What was the most powerful battleship in a straight duel, May 1941?

[HerrKaleut]

Although completed on 4th April 1941 , North Carolina could not have taken part in our hypothetical duel as she was straight into dock for several months to sort out major problems with her geared turbines. She was not a good sea boat and was only armoured to withstand a 14 inch hit. she (and the Washington ) were also slow, having sacrificed speed for long range endurance

 

[Amsel]

Although completed on 4th April 1941 , North Carolina could not have taken part in our hypothetical duel as she was straight into dock for several months to sort out major problems with her geared turbines. She was not a good sea boat and was only armoured to withstand a 14 inch hit. she (and the Washington ) were also slow, having sacrificed speed for long range endurance

I believe the North Carolina was as well armored if not better armored then its contemporaries. It could withstand a 16" hit because of its three walled armor system around its vitals. Any 16" shell would be exploded and decapped at the outer armor and then the splinter deck as well as the inner armor plate would render the shot ineffective at disabling the ship. The three part armor was cutting edge and was improved even more with the Iowa class. The North Carolina was technologically superior to the Bismarck and I don't know why you cannot see that.

 

[HerrKaleut]

Amsel, with respect I cannot see where I said that this ship was inferior to Bismark. I merely quoted a passagefrom the "Encyclopedia of the worlds warships" in which it states.."however,although the british ships were armoured against 16 inch(406mm) shell hits, the American vessels[North Carolina and Washington] were only protected against 14 inch(356mm) shell hits" (This same tome also mentions that the Iowas ,being armoured on the same scale as the South Dakotas,were thus less well protected than their British and japanese counterparts.)


As you have mentioned the Bismark, I thought I'd do a quick comparison purely out of interest

Side belt.....N.C.12in(305mm)....Bmk.12.75inch(323mm)
Deck,upper,N.C. 1.5in(37mm)....Bmk. 2in.(50mm).
Deck,main, N.C. 4.1in.(105mm)..Bmk. 1.2in(30mm)
Deck,armoured N.C....None......Bmk..4.7in(120mm)
Main turrets..N.C.16in(406mm)...Bmk.14.1in(360mm)
Barbettes...N.C...i6in(406mm)...Bmk..8.7in(220mm)

SHP(Total)..N.C...121,000........Bmk..138,000(designed)..150,000 trials
Speed.......N.C...28 knots........Bmk...30.1 knots

 

[Glider]

As a comparison I have the following figures for the Nelson

Side Belt 14 inches
Deck Middle Deck 6.25 inches over Magazines, 3inches over machinery Spaces
Deck Lower 6.25 inches aft and over the steering gear
Main Turrets 16 inches
Barbettes 15 inches sides

 

[trackend]

My choice is Bismark The Bismark took a hell of a hammering and actually proved her strength in a straight duel.
IMO actual combat beats speculation every time.

 

[HerrKaleut]

Glider, I concur with those figures for Nelson and Rodney.

Given what has been posted on this subject, I'm inclined to give the original question to Rodney/Nelson.(I am curious why nobody mentioned the water protection sytem as part of her defences)

BTW..As Richelieu was not completed by May 41, should she be in the running?

 

[Amsel]

Amsel, with respect I cannot see where I said that this ship was inferior to Bismark. I merely quoted a passagefrom the "Encyclopedia of the worlds warships" in which it states.."however,although the british ships were armoured against 16 inch(406mm) shell hits, the American vessels[North Carolina and Washington] were only protected against 14 inch(356mm) shell hits" (This same tome also mentions that the Iowas ,being armoured on the same scale as the South Dakotas,were thus less well protected than their British and japanese counterparts.)


