| Battleship vs Battleship | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 4 2015, 02:35 PM (852 Views) | |
| Castanos | Feb 4 2015, 02:35 PM Post #1 |
![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Feb 4 2015, 10:54 PM Post #2 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Why debate it when you can wargame it: http://www.wtj.com/games/battlefleet_1900/
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Feb 5 2015, 09:03 AM Post #3 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
The Royal Sovereigns have superior seakeeping and better firepower. With those abilities combined, they can dictate the range of an engagement and decisively defeat the whalers. |
![]() |
|
| Castanos | Feb 5 2015, 09:56 AM Post #4 |
![]()
|
At the short ranges such an engagement is likely to be fought, wouldn't the greater number of high-caliber weapons pose a danger to the Royal Sovereigns? The secondary battery of the the latter isn't very strong and the German guns have better characteristics then that British 12". The Germans fire slightly faster and at about the same range as the British. Additionally their armor renders them all but impenetrable to anything but a point blank British salvo. The Royal Sovereign is slower than the Brandenburg, the Germans would dictate the range. (Though I don't believe this to be a very strong characteristic in the confines of the North Sea, the obsession with speed can be dangerous as the French discovered in some naval exercises). The Brandenburgs however don't seem "Whalers" at all, the German Navy considered them excellent seaboats. How would the Royal Sovereign exactly beat the Krupp Armored Brandenburgs? |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Feb 5 2015, 10:36 AM Post #5 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
The German Navy never had to operate in conditions beyond the coastal waters of the North Sea and did not have the experience of operating ships in serious weather on a multi-generational basis. The operational experience of the RN was slightly greater. The Royal Sovereigns had a speed of 17.5 knots, with the Brandenburgs having a theoretical top design speed of 16.5 knots in good conditions. 4 x 13.5" and 5 x 6" vs 6 x 11" and 3 x 4.1" is only close on paper. The 4.1" guns are too small to do much damage at battle ranges. The German ships didn't have Krupp armour, but Harvey or composite armour, with Krupp entering service in 1895 on the next class of German battleships. |
![]() |
|
| Castanos | Feb 5 2015, 02:26 PM Post #6 |
![]()
|
I don't like to use Wikipedia to back an argument, but its the quickest source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Kurf%C3%BCrst_Friedrich_Wilhelm Two ships of the Brandenburg-class are shown on many websites as boasting Krupp Armor with the first two using Composite Armor. Only two got this innovative armor protection scheme due to the inability of Krupp to construct more in a timely fashion. The only Royal Sovereign-class Battleship to hit 17.5 knots was the HMS Hood, which boasted lower freeboard and had all the seakeeping problems you attribute to the Brandenburg-class. All the others have 15.7 knots even if they can maintain that speed in worse weather. I am in agreement that the secondary battery of the Royal Sovereign is much stronger than the Brandenburg. I also agree that the Royal Sovereign-class was a better jack of all trades ship, capable of operating pretty much anywhere where the Brandenburg was specifically designed for battles in the North Sea. This does not invalidate that the Brandenburg may be a superior vessel in a 1v1 environment. The combination of higher RoF, higher speed and higher number of caliber guns, combined with a MUCH more advanced armor type would make it pretty much invincible against all but a lucky hit by the British 13'5 inch guns. At the range the 6 inch guns would be useful to raze the superstructure of the German battleship, so will the 4" inch guns. Additionally the higher number of high-caliber guns on the Brandenburg will greatly improve the odds of piercing the composite armor on the Royal Sovereign. Two notes: * I am being deliberately provocative so as to stir some debate. I would like for others to join and give their opinions! * I'm personally a fanboy of the Royal Sovereign-class pre-dreadnought, but the Brandenburg-class is in my opinion grossly underestimated. EDIT: Sources on the speed are conflicting so I'll just assume yours are correct which would give the Royal Sovereigns around 17 knots to the Brandenburg's 16knots. Edited by Castanos, Feb 5 2015, 02:31 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Feb 5 2015, 03:00 PM Post #7 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Well, I do not know anything about the battleships or their abilities. However, that has never stopped me from having an opinion before! The reason I put that wargaming link up was more than mere joviality. The people who made it have worked out formulas for all the battleships of the era in an attempt to do exactly what you are doing here. While I can't vouch for their realism, we have used them on occasion to good effect. In this case, the authors rated the Royal Sovereigns as superior in both armament and armor, which correspond to Simon's interpretation. The Brandeburgs also have far worse upperworks protection. There is a slight advantage in speed, but probably not significant enough in most circumstances. http://www.wtj.com/games/battlefleet_1900/docu_design_formulas.htm Edited by Basil Fawlty, Feb 5 2015, 03:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Castanos | Feb 5 2015, 05:33 PM Post #8 |
