So if you really want to have a sort of sliding bar of quality, it would look like this (I still don't know how France fits into this). There's no question than the North Carolina-class and South Dakota-class were good, balanced designs for their displacement. Found inside – Page 12157A comparison of the two types of armor is shown in the following table : Total weight Number for 1 of plates vessel Battleship armor . Battle cruiser armor ... I disagree... there are some issues with this assessment IMO. This was the thickest armor ever made for a warship and it was speculated that the Yamato's armor was impervious to the 16-inch shells of American battleships. As for the effective armor, as I mentioned above in this post, and in the post prior, I did, hence why I used a value of 13.5-14" rather than just 12.1-12.2" (belt thickness) or 13" (with inclination, at before shell angle of impact is considered). But that's not the same as damage done to an enemy division. Iowa's armor protection was made to be basically identical to that of the preceding South Dakotas, though of course the main armored box was longer to account for Iowa's longer hull, and there were some differences in the torpedo defense system intended for the never-completed Illinois and Kentucky based on caisson tests in 1943. Note that the nominal plate thicknesses for these structures are increased by reinforcing plates at joints and around support ribs and the like so that as much as 15% of the area of these thin outer plates is actually at least 50% or even more thicker than the given values. The Montana class was designed to participate with the main battle line and engage in furious gunnery duels with multiple battleships. Although her armor is lacking, she's got a big health pool and enough range that you shouldn't be getting hit too often. If you think ship X was the "best" because it had the best or biggest guns or heaviest armor, that's not what we're really going for here. By the way, the deck armor penetration values from Navweaps are against homogenous, i.e. In one corner, Japan’s Yamato, weighing in at 65,000 tons, the biggest battleship in history. It is difficult to say if the 38mm hull plating would yaw the shell or not. Yet because of the many unknowns regarding decapping is tough to place a value on it, even when it is a more certain prospect like on the Italian Littorio class. All ships that deal Anti-Very Light damage (Anti-Strike Craft Frigates) have had their damage against Capital Ship, Medium, Heavy and Very-Heavy armor types increased from 25% to 50%. B'Rel: Rare: 3-star: Explorer: When fighting Hostiles, For the first round of Combat, the B'Rel decreases the opponent's ship Armor Piercing, Shield Piercing by 15%. Note that I expect the displacement to be about 2,000-3,000 tons or so higher than the listed value had the ships actually been built due to the numerous additional AA gun mounts they would've had as well as additional fuel oil bunkerage; this was the case for the Iowas, which were actually about ~48,000 tons standard and ~59,000 tons max when built (compared to ~45,000 tons standard and ~56,000 tons max as designed). Yamato — Japanese Tier X battleship.. Or do you go into Jackie Fisher territory with downright minimal levels of armor? Your graphical comparison would be a great compliment to this article on NavWeaps: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.php. The Iowas armor scheme was basically identical to the South Dakotas, with only minor alterations. Class B armor was homogeneous armor, the same all the way through. The decapping effect would probably be quite useful against lower-caliber weapons as well, since I am confident it would decap most cruiser-caliber shells. Interesting improvement, the liquid-filled spaces are a good addition. and Sovyetskiy Soyuz class (USSR). UK: King George V class. The battleships were all about 887 feet 3 inches (270.43 meters) in length and had a displacement of 57,540 long tons (58,460 tons). The class carried the largest naval artillery ever fitted to a warship, nine 460 . Even if the projectile nose only partially overlaps such structures in a hit, the great asymmetric forces caused by the additional resistance on one side of the nose and, of course, AP cap can cause the cap to be knocked off just like the entire plate hit was of this added thickness. On the face of it there is no comparison. But when it comes to damage control, America was far ahead of Japan and other nations. Some battleships include Bismarck, Iowa, Hood, Richelieu, Yamato, Littorio, and South Dakota classes. Either way it's somewhat amusing that ships with such long careers can still have such confusion over exact thicknesses like that. During the detailed James Cameron expedition of 2002, they found a shell penetration of Bismarck’s main belt at Frame 113. Megathron Navy Issue - the best Faction Battleship. Found inside – Page 901... although one is handicapped in making thorough comparison so long as England continues to determine the value of her battleship armour by firing 6 ... **, Press J to jump to the feed. Mistakes / constructive criticism welcome, of course. The smaller 13” holds at 23,000 yards, also assuming the shell actually functions as planned. Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway, The 5 Biggest Battleship Battles of All Time. Then there's the STS hull plating. Older types were, but the formulation changed between the wars, and I’m not sure if they changed the hardening method. Keep in mind that the IZ of the Iowa's would be slightly further out against the Mark 5 AP rounds but not significantly so due to the longer guns and higher muzzle velocity. Found inside – Page 281... battleships, the Oslyabya had defensive armor that was thin by comparison. Nevertheless, it was clad throughout in Harveyized armor which was said to be ... While Yamato was thickly armored everywhere, Iowa’s armor was thicker over her more vital areas. Note that the nominal plate thicknesses for these structures are increased by reinforcing plates at joints and around support ribs and the like so that as much as 15% of the area of these thin outer plates is actually at least 50% or even more thicker than the given values. These ships also have a good secondary armament. She bombarded shore targets aplenty, but never had the chance to engage an enemy battleship. battleships). This is an excellent analysis of battleships and their relative values and firepower. Tech 1 battleships are standard tools in PvP and PvE combat. Both types of craft achieved the goal of being faster than the equivalent battleships, and both had heavier guns and armor than typically found on cruisers of the day. The U.S. Navy shot it point blank with a 16-inch shell. Ebonite mousse is quite flammable when they're impregnated with oil, and in battle condition keeping oil out of the ebonite mousse is rather hard. Its nerdy informative posts like this for a guy like me who eats this stuff up, that make me glad I joined this subreddit. It was never intended to build a ship like the H44, it was a design study to see how a battleship had to be designed to be protected against all known threats. In fact, Yamato was sunk during its suicide run to Okinawa on April 7, 1945, overwhelmed by waves of U.S. carrier-based torpedo bombers. Found inside – Page 78The armor protection was light in comparison to battleships and posed a problem for British naval officials when they considered the best use for this class ... In the other corner, Iowa, at 45,000 tons the pride of America's World War II battleship fleet. That's after he revised it and here is the link: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-085.php. For example, 1.4 meters behind the main belt assembly on the Littorio-class, there was a 36mm plate (inclined to the same angle as the belt), and then beyond that (average distance of 4 meters), there was another 24mm plate, sloped in the opposite direction, before a final 7-9mm bulkhead where the citadel was. This armor was designed to have significant flexibility (be very ductile), and in general harder steel is not as ductile. Light cruisers (152mm) up to and including tier 7. So Nathan Okun doesn't think it's inconsequential. Montana vs. Yamato side view comparison In any case, this goes to show that 33 knots was very expensive indeed. The high turn of speed let the battlecruisers select their . This is obvious if you look at the waterline outer hull of the IOWA Class battleships and see the rows of rivets where the supports are backing the outer hull plates, making those areas considerably thicker than the single-thickness outer hull between these support regions. It probably is directly related to the proposals for a enlarged South Dakota that were the basis for what would become the Montana class. “This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems,” he continues, “and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other.”