As you have mentioned the Bismark, I thought I'd do a quick comparison purely out of interest

Side belt.....N.C.12in(305mm)....Bmk.12.75inch(323mm)
Deck,upper,N.C. 1.5in(37mm)....Bmk. 2in.(50mm).
Deck,main, N.C. 4.1in.(105mm)..Bmk. 1.2in(30mm)
Deck,armoured N.C....None......Bmk..4.7in(120mm)
Main turrets..N.C.16in(406mm)...Bmk.14.1in(360mm)
Barbettes...N.C...i6in(406mm)...Bmk..8.7in(220mm)

SHP(Total)..N.C...121,000........Bmk..138,000(designed)..150,000 trials
Speed.......N.C...28 knots........Bmk...30.1 knots

Armor is sometimes not an absloute science. What is an absolute is the advancement of USN armor systems in WWII. The USN was very much ahead in the employment of armor. You cannot look at the mainbelt as the indicator of best protection, but also the splinterdecks, and inner belt. By 1936 the USN had developed a mainbelt that was superior to anything put out by the IJN. With the USN BB's ability to defuse and decap up to 16" hits at the mainbelt ( which would still pentetrate) and then defeat the shell with a splinterdeck and a inner belt, plus the advancement in the USN ammunition over the IJN, put the USN at a huge technological advantage. But luck does rule the battlefield in many instances, and a hit is a hit.
The Germans also knew how to armor their BB's, and the vitals on the Bismarck were impervious to any surface action.
Torpedos and airpower are the equalizers in WWII battles including the heaviest ships of the line.

No USN BB's have ever been sunk due to naval gunfire.

 

[trackend]

No USN BB's have ever been sunk due to naval gunfire.

Just a question How many battleship to battleship actions have USN vessels been involved in?
I am not sure but I thought Manila was the closest it came to and that was mostly a Cruiser engagement.

 

[Freebird]

Just a question How many battleship to battleship actions have USN vessels been involved in?
I am not sure but I thought Manila was the closest it came to and that was mostly a Cruiser engagement.

Only really one engagement in WWII, unlike the UK which had a bunch

 

[vikingBerserker]

Actually after Pearl Harbor, the USN never lost another BB for any reason and they were quite active.

 

[hartmann]

Actually after Pearl Harbor, the USN never lost another BB for any reason and they were quite active.

There were only two times where American BBs engaged another enemy BB:

One in Guadalcanal in November 15 of 1942, when It was completelly surprised the "South Dakota" by the "Kirishima" and some cruisers. It would have been sunk If the "Kirishima" would have carried AP shells, or If the Heavy cruisers would haven´t failled with torpedoes launched at It. It received some 40 shells, mainly HE, and some AP of light calibre (from the heavy cruisers) without any response shot.

Just only minutes after, the "Washington" appeared and engaged the "Kirishima". It was heavy pounded at less than 8000 metres and all the Japanese ships retreated. At last, the "Kirishima" was scuttled by the crew because It was impossible to evacuate It or repair It in the Islands.

The second time was in Surigao, in the October 24 of 1944. I can´t conclude If the old BBs were superior to their japanese counterparties, as It was a completely unbalanced action, were the Japanese were completely overruned and outnumbered.

By 1936 the USN had developed a mainbelt that was superior to anything put out by the IJN

It was in fact not the best armour type (class "A" armour I mean). Much less capable than Krupp or Vickers cemented steels, and scarcelly better than IJN "old type" Vickers cemented.

With the USN BB's ability to defuse and decap up to 16" hits at the mainbelt ( which would still pentetrate)

How can you explain that a main belt of just only 12 Inches of "A" class armour and scarcelly 1,8 Inches of STS steel over It would defeat even a shell of 14 Inches at short ranges. Could You explain it more deeply?
I am extremelly exceptical about It.

and then defeat the shell with a splinterdeck and a inner belt,

There wasn´t any internal belt in the "North Carolina". It was external, and there wasn´t nothing more.
By contrast, the "Bismarck" played with array spaces and had a 320 mm main belt of Krupp armour, and behind of this It had another 120 mm of homogeneous rolled steel incllined at some 22º. (the same way for the Italian "Littorios", altought with different thicknesses).