![]()
|
German Pre-Dreadnoughts are usually disparaged so that doesn't surprise me at all. However one thing that I cannot agree on is the Brandenburgs having worse armor. This is a 16 inch Krupp Armor belt; That's as strong as its going to get until Krupp Cemented Armor appears. There is a chance they are rating the normal Brandenburgs which use "Composite" Armor. In regards to the firepower, given the lack of fire control, secondary batteries are essential and the Royal Sovereign has a better one at that. My main goal with this discussion was merely to argue it isn't as lopsided as one would think ![]() Anyone else want to present two other candidates? |
![]() |
|
| Vonar Roberts | Feb 5 2015, 06:33 PM Post #9 |
|
Satsuma vs HMS Dreadnought SMS Nassau vs HMS Dreadnought Bonus: What if Satsuma was built with a full complement of the 12 in guns that she was originally designed for? |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Feb 5 2015, 09:09 PM Post #10 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Wikipedia is an awful source. Actual published works do not 'upgrade' their armour by fiat, nor do they rate them as invulnerable then or now. Krupp came in on the next class, the Friedrich IIIs. The confusion lies between the difference between composite armour and the next generation of armour; it was supplied by Krupp, but not 'Krupp armour'. Warships do not duel one on one to create fair fights, but operated in a line of battle. Edited by Simon Darkshade, Feb 5 2015, 09:13 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Vonar Roberts | Feb 6 2015, 12:10 AM Post #11 |
|
We never asked for fair fights and there are plenty of occasions where warships engaged other warships by themselves. Bismarck vs Hood comes to mind as one of them. |
![]() |
|
| Castanos | Feb 6 2015, 09:32 AM Post #12 |
![]()
|
I didn't find a single source stating they used Harvey Armor, but all refer to "Krupp Nickel-Steel" Armor. Krupp added chromium to the standard nickel-steel armor to create what is now known as "Krupp Armor". Additionally some sources state the two latter ships were twice as protected as the first ones; this is not a level of difference awarded by Harvey Armor from Composite Armor but is nearly approached by Krupp Armor. Even if they used the standard Harvey Armor, that's still better than the Royal Sovereigns by quite a margin. The term "nearly invulnerable" was a figure of speech. Also, Vonar is right, the purpose here is only to discuss Battleships inside a bubble. |
![]() |
|
| Castanos | Feb 6 2015, 02:14 PM Post #13 |
![]()
|
Satsuma (All 12-inch) vs Dreadnought Armor: HMS Dreadnought seems to have a more comprehensive armor scheme though the difference isn't too big. Speed: The British Battleship has a significant advantage in regards to speed being 2-3 knots faster. Firepower: Same broadside, similar weight of shot and caliber, the British guns have an advantage in range. Superior British training, range-finding, fire control system, etc, gives it a decisive edge. Verdict: Under our "bubble conditions" of 1v1 battle, both ships at peak condition, I believe it is a no brainer, the HMS Dreadnought would win due to being superior in pretty much every category. An alternative scenario could be an HMS Dreadnought in less than optimal condition after a long travel from Europe, though Britain (unlike the Russians for example), have far greater capability to deploy ships to the Far East and keep them in good shape. Nassau vs Dreadnought Almost word for word the same as above. But given the fact that the Nassau was laid down later on I would say this was an even more underwhelming effort by the Kaiserliche Marine. The 11 inch guns have good characteristics for their caliber firing about twice as fast at a proportionally less marked decrease in weight of shot; however given the superior British range-finding equipment and training that advantage would probably be negated. So Britain 2-0 Rest of World. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Feb 7 2015, 07:27 AM Post #14 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