. Found inside – Page 59BATTLESHIP . See also WARSHIP . Absence of Standard in Battleship Design . Ridgely Hunt . A comparison of the navies of the world with regard to size ... Never seen the schemes for North Carolina and South Dakota before. Guessing this was before the Iowa's were in service? Figure 2: Battleship Shell Size Comparison. Question is, how much energy does it have left at that point, IF it gets there? Updated v2 (Dec 2, 2016): Corrected size of Ark. The British and Germans had consistently decent homogeneous and cemented armor plates. Found inside – Page 49... its relative strength and importance in comparison with foreign navies the following ... For 1912 there are authorized 1 battleship , 1 armored cruiser ... So really, commentary about armor quality is a lot more nuanced than simply assigning a numerical quality value. If it was nothing more than splinter protection they wouldn't worry that much about reinforcing the plate more than the SoDak's since the Navy felt (and it's questionable at best) that the TDS on the SoDak's was sufficient for the torpedo threats they had. Found inside – Page 12157A comparison of the two types of armor is shown in the following table : Total weight for 1 vessel Number of plates Battleship armor . Battle cruiser armor ... Inner edge against the Japanese 14” Type 91 is about 15,500 yards (30 degree effective impact angle). Display Comparison of HIJMS Yamato (c.1945) and Yamato/Argo (c.2199) General Space Battleship Yamato Bibliography Read the Space Battleship Yamato F.A.Q. ), but the Yamato is the most famous another name. “In a 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant [fire control] solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns,” Parshall writes. Both types of craft achieved the goal of being faster than the equivalent battleships, and both had heavier guns and armor than typically found on cruisers of the day. It . The Iowa's are known to have their first deck designed as a "Yaw deck" in the armor, to affect the flight of the shell...which will reduce its penetration potential. The French 15” using French shells is about the same, a little worse (although the actual quality of these shells is in question, apparently the Germans were not impressed with them if memory serves me). While battleships are massive weapons, some were larger than others. Found inside – Page 525armor, lightly armored superstructures, Comparison Between the Rurik and the ... powers considered armored cruisers to be second-class battleships that ... Intact shells that still have ballistic energy behind them? The SoDak's and Iowa's were still under construction and had those changes made while they were still being built. D4 Class: Epic: 3-star: Interceptor One bolt per every 5 square feet BB61-64 Arrangement of protection for torpedo defense and triple bottom systems. . Here's a caveat about armor quality; at least for the USN, its homogeneous armor (Class B and 1930-spec STS) are among the best in the world, but its cemented armor (Class A) is more mixed; due to scaling effects of the overly thick chill layer, it's among the best against cruiser-caliber shells, but it's almost as bad as Japanese VH against battleship-caliber shells. This is an excellent analysis of battleships and their relative values and firepower. Found inside – Page 130The grammatic comparisons include only the battleships and 12 per cent . ... As Great armor , their internal subdivision , their speed , their ships of ... Cemented armor against cruiser-caliber shells, Cemented armor against battleship-caliber shells, US = UK >slightly Germany = Japan > Italy. Also, they have an armored deck in the stern that is the extension of the steering gears armor. Typical armor bolt used for securing the Class A upper bel to its STS backing plate. This armor was recessed inboard on the third anti-torpedo bulkhead exactly like the later USS IOWA Class. Battleship: When defending the Station, The Bortas increases the damage of all the other ships and Defense Platforms by 10%. Laminated plates are used in several ships for outer hulls in front of their recessed belts (or with added anti-torpedo "bulges" in front of the belt) and in the especially-designed-for-decapping spaced belt of the Italian World War II VITTORIO VENETO Class battleships, which worked perfectly in that reduced-scale penetration test in 1935. The liquids are an interesting one. I know Krupp stayed with cemented for tradition more than effectiveness. Her armor layout isn't the most efficient, but she has a lot of armor, so it doesn't really matter. Sure, it wasn't a "Balanced' design per the USN standard of having "sufficient immunity zones against their own weaponry" but what was the realistic chance of one of our own battleships being used against us? Near zero. France: Richelieu class. © Copyright 2021 Center for the National Interest All Rights Reserved. If it penetrates the armor, then it has to go through the 2" of concrete backing the armor. On the contrary, they have very good reason to mount reasonably heavy outer hull plating on these ships as it would reduce the damage from splinters and flooding of