Queen Mary 2, Macross "thumbs"

[David Hingtgen]

Eh, 99% of battleship discussions try to do the ENTIRE ship, and choose which is better. Which is pointless, IMHO. I think we've restricted it to "superstructure damage from modern weapons" and "sheer quality of armor".

[Noyhauser]

I think the two of you are wading into an old feud/debate. The person favoring the Yamato armor is George Elder; he and the combinedfleet people seem to have a longstanding disagreement, and no one is likely to sort out who is right without a great deal of research and study.

I will say this about Elder's analysis, though: he seems not to give US radar fire control its due. The experience of Washington vs. Kirishima at Guadalcanal, and later the battle of Surigao Strait, say to me that the system worked very well indeed.

Edit: This seems like an extensive debate between the two sides: http://f16.parsimony.net/forum26300/messages/9264.htm

But I don't know how helpful it really is in sorting out who is right and who is wrong. Elder is apparently a fan of the Bismarck, so he's bothered by the low rating given the Bismarck on the combinedfleet.com site. Nevertheless, the discussion might shed some light on the Yamato and Iowa armor issues.

The original argument was about armor, so I didn't talk about radar. I'll freely admit that American sets were superior. Another good example of night radar fighting was the battle of Cape Matapan with the british navy sinking three crusiser at night. I'm always wary about using internet sources because usually its not academically peer reviewed on hugely techncial issues, however Elder's anaysis seems to come from primary source material so I took it as face value. I would have perfered that he used footnotes though I'll go on monday to the defence college library to find some material.

The interesting thing about the Hood is that its plunging fire weakeness were well known to the Royal Navy and she was to be rebuilt during the interwar period, which may have saved her from her fate. Her Conning tower was to be removed and decks shored up as well as some removal of machinery. However as the flagship she never got a chance.

I've been doing a lot of research on this lately because I''ve been playing the boardgame Jutland with some military friends of mine. We did the Dogger bank scenario, and the Royal Navy triumphed this time convincingly with only the Seydlitz able to flee. I didn't like the rule set however (close in damage should do a HELL of a lot more damage IMHO).

Edited May 29, 2004 by Noyhauser

[ewilen]

Sorry guys, I didn't mean to confuse the issue. The reason I brought up radar was that I think Elder's claims about it smell fishy. And if he's wrong/biased about US radar FCS, maybe we should be wary of his armor comments.

Noyhauser, is the Jutland game you're playing the old Avalon Hill game? If so, that one's way out of date. I'd recommend Line of Battle (Simulations Canada) instead--I haven't played it, but I've looked it over and it also comes highly recommended from someone whose knowledge and opinion I respect.

Edited May 29, 2004 by ewilen

[Noyhauser]

Yeah its to old Avalon hill version. The guys I'm playing with are old military guys, like in their 40s and I got them to break out the old game. IT was fun to ruin 5 hours on but most of us picked apart the rules while playing. It wsa like... THERES NO WAY THAT SHIP JUST TOOK A BROADSIDE FROM 200 YARDS AND LIVED.

A friend of mine has a new ruleset to use for next time for the counters.

is line of battle board game based?

Edited May 29, 2004 by Noyhauser

[ewilen]

Yes, it's a board game--uses hexes, not rulers. It's kind of old and probably not as many copies were printed as Jutland, but still not hard to find. The publisher's name is sometimes referred to as "SimCan", sometimes "Simulations Canada".

There are very detailed rules sets for miniatures and boardgames out there, but the problem with them all is that doing a large engagement like Jutland is going to take a LONG time. LoB abstracts out a lot of detail, but crucially the system is based on immunity zone concepts. Here's a review: http://grognard.com/reviews1/linfofbat.txt You can probably find more by searching Usenet or talk.consimworld.com.

The only other alternative I could recommend for large engagements (without going computerized or computer-assisted, which is beyond my ken) is SPI's Dreadnought. I like the game a lot; however it only has a single "defensive value" for each ship--so there's no representation of the strength of deck vs. belt armor. If that doesn't bother you excessively, and you don't mind plotted moves, it could be a good choice since it's really designed for fleet combat. (Another criticism of Dreadnought is that I think a lot of the post-WWI ship values are arbitrary or fanciful--the Yamato and Iowa are made virtually equal in combat strength, as if the designer didn't want to take a stand on battleship fans' favorite debate. And why is the Maryland so much worse than the Nagato? I wonder if they even realized that it had bigger guns than than earlier US battleships.)

There are other systems out there but either I don't know much about them or they have you plotting each hit and checking penetration tables--great fun but impossible for more than a few ships on a side.

Edit: Oops, forgot about Jutland: Duel of Dreadnoughts. Appeared in XTR's Command magazine a while back. Very abstract (counters represent squadrons), but it was pretty well received for what it is. If you want to complete Jutland during lunch hour, it might be the way to go.