I hope It can help something. Best regards to all

 

[Amsel]

North Carolinas'
vs 1500 lb 14" AP shells from 14"/50 = 19,000-31,000 yds (11,000 yds wide)
vs 2240 lb 16" AP shells from 16"/45 = 21,300-27,800 yds (6,500 yds wide)

South Dakotas'
vs 2240 lb 16" AP shells from 16"/45 = 17,700-30,900 yds (13,200 yds wide)
vs 2700 lb 16" AP shells from 16"/45 = 20,500-26,400 yds (5,900 yds wide)

Iowas'
vs 2240 lb 16" AP shells from 16"/45 = 17,600-31,200 yds (13,600 yds wide)
vs 2700 lb 16" AP shells from 16"/45 = 20,400-26,700 yds (6,300 yds wide)

Montanas'
vs 2240 lb 16" AP shells from 16"/45 = 16,500-34,500 yds (18,000 yds wide)
vs 2700 lb 16" AP shells from 16"/45 = 18,000-31,000 yds (13,000 yds wide)

Armor "science" is far from perfect and the USN knew it. They knew that in real world circumstances a hit from a 16" shell would not always be refused. The North Carolina did have an inner belt around its immunity zone. It difffered from the later heavily armored USN BB's by not having a continous inner belt like the Iowa class. It was designed to decap and defuse 14" to 16" AP shells with its incline and bursting pan method (splinter deck, inner belts) of protection. The USN caisson tests are confusing and I don't know if any armor was designed to defeat heavy shells at close range mostly due to the fact that a close range duel between BB's was not likely or tactically sound, and the weight could be spared for other uses. The general USN policy was to design the outer belt to defeat itws own caliber at a reasonable range. There are too many departures from modelling for anyone to say if a main belt would be impervious to a 16" hit. That is why in almost all my posts I explained the importance of a double or triple deck.
The 2700# shell used by the North Carolina was a beast and gave the USN a distinct advantage over the other navies 16" shell. In a straight duel, I repeat that luck and crew skill would play the deciding role as it had for four centuries.

 

[hartmann]

North Carolinas'
vs 1500 lb 14" AP shells from 14"/50 = 19,000-31,000 yds (11,000 yds wide)
vs 2240 lb 16" AP shells from 16"/45 = 21,300-27,800 yds (6,500 yds wide)

South Dakotas'
vs 2240 lb 16" AP shells from 16"/45 = 17,700-30,900 yds (13,200 yds wide)
vs 2700 lb 16" AP shells from 16"/45 = 20,500-26,400 yds (5,900 yds wide)

Iowas'
vs 2240 lb 16" AP shells from 16"/45 = 17,600-31,200 yds (13,600 yds wide)
vs 2700 lb 16" AP shells from 16"/45 = 20,400-26,700 yds (6,300 yds wide)

Montanas'
vs 2240 lb 16" AP shells from 16"/45 = 16,500-34,500 yds (18,000 yds wide)
vs 2700 lb 16" AP shells from 16"/45 = 18,000-31,000 yds (13,000 yds wide)

That was completely theoretical calculus. Much as the 3 Inches gun mounted in Sherman Tanks (It should penetrate the 100 mm front plate of Tiger AusF E well passed 1600 metres. In real world, It was incapable to make this even at straight on 500 metres range. In a ship,there are movements in three dimensions of space (pitching, rolling, yawing, ect...) and It is very dificult to make a completely sure immunity zone.

Armor "science" is far from perfect and the USN knew it.

Completely right

The North Carolina did have an inner belt around its immunity zone.

No, There was no inner belt:

You can see It in the drawing.

It was designed to decap and defuse 14" to 16" AP shells with its incline

It was "designed" to burst shells in the 14" range, because this was its original main battery, but not 16" shells (much less superheavy shells). And there was no inclined belt. It vas vertical.

and bursting pan method (splinter deck, inner belts) of protection.

but tihis is with high obliquity shells, which penetrate decks, not shells which impact by the belt (until 20-22000metres, maybe more).

The USN caisson tests are confusing

Caisson tests are made to prove the quality of a torpedo defence system, not to prove the ability to refuse an AP shell.