I'll add a bit more later when it cools down enough to get on my computer. I think the armour issue comes from a classic Wikipedia error, whereby someone has edited the articles of two of the ships out of their own lack of knowledge or unknown purposes. All the vessels were designed, laid down and launched before 1893. Two were commissioned that year. Krupp armour (as opposed to previous types of armour made by Krupp) was developed in 1893. The belt is not something that is retrofitted, but rather is integral to the design. I'll expound on the problems inherent with a sandbox comparison later. However, let's run with it for the moment. I concur with the assessment of Dreadnought vs Satsuma and Nassau. For the next one, if we are onto that stage, I thought about Lion vs Bismarck, but that is too much of a clean sweep. Therefore, what about Richelieu vs Littorio? |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Feb 8 2015, 02:34 PM Post #15 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Lions vs. Iowa
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Feb 8 2015, 09:08 PM Post #16 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Following the set pattern, the Frogs vs Italians was on the floor first. Lion vs Iowa: Depends on which Lion. The Iowa was a 45,000t design under the escalator clause, whereas the Lions as laid down were 40,000t ships, in a limitation that speaks a lot for the enforced parsimony of infrastructure. The later wartime modified designs in 1941 and 1944 got larger to be more in the same weight class as Iowa, with a drop in speed for the 1941 design due to the range of opponents around. A 1939 Lion vs an Iowa from that stage of the design process is similarly troublesome, as the Iowas went through different iterations. If the RN was facing a 45000t fast battleship threat from the Germans, Italians or Japanese, you'd end up with something like Vanguard with 9 x 16"/45, a 15" belt and 30-31 knots. Overall, the Iowas have a speed advantage and a better gun, with the Lions having much better belt protection and a superior torpedo protection scheme. Edited by Simon Darkshade, Feb 8 2015, 09:40 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Castanos | Feb 9 2015, 12:04 PM Post #17 |
![]()
|
Richelieu vs Littorio (I love the Littorios, just going to leave this here) Preface: The Richelieus were designed specifically to tackle the Littorios, this might not be the fairest match up. (But the Littorio was built in response to the Dunkerque so..) Guns Now this is a tricky one. In terms of sheer power, weight of shot, muzzle velocity, the Italians have the upperhand their guns are arguably the most powerful (in terms of brute force) 15 inch guns ever made. However, brute force is not everything and the French guns are overall better on account of their more advanced range finding systems (giving them a whopping 15% advantage in range), better loading mechanisms giving them significantly higher faster rate of fire. HOWEVER, the mounting of the guns in two huge quadruple turrets... Very questionable, one single lucky hit can potentially knock out half of the ship's main offensive firepower. This is even more serious given the Littorios one gun advantage. That being said, just to get in range to deal that lucky hit, the Littorio will already be under fire, a consistent advantage enjoyed by the massive frog. Slight advantage to Frogship. (If we count the advanced radar-fire capabilities (basically able to fire even before optically spotting the enemy) later installed in the Richelieu, courtesy of the British, then.. this is not even a contest) Speed Max speed is 31 knots on the Ferrari and 32 knots on the Bugatti. I would say in the thick of battle the speed would be roughly similar, but its safe to say that coupled with the advantage in range from the French 15 inch guns, the Ferrari would have a rough time in the early stages of any engagement. Slight advantage to Frogship. Armor For the likely range at which a battle between the Ferrari and the Bugatti is going to take place, the latter has the advantage. While it has a thinner belt, it is overall more resilient to plunging fire (long range fire) the real killer in this era with thicker armor in the upper parts of the ship. The Italians have a very innovative approach to underwater protection but I'm not knowledgeable to rate how effective it would be, even if they had an advantage in this regard I don't see how it would help a lot against the Richelieu. Decent advantage to Frogship. Verdict: I would say that overall, the Richelieu on a purely 1v1 engagement would have the advantage. In terms of sheer usefulness, the Richelieu has quite the lead due to its very "ahead-of-its-time" anti-aircraft equipment. Overall the differences between both ships can be more easily attributable to the fact that the Richelieus were laid down in 1934 rather than in 1933 the date for the Littorio, rather than any technological lead or advantage held by the French Navy. If this was evaluating the Dunkerques vs the Littorio the result would've been similar but in reverse. The real verdict is: States of comparable means and resources tend to build ships of comparable capabilities, adjusted for year of laying down