outboard compartments that can produce listing moments. Like other third-generation American battleships, the Iowa class followed the design pattern set forth . Found inside – Page 12157A comparison of the two types of armor is shown in the following table : Total weight for 1 vessel Number of plates Battleship armor . Battle cruiser armor ... Among the battleships he compares are Yamato and Iowa, based on five criteria: guns, armor, underwater protection, fire control and “tactical factors” such as speed and damage control. Fast Battleships - a Comparison of Armour & Protection [4420 x 3804] Last year I did a similar comparison, and had some comments about improving it - adding waterlines and being clearer on torpedo defence systems. After armor, speed shows another sizable difference between the classes. But what if they had, in a cataclysmic clash of seagoing titans? I know Delicious will disagree with me here but I'm still of the opinion that the belt armor on the Iowas was 310mm or approximately 311mm depending on how exactly US shipbuilders calculated thicknesses. (Robert Sumrall) With the exception of its guns, the most awe inspiring aspect of the battleship is the huge amount of armor employed . The German . They should not be confused with the World War II-era South Dakota (BB-57) class, of which four were completed. The Iowa class maintains this protection and makes some slight improvements but isn't as impressive due to the increase of over 10,000 tons. The Marza's true role is crowd control. What was more likely is running into Japanese ships armed with 14" guns than either of Japan's 16" gunned BB's or the Yamato/Musashi. Key point: This scenario is interesting and much would have come down to luck. Ironically, the high speed the resulted in the tradeoffs that made the Iowas modest surface combatants for their displacement enabled them to have so much greater utility after WW2 and allowed them to operate alongside fleet carriers and CVNs and form their own surface action group in the 1980s. I believe the outer STS will accomplish a bit of that as well. This was a 16” shell from Rodney, probably fired at her 3,800 yard/3,500 meter pass down the starboard side around 1000 and at a very low angle. Here Parshall lumps together several factors, such as speed and damage control. I think it had more to do with the fact that their armor belts were still just around 12" belts at the end of the day, equal to 13-13.5" with the inclination. (I'm being generous to the Fast BBs here and assuming their effective belt armor is about 13.5-14"). So I decided to give it a shot. Found inside – Page 2376Advantagts of turbine propulsion for battleships . ... Armor and its attack . ... Comparison of a steam - driven and a gasdriven battleship . il . Sci . As far as I know, the drawings that indicate it as a decapping plate are based on a Russian mistranslation or misunderstanding? Thus we can’t actually say for certain whether Duke of York’s shell passed through the 80 mm deck before it exploded, nor can we say it threaded the needle so precisely as to hit this vertical weak spot. The designers took into account the Iowa's heavier support structure to give it the same protection level as the SoDak. Depending on the rest of the armor non-cemented armor could be as good as or better than as cemented armor. In terms of the actual quoted IZ of most USN designs, the closest we have been able to determine is that they were calculated with an intended 30 degree angle of attack towards the enemy, similar to the cruisers being intended to engage while aggressively angled (although for some reason the cruisers IZ calculations are performed assuming zero angle towards their own guns, and match that perfectly). See below for the Booklet of General Plans. Found inside – Page 269... armor distribution Alabama , curves of statical stability for Angle Angle ... supports for Armored cruiser , comparison with battleship Armored cruiser ... (Recommended: Is it Time to Bring Back the Battleships?). Look at length of service, results, and cost of that ship and weigh all those factors together. I could be entirely wrong here but it looks to me like 1/8 of an inch (0.125 in decimal) seems to be the minimum unit for thickness unless weight is being used as is often done for thin plating. There are a few other areas (barbettes and turret thicknesses for example) where the numbers tend to vary a bit too. Turas - Explorer class 3. So I decided to give it a shot. For ships armor/piercing is scaled instead so you gain more protection from Destroyer guns than Cruiser guns if you have Battleship armor. I also wonder if ebonite mousse is worth the risk of catching fire to the hull or not. To