I don't know if any armor was designed to defeat heavy shells at close range mostly due to the fact that a close range duel between BB's

The German and Italian spaced arrays worked pretty well between 0 metres to 27000 metres with the belt, and from 15000 to 30000 metres in armoured deck attacks.

The general USN policy was to design the outer belt to defeat itws own caliber at a reasonable range.

For this reason, the North carolinas were only "proof" versus 14" shells (and by the way, not the superheavy 14" shells made in the 1943 year). they were designed to carry a main battery of between 10 to 12 guns of 14 Inches. Only when It was designed all the armour system and when It wasn´t ratified by Japan the Naval limit treaty of 14 Inches guns when The Us Bureau proposed to arm them with 16 Inches guns.

There are too many departures from modelling for anyone to say if a main belt would be impervious to a 16" hit.

Completely right.

That is why in almost all my posts I explained the importance of a double or triple deck.

Yes, but for high obliquity shells which impact in the decks, not in the main belt. That is the policy of the German/Italian designs, and to a lesser extent the lasts US designs.

The 2700# shell used by the North Carolina was a beast and gave the USN a distinct advantage over the other navies 16" shell.

It was a very late improvement If We compare the other contenders in 1941. It was only used from mid 1942. Not earlier.
Also, It had disadvantages. With a so heavy shell and too near muzzles, It couldn´t fire all the three guns of the turret at the same time because It generated dispersion patterns in the "North Dakota" and "South Dakota" classes (for this reason They carried a coil delaying system). Even the "Iowa" class was not completely free of these problems.

I hope this can help. Best regards ¡¡

 

[Amsel]

It was in fact not the best armour type (class "A" armour I mean). Much less capable than Krupp or Vickers cemented steels, and scarcelly better than IJN "old type" Vickers cemented.

From Nathan Okum

I have the results of the examination of German Krupp armor plants and
their own test plates made before and during WWII. The plants were still
using WWI-era equipment (no improvements at all, from what the Allied
examiners could see) and the results for German KC n/A plates in the 8-10"
range were VERY poor (20% variation in the ballistic limits from their own
tests), though the thinnest plates (rarely used) and the thickest plates
were of more narrow, acceptable variability (at least half of the Krupp KC
n/A plates made in th 8-10" thickness range would have failed outright any
U.S. ballistic testing calibrated for the average quality, while even a 2%
reduction of U.S. Class "A" plate quality in a production lot was of
considerable interest during wartime U.S. armor production (special
waivers had to be obtained to allow the plates to be used) -- Krupp
wouldn't have even noticed such a small drop in quality!).

The sterns of several German WWII warships -- including BISMARCK --
literally breaking off under shock from a torpedo hit shows poor design
practice AND poor welding skill. It is the former that is the main
problem, since the U.S. Navy used overlapping laminated stength decks to
prevent this kind of thing, even if the welding was marginal. As long as a
design meets the minimum needed to perform its task, it need not have any
more quality, but if it goes below this minimum (as the broken German
warship sterns indicate), then it is an unacceptable design failure that
no amount of manufacturing "quality" can fix.

British armor variability was also in the 15% variation plate-to-plate
range and they simply bought poor the plates anyway with a slightly
lowered price unless they were worse than this (it was almost impossible
to get so bad that the plates were rejected at any price). Only the U.S.
had such a "hard" lower limit at about 5% under average quality where
plate lots would be rejected and had to be re-heat-treated (or have
special -- and rarely given even in WWII -- waivers allowed if they were
just barely low); and, to my knowledge, only U.S. armor from the "Big
Three" armor manufacturers of WWII could live with such an extreme
requirement -- neither Krupp nor any British manufacturer, even before
WWII, could have!