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Feb 9 2015, 12:36 PM Post #18 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
The Pugliese underwater defensive system was innovative, but turned out to be rather ineffective. To my recollection, there was something on this on Combined Fleet. |
![]() |
|
| Castanos | Feb 9 2015, 12:43 PM Post #19 |
![]()
|
I don't really like the Combined Fleet website that much, there appears to exist some general bias in his assessment which favors the USN broadly. The assessment of the Bismarck specifically is pretty spiteful, even if the ship gave a good account of itself, all the technological backwardness notwithstanding. A problem with this intellectual exercise is to pick when to place the two ships fighting with each other. If it was post-war Richelieu, I have no doubts it would absolutely murder the Littorio, but its a lot closer if we put them against each other at the date of their commissioning. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Feb 9 2015, 12:57 PM Post #20 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Bismarck fought two engagements and was sunk in her second; there is not a lot of good that can be said about her operational record and even less about her design. History is biased towards the winners by virtue of the fact that their decisions often turn out to be the right ones. The USN had the advantage of good design, doctrine, funding and excellent timing. Postwar Richelieu or Jean Bart had better armament, but we're never fully manned or went to sea with full ammunition loads. Nelson vs Nagato 1930 |
![]() |
|
| Castanos | Feb 12 2015, 11:02 AM Post #21 |
![]()
|
I don't think the Nagato has much of a chance. It would be obliterated if it got anywhere near the Nelson, but at a longer range it might have a chance due to its higher speed and the reportedly high dispersion on Nelson's guns, its much higher speed would definitely help it in keep this longer range. I would say the Nelson is superior overall however, I don't see the Nagato doing anything else but circling around the British-battleship at nearly the max range of its guns and hoping for a lucky hit while counting on the Nelson's poor long range fire, any other situation and the British take the cake. Tsesarevich vs Retvizan Which one was the better acquisition?
|
![]() |
|
| Vonar Roberts | Mar 1 2015, 07:41 PM Post #22 |
|
Keep in mind that Bismarck also took something like 600 shells from comparable caliber battleships, and was still floating. I'm not aware of any other battleship of that era coming even slightly close to approaching that kind of absorbing power. The "winner" in this case simply made the fewest mistakes, and had Bismarck not been crippled it would have been able to evade the British and make it to France. Edited by Vonar Roberts, Mar 1 2015, 07:45 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Mar 1 2015, 09:08 PM Post #23 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Absorbing power is a concept you've just invented. The real issue of importance is that of a mission kill. Bismarck was swiftly silenced in its last engagement so that it did not matter whether it was a shell or a cruiser or destroyer torpedo that administered the last coup de grace. Long before then, the ship was already dead in the water and unable to return fire or function. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Mar 1 2015, 09:38 PM Post #24 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
By the way, I don't think we need to put winners or victors in inverted commas. There isn't any historical position that holds that the RN was not clearly on the winning side of the individual battle, the larger campaign of the Battle of the Atlantic and the overall war. That the German ship was sunk by a combination of carrier strikes and surface action isn't a bug, but a feature. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Mar 2 2015, 02:53 PM Post #25 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
What about shell sustainability (that's not what it's called but I can't quite remember the technical term) in SpringSharp? I always remember when filing a report, it would say how many direct hits the vessel could sustain based on the armor scheme. I am a rank amateur when it comes to naval design. |
![]() |
|
| Castanos | Mar 2 2015, 03:09 PM Post #26 |
![]()
|
Agreed. But all of what you state wouldn't detract from the ship's individual capabilities against another vessel of its class, which is what is being discussed in this thread.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Mar 2 2015, 07:49 PM Post #27 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
The notion of which hull can survive as a battered, sinking object at sea has always been a matter of benign indifference to me and others. ![]() Once it is killed, it is dead, whether it realises it or not. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Mar 2 2015, 07:55 PM Post #28 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
But what if it makes it back to port to be repaired?