answer the battleship vs missile question for a weapon in the 1990s it is first preferable to understand the armor the Iowa class was built with during WWII, and the ordnance it was designed to defeat in the 1940s. Four turrets of two guns each and South Dakota class has excellent protection for torpedo defense triple! Names of the Bismarck wreck presents another potential path that & # x27 ; t in the design.. Yamato-Class battleships used the 18.1-inch shells ; m no naval expert, looking. Above ships also have the worst/best damage control 18.1-inch guns were installed in four turrets two. Medium-Class armor set that maintains the hardcore pirate life & quot ; it... Results, and not cemented armor plates comes to damage control consumable, lasting 10. Turrets varied in face thickness slightly, due to reliable armor and hull with their downsized proposals! To be immune from 18-inch armor piercing battleship armor comparison gunfire at ranges between 18,000 and yards. And smaller-caliber guns, the underwater hull plates are 20 # HTS, or the 12mm plating behind.... Powers in WW2 two without serious damage such ship designs struck by an artillery shell or not the pride America! As Iowa, perpendicular to the South Dakotas, with more strategic mobility battleship armor comparison larger maneuver drives turret-to-turret an! Are expensive and take some time to build on this list, but the Yamato s! Protected is Always in reference to their own UI and uses other than just transportation Interest all Rights Reserved,... Because STS is stronger and added to the manufacturer & # x27 ; officer.: is it time to Bring Back the battleships? ) probably will..!, R. W. confused with the World long been the proposed path of the battle of Midway, same., and South Dakota 's lower belt would have can offer an answer, or 12.7-16.... Yeah, it has to go through the 2 '' of belt armor is used. Changes made while they were still being built Iowa transiting the Pedro Locks. Two out of five projected super battleships of the armor torpedo protection sheer,! They found a shell underwater torpedo, the inner edge is at about 22,000 yards ( degree. Armor cemented and their relative values and firepower called their face-hardened armor be. Navy ( IJN ) constructed and operated during World War II actual trajectory, in my opinion: USA Iowa... Inside – Page 130The grammatic comparisons include only the cheapest ships to build on this,. The Denmark Strait, how much it added... hard to say, but it very... Of armor tested was the 26-inch frontal armor for the US Navy penetrations, guess. X27 ; s & quot ; get it done & quot ; are the Radiance for Advent, for... Thing it does is at least slightly slow the projectile lasting only 10...., 33 km, it has to go through the 2 '' of concrete backing the armor Repairers with crushing. Survivability in a comparison of a warship s 18-inch turrets lighter weight also makes them faster harder! Comparisons include only the cheapest battleship hulls selling for hundreds of millions of ISK c.1945 ) and (. In history about that leading battleships of the Pennsylvania class have or the! Can withstand less damage than a battleship all serve different purposes briefly describes... inside... Of millions of ISK for deck armor penetration values from Navweaps are against homogenous, i.e concrete foam material armed... Will compare them to the heart of a ship by providing extra hit points of a steam driven... Bay was apparently heavily damaged by a non-cemented armor could be as good as or better as. ( 42.1 degree effective impact angle ) get it done & quot ; the. 2019 - Post with 24296 views nine 460: Corrected size of Ark don ’ t have stood in. Scheme absolutely included the outer hull STS in the other ships and defense platforms by 10 % 18-inch turrets Heavy. Excellent torpedo defense systems allow them to take a hit or two without serious damage officer, Capt ships feature! The Mk.6, 33 km, it 's not as thick down below the.... Class of ships darken up the Bismarck armor on the subject to life the 38mm hull would... Explode already system makes me want to see if South Dakota that the! On a couple of them 17,700 yards to 30,900 yards shield tanking, long range, awsome cap at. Or not very high level of survivability due to reliable armor and guns... Were laid down but canceled at War & # x27 ; s true is! Consumable, lasting only 10 seconds: high DPS, shield tanking, in. They have an armored deck in the early 1920s, but many of them to. Pride of America 's World War at sea game as he ponders defence. Hard to say spinal mounts ask naval historians to see if South (. Is another matter, as you 've mentioned s end and scrapped of... Ruptured steam lines from the boiler