining a legal blockade would have been swept away, mainly by the RN's wooden frigates and sloops. If we were formally at war, the US would be entitled to capture Confederate or British flagged merchant ships - and they ours - as in other wars, but the likely net result would be significantly more shipping in and out of southern ports, while northern trade (and immigration) would be curtailed.

The Union would no longer be able to maintain troops or bases along the southern coastlines at places like Port Royal, Pensacola, or New Orleans.

That sounds completely legitimate.

It would have been a very different war, that is for sure...

I am thinking that the HMS Warrior could have had a devastating effect anywhere it wanted to for a while.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

I am thinking that the HMS Warrior could have had a devastating effect anywhere it wanted to for a while.

Anywhere there was enough water to float it, anyway. Not a small consideration along the U.S. coast, particularly in the South.

The merits can be debated endlessly, but the essential point of the Union monitor program (as developed by Howard J. Fuller in Clad in Iron) was that anything small and shallow-drafted enough to get into the U.S. shoreline could be taken care of by the monitors. There are a few "what-if" images of Warrior vs. Monitor, which are spectacular in appearance, but which utterly ignore the underwater dimension-- for the most part, where the Warrior could go (high seas), the Monitor couldn't, and where the Monitor could go (shallow littorals), the Warrior couldn't.

(Mahan and later theorists would argue that conceding the deep water was a losing proposition, but it was a traditional U.S. strategic stance vs. Britain; think of the monitors as updated versions of Jefferson's "gunboat navy.")

 

[Mr. King]

Anywhere there was enough water to float it, anyway. Not a small consideration along the U.S. coast, particularly in the South.

The merits can be debated endlessly, but the essential point of the Union monitor program (as developed by Howard J. Fuller in Clad in Iron) was that anything small and shallow-drafted enough to get into the U.S. shoreline could be taken care of by the monitors. There are a few "what-if" images of Warrior vs. Monitor, which are spectacular in appearance, but which utterly ignore the underwater dimension-- for the most part, where the Warrior could go (high seas), the Monitor couldn't, and where the Monitor could go (shallow littorals), the Warrior couldn't.

(Mahan and later theorists would argue that conceding the deep water was a losing proposition, but it was a traditional U.S. strategic stance vs. Britain; think of the monitors as updated versions of Jefferson's "gunboat navy.")

Some of the post-war monitors where ocean going, right?