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Mar 3 2015, 07:45 AM Post #29 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Well, if it is sinking, by definition it can't get back to port. In the case of Bismarck, without scuttling, she would have foundered in half a day or so. There weren't the facilities to take on a repair job that big in France. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Mar 5 2015, 04:47 AM Post #30 |
|
It also raises the question of if it is worth repairing, or if it makes more sense just to build a new vessel. As to Bismarck, I doubt it would have made that much strategic sense to repair her (even if there were the facilities to do so), and there is still the fact that she'd be a fairly juicy target for Bomber Command. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Mar 5 2015, 02:54 PM Post #31 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I never saw much point to building Bismarck in the first place. The Germans could have built many more subs in peacetime.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Mar 25 2015, 12:22 PM Post #32 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Hood vs Kongo in ~1925. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Jun 10 2015, 09:25 PM Post #33 |
|
Hood vs. Kongo doesn't seem like much of a contest to me. Hood can reach 31 knots, while Kongo can only reach 27.5 knots. In addition to carrying more powerful 15 inch guns, Hood also has more deck armor. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jun 11 2015, 09:59 AM Post #34 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Yes, I'd tend to agree. The extra range of Hood's guns and her speed made her perhaps the best ship in the world until the fast battleships came into service at the beginning of the war. Then, like the B-36, she went from a worldbeater to outdated very, very quickly. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jun 11 2015, 03:33 PM Post #35 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Hood the best ship in the world? That's new to me. I guess it shows how utterly ignorant of naval affairs I am. I remember back in the days when Matt was still doing art for Wolfshanze, he complained about him making a Hood model to replace the Civ 4 British battleship because the Hood wasn't a real battleship. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jun 11 2015, 04:47 PM Post #36 |
|
Well, he was complaining more because it was not the first British 'battleship' I had done so he thought I was wasting time. I was the one arguing it was a battlecruiser therefore different. In any event, I do remember Bismarck's crew were fairly shocked when Hood blew up so quickly as she was always their bogeyman. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Jun 12 2015, 02:27 AM Post #37 |
|
Hood had about 10,000 tons more displacement than any other capital ship afloat until the end of the naval treaties, so it's almost going to be the most powerful warship afloat by default.
Edited by Delta Force, Jun 12 2015, 02:27 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jun 12 2015, 03:44 AM Post #38 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Interesting. Didn't know that either. That's what I love about Chums, all the interesting tidbits of history one might never have thought about otherwise. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Jun 12 2015, 04:02 AM Post #39 |
|
Another interesting thing is that Hood was the first of four battlecruisers laid down as part of the Admiral class. It was a pre-Jutland design though, so the remaining three were canceled in light of the lessons learned from that battle. This was well before the Washington Naval Treaty, so Hood was already considered something of a flawed ship at the time it was built and the Royal Navy wanted to retrofit it with even more armor than was put on after Jutland, but this was never done. |
![]() |
|
| Lelouch | Aug 25 2015, 08:08 PM Post #40 |
|
Random ressurection. In most games, I view Battlecruisers as a sort of Fast Dreadnought. Now to add something interesting. Iowa Class Refit(1980s/90s) vs Kirov Class Guided Missile "Battlecruiser" Honest opinions, what would win. I want to give the Iowa better marks in protection, but the Kirov wins in raw Armament, Range, and to a lesser extent it has the ability to better sustain its maximum speed. Main reason for entering this is that I have stumbled upon darker corners of the internet and roleplaying communities where those two actually came to blows. Its community judged the Iowa won, even though I personally believe the Kirov would crush it from way out of range, and continue about its day. The Iowa might not sink, but its mission capabilities would be ruined. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Aug 25 2015, 09:32 PM Post #41 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
It does depend on whether either uses nuclear ASMs. |
![]() |
|
| Lelouch | Aug 27 2015, 08:16 PM Post #42 |
|
I honestly wasn't aware the Iowa Class was Nuclear Capable. I mean, I guess theoretically the capability is there with a Nuclear Tomahawk, but not much else. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Aug 28 2015, 12:50 AM Post #43 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
They were nuclear capable since the 1950s. The reason to bring them back in the 1980s was to get nuclear TLAMs and ASMs to sea; some plans even proposed manning only one turret to expedite deployment. Battleship armour isn't effective against modern weapons and there would be serious issues with blast and shock damage. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Aug 29 2015, 10:22 AM Post #44 |
|
I've read that the armor on an Iowa would actually have a rather high level of protection against anti-ship missiles. In many cases the issue would be unspent rocket fuel raining down on the ship starting fires, as opposed to any kinetic or explosive effects of the missile warhead. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Aug 30 2015, 03:40 AM Post #45 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
It is in the wrong position. The ships can be blinded and hamstrung by topside fires as part of being mission killed. Given that there were only 4 ships we are essentially talking about, the only real threat was one that would not come in a conventional fashion. It doesn't matter if a single old ship is sunk by torpedoes or a volley of missiles if they have the right kind of warheads and the conflict goes nuclear anyway. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Alternate History · Next Topic » |









8:39 AM Jul 11