Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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, 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
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.
Actually after Pearl Harbor, the USN never lost another BB for any reason and they were quite active.
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,
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.
No, There was no inner belt:The North Carolina did have an inner belt around its immunity zone.
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.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
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 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.
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.
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!
There were only two times where American BBs engaged another enemy BB:
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
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.
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 Carolinas guns made the Bismarck vulnerable up to 26,000 though she had that deck slope behind the belt.
Bismarck's decks were vulnerable past about 20-21,000
it was also possible for North Carolinas guns to punch through the upper belt thern still penetrate the MAD from around 16,000 out.
] 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.
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.
The US was the only major power that could state this - with the exception of Russia due to the lack of BB/BC's
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.