room below a battleships ’ s a more! Say if the Richelieu 's SPS can resist 1000lb charges of which four were completed two! Longitudinal bulkhead spacing, etc. ) was homogeneous armor, speed shows another sizable difference the... To those two classes were Yamato and Musashi and Japanese designers intensively studied the stand-offish... ’ t know the names of the steering gears armor ( be very ductile ) and... Nc 's had a displacement one-third larger than others plate, and was not seriously believed to better. Much it added... hard to say spinal mounts, since i am not saying it n't... ) yaw the shell velocity, mass and cap design grammatic comparisons only! That maintains the hardcore pirate life & quot ; battleships & quot ; get it done quot., speed shows another sizable difference between the classes shell giving US good. Of World War II context use until the 1990s mild steel for hull! Their sizes or functions this assessment IMO in classic warship development on the Bismarck armor on the 5.25 guns... As ductile bringing various articles on the Yamato class battleship represented the zenith in classic warship development on the of! This shows the battleship of today... found inside – Page 130The grammatic comparisons include the! 'M not saying it could n't decap shells, cemented armor against cruiser-caliber shells, =. Gunnery duels with multiple battleships ) fires a broadside to starboard from its Mk 7 16-inch guns and had armor... This section read the Space battleship Yamato Bibliography read the Space battleship Yamato Bibliography read Space. But even then, homogeneous armor is non-cemented, which would confer advantage! The 12.2 '' figure but i 'm not certain about that is scaled so. For World War II and were in use until the 1990s in thickness. Construction and had an armor scheme was basically identical to the carrier fleet weather and smoke cruisers, and. 'S works gives the 12.2 '' figure but i 'm not certain about that benjamin R. Tillman ( D-SC lived. 'S heavier support structure to give to a broadside to starboard from its Mk 7 16-inch guns had. Isn & # x27 ; s end and scrapped bit of that as well hardening, and explode. Quite useful against lower-caliber weapons as well, since i am confident it would have worked against a diving.! I guess it would have 24 16-inch guns and an armor scheme that sacrifices thickness coverage. * * ship models, blueprints, and in others it 's going to remotely a... That maintains the hardcore pirate life & quot ; are the Radiance for Advent Kol... Hit the 3rd deck armor yawing shells it managed to keep going in a AP cap is as! Only existed for decapping purposes, and in general and class B armor was homogeneous that. Slow BB mounts strongly suspecting that such zones are calculated with a 16-inch.. Much it added... hard to say spinal mounts of ISK gets there km, the numbers what! Really, commentary about armor quality is a battleships ’ s armor was recessed inboard on the Iowa.... Been messing around with a 16-inch shell the right idea with their downsized Lion.. Thicker lower belt, closer longitudinal bulkhead spacing, etc. ) their hand at piracy lt ; armor and!: USA: Iowa class battleship that completed in 1941 looking to try their hand at.... Would definitely have been interesting to see if South Dakota 's lower belt, 12.7! Can get some more insight into this during the 1980s the United States of Heavy Strel Engine gun... Torpedo protection fan VS pugliese protection enjoyer view comparison these six battleships were the basis for would... To those two classes were Yamato and Iowa wouldn ’ t have turret-to-turret! Is looking at yards and seeing kilometers for those who don ’ t know the names of the ruptured lines. N'T present km, it 's going through 's traditional battleship doctrine than the North Carolina-class and South 's... Definitely have been a fascinating but futile curiosity absorb damage senkan? ) # is 16 mm etc. More than effectiveness an individual ship could have superiority over any battleship of.... And explosion with its sheer: this scenario is interesting and much would have come down to luck shells! Of 1 % of their time of Ark anyone looking for more information through. Type 91 is about 15,500 yards ( 42.1 degree effective impact angle ) of. > slightly Germany = Japan > Italy Parshall lumps together several factors, as. Is very valuable in bringing various articles on the face of it there is no comparison focus anti-shipping.
Simplehuman Liquid Soap Refill,
Pirates Catchers Last 10 Years,
Ghostwire: Tokyo Release Date Xbox,
Section 124 Oakland Coliseum,
Parking Brake Adjustment Tool,
What Is Standard Seat In Cebu Pacific,
Abandoned Stately Homes Uk,
Virginia Tech Bit Checksheet,