Everyone has a favorite ship and the Bismarck is a great ship. But it was not the invincable ship that it was made out to be. I have read many reports recently about the battle and the damage that is documented aboard the Bismarck. I honestly think that the North Carolina class could give her a run for the money. But looking backwards in time is inconsistant sometimes especially regarding that the Bismarck is underwater and the North Carolina is in mothballs waiting for the next big war to be recommissioned, so not able to do ballistics testing.
Another factor is the amount of armor on the citadel, turrets and barbettes of the North Carolina. In WWII these areas are what took the majority of the hits. The North Carolina clearly outclasses the Bismarck in this area which is important due to the ratio of hits in this area compared to beltline hits. The North Carolinas guns made the Bismarck vulnerable up to 26,000 though she had that deck slope behind the belt. The Bismarcks turrets were vulnerable at any range. Bismarck's decks were vulnerable past about 20-21,000 but it was also possible for North Carolinas guns to punch through the upper belt thern still penetrate the MAD from around 16,000 out.

 

[Juha]

Hello Hartmann
A couple short notices
Only one of the hits on South Dakota on 15 Nov 42 was 14". So I doubt very much that SD would have sunk if Kirishima have had proper AP shells.

The belt of North Caroline was inclined , see Amsel's message #192 , the picture is from a good book, I can give you the title, if you want.

Juha

 

[vikingBerserker]

There were only two times where American BBs engaged another enemy BB:

I think you misread my post. I stated the USN after Pearl Harbor never lost another BB for ANY reason, not just from BB/BC encounters.

The US was the only major power that could state this - with the exception of Russia due to the lack of BB/BC's.

 

[renrich]

I echo Juha by saying that South Dakota would probably have not been sunk if Kirishima had been using AP ammo. Modern BBs were all extremely difficult to sink with shellfire and South Dakota was no exception.

 

[Soren]

I say the Bismarck, but only because of its' superior optics.

 

[Njaco]

I thought you would have said the "Littorio".

 

[hartmann]

Hello Amstel.

From Nathan Okum

I have the results of the examination of German Krupp armor plants and
their own test plates made before and during WWII. The plants were still
using WWI-era equipment (no improvements at all, from what the Allied
examiners could see) and the results for German KC n/A plates in the 8-10"
range were VERY poor (20% variation in the ballistic limits from their own
tests), though the thinnest plates (rarely used) and the thickest plates
were of more narrow, acceptable variability (at least half of the Krupp KC
n/A plates made in th 8-10" thickness range would have failed outright any
U.S. ballistic testing calibrated for the average quality, while even a 2%
reduction of U.S. Class "A" plate quality in a production lot was of
considerable interest during wartime U.S. armor production (special
waivers had to be obtained to allow the plates to be used) -- Krupp
wouldn't have even noticed such a small drop in quality!).

It is completely contradictory with my documents from German, British and even US origin. I wouldn't take as gospel what Nathan Okun says.
All the German armour steel lots were checked and all had to pass a very strict (probably the most strict of any nation) ballistic and metallurgical number of tests, all the way.
Also, He doesn't cite the fact that the III barbette of the Battleship "Missouri" cracked caused only by mechanical stresses running at high speed. Also the other cracks which are present in other parts of the ship which were detected after this incident.

The sterns of several German WWII warships -- including BISMARCK --
literally breaking off under shock from a torpedo hit shows poor design
practice

The sterns of Bismarck and another KM ships were perfectly designed. He takes account of some misleading facts.

AND poor welding skill

We should ask him If He knows about the multiple maritime disasters and quasy disasters of the merchant ships class "Liberty" thanks to poor design and badly executed weldings, or about the bad design of Bows in American cruisers, which tended to fail when struck by torpedoes, or even by only ocean waves, as the Heavy cruiser "Pittsburgh".

By the way. It's difficult to think this, when after the war all the German welding manuals and procedures captured were translated and used as a standard basis for the new metallurgical parameters in US manufacture.

Everyone has a favorite ship and the Bismarck is a great ship.

This ship isn't my favourite (I prefer the "Tirpitz" 8) to the "Bismarck", and as powerful, I only can go for the "Yamato").

But it was not the invincable ship that it was made out to be.

I never have claimed such thing.
By the way, It isn't the pure garbage which a lot of people tends to think. It was a very good designed ship.

Another factor is the amount of armor on the citadel, turrets and barbettes of the North Carolina. In WWII these areas are what took the majority of the hits. The North Carolina clearly outclasses the Bismarck

The "North Carolina" doesn't surpass the "Bismarck" class (compare the weight of armour steel used in both and the length of the armoured citadel of both also). The only thing were it was only slightly more protected was in the turrets, with 16 inches of homogeneous armour versus 14-14,50 inches of cemented armour.

The North Carolinas guns made the Bismarck vulnerable up to 26,000 though she had that deck slope behind the belt.

From the belt was almost invulnerable at any range, especially the more the range, the more difficult to penetrate It as It had this slope in the deck plus the air gap between them, which made It virtually impervious to all shell by decapping/yawing and fusing activation. Concerning decks, it was the same thing. The "Bismarck" first had a decapping deck of 50 mm to 80 mm and after that, some 5 metres below (air gap), the "Panzerdeck", which were another 100 mm of steel. The North Carolina had only an armoured deck of only 90 to 105 mm mm (3,6 to 4,1 Inches). Take also a "weather deck" of 32 mm, but not very spaced between them (just only a couple of metres).

Also, the guns of the "Bismarck" were very capable of defeat all the vertical armour of the ship, and also the horizontal armour.
All tends to indicate that both were capable of sink mutually (depending of the first shot).

Bismarck's decks were vulnerable past about 20-21,000

No. It hadn't enough obliquity to punch trough both armoured decks and air gap.

it was also possible for North Carolinas guns to punch through the upper belt thern still penetrate the MAD from around 16,000 out.

It would be an extremely lucky shot.
It is decapped by the upper belt (145 mm of cemented steel), which suppose the elimination of some 150 Kg of the shell (all the piercing cap). It could be damage or not the fuse, but It was also yawed (some 15% of kinetic energy less. To reach the MAD, It would have to be rejected in almost perpendicular direction to the impact in the belt.
So I wouldn't say impossible, but very improbable.

] Hello Hartmann
A couple short notices
Only one of the hits on South Dakota on 15 Nov 42 was 14". So I doubt very much that SD would have sunk if Kirishima have had proper AP shells.

Hello Juha

Yes, I know it. A common high capacity HE shell type 0.
But If you take in account that the Us Naval report damage states that an AP shell of the heavy cruisers (just only 203 mm) punched trough the hull plate, trough 32 mm of STS steel over the main belt and finally another 207 mm of main belt and finished stuck here, you can see that If It would have been a AP shell of the Kirishima, It would have gone trough the entire belt and finished in the vitals.

If you read Norman Friedmann book, in the page 279:
"Her unlucky companion, the "Souht Dakota", achieved little except to demonstrate that even modern battleships could be severely damaged at short range by cruiser and destroyer fire".

The belt of North Caroline was inclined , see Amsel's message #192 , the picture is from a good book, I can give you the title, if you want.

Yes, it is true. It is inclined some 15º.
I confused ship armour schemes (I vaguely remembered the KGV armour scheme and mixed It with the "NC"). Sorry by this.
I have this book also. Pretty good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hartmann
There were only two times where American BBs engaged another enemy BB:

I think you misread my post. I stated the USN after Pearl Harbor never lost another BB for ANY reason, not just from BB/BC encounters.

Ok. I understand now what you liked to say.

The US was the only major power that could state this - with the exception of Russia due to the lack of BB/BC's

Soviet Union had 3 old battleships, and one of them was sunk by bomb attack (the battleship "Marat") in Kronstadt.

I echo Juha by saying that South Dakota would probably have not been sunk if Kirishima had been using AP ammo. Modern BBs were all extremely difficult to sink with shellfire and South Dakota was no exception.

Well, that is not so difficult.
You only have to shell the ends of the ship even with low calibre shells and make water flow to the ship. Then it comes at a point were the metacentric stability is not enough to compensate the roll produced by waves and It will capsize, even with relativelly low damage to the vitals. In this matter it must be considered the buoyancy and not to have excessive topweigh, among with a high metacentric height (it will remain afloat more time).

I hope It can help something. Best regards