Edited May 29, 2004 by ewilen

[Hybridchild]

Perhaps my favorite battleship, the Seydlitz (it was battlecruiser, really), managed to get home from battle in 1916 with parts of the deck underwater.

The Seydlitz was a true veteran. Fought in the Battle of Dogger bank and Jutland, the ship took a beating in both battles that most battleships wouldn't survive (she was a battle cruiser) and continued fighting.

I

My great grandfather served on that along with his 2 brothers although they both died at Jutland. IIRC the son of one of the brothers was one of the surviving members of the Bismarks crew that was left in the water by the Dorchester

Hybridchild

[ewilen]

Belated response to HC: that is very interesting and very sad.

I find the history of Imperial German Navy fascinating.

Also, I want to note in this thread that Line of Battle is going to be rereleased by Omega Games.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Remember that the Japanese poured in huge amounts of their national wealth into their Navy, which was seen as the most prestigious service. They were not hampered by material shortages until the later part of the war, long after the Yamatos were built. Also Japanese battleship development did not fully stop during the interwar period as Japanese designers put out some of the best Heavy cruisers designed, such as the Mikumas. They were undoubtedly the world leaders in this field, prompting the construction of the Alaska class BCs. The Nagato was considered the best battleship of her period (1920s and 30s), superior to the Queen Elisabeth class so to say that their armour was stuck in 1800s is untrue.

I think Japan was scraping the bottom of the barrel to put those 2 big honkers on the water.

Example, they did not have the time or resources to put in a proper secondary armament. Those reused triple 6 inch turrets are a very visible example of the compromises they had to make.

1 inch armour?!?!? Thats really out of place on a ship with a 16 inch belt. Those final pics of the ship show the forward 6 inch ablaze.

[Akilae]

Since we're on the topic of the old battlewagons, here's a question that I could never figure out.

Just how many of the Iowas does the US have maintained in battle-ready condition, with all the gears just waiting to be dusted off?

I read through fas.org but couldn't make much sense out of it. Yes, I'm slow... but compounded with the fact that they made it sound like a lot of the Iowas have been mothballed, pressed into service, then mothballed again many times...

I know some of the ships are already just empty hulks... just want to know how many we could press into service if needed :-p

[KingNor]

Since we're on the topic of the old battlewagons, here's a question that I could never figure out.

Just how many of the Iowas does the US have maintained in battle-ready condition, with all the gears just waiting to be dusted off?

I read through fas.org but couldn't make much sense out of it.  Yes, I'm slow... but compounded with the fact that they made it sound like a lot of the Iowas have been mothballed, pressed into service, then mothballed again many times...

I know some of the ships are already just empty hulks... just want to know how many we could press into service if needed :-p

zero, i'm almost positive they decommissioned the last battleship... missoura :-) not too long ago.

sad to see them go. its amazing to think something built to fight ww2 fought in desert storm.

Edited June 8, 2004 by KingNor

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

He is asking how many of them can be re-activated if an emergency happens (e.g. Atomic monster attacks the east coast). I think he knows that all the Iowas have been de-commisioned.

IIRC the Iowa has not had the turret repaired since the accident although the materials to do it exist.

I think 2 of them can be re-activated in an emergency. But the problem is not with the hardware. These ships need a crew of well over a thousand. The navy does not have that kind of people on standby.

Thats also the main reason why they were retired. If they took 200 people to operate, I am sure the navy would like to have those 16inch rifles hanging about on the order of battle, but the cost of keeping 2000+ crew on the payroll for each BB is quite prohibitive.

[Akilae]

pffft.... payroll for 2000+ sailors, or the development budget for the so-called "Arsenal Ship"...next-gen naval support for ground troops, ring a bell? well, I guess they need something to do with the funky decor of the next-gen ships. But it's nice to know not all of the Iowas are having their hatches welded shut and interiors gutted.

Caught this flick on cable once about the Iowa explosion and investigation... man they made it sound like all the old battlewagons were literally falling apart. Then again, might be true, since they don't seem to be as glamorous or high-profile as, say, carriers.

To get this mildly on topic... what do the Iowas look like under the waterline that make them so special? Everything I've seen seem to focus on the deck, where all the excitement is. A lot of schematics I seem to find also cut off at the waterline...

[David Hingtgen]

While all are in mothballs, some are more "ready to go" than others. The museum people have strict orders on what they can and cannot do to the ship, most importantly, nothing can be done that can't be un-done. This is especially hard on trying to make some areas wheelchair-accessible. Basically the remove entire bulkheads, but "nicely" so that they can be re-installed.

Anyways, the Wisconsin and New Jersey are the most "ready", and are kept closer to battle-ready status than the others.

The Missouri would be reactivated only if there was an INCREDIBLE need, as it's had the most work done to make it a museum at Pearl Harbor. The NJ and WI are pretty much "as it was decommissioned" while the MO has all the "easier for tourists to get around" things done.

Iowa was flat-out on the disposal list, and took a lot of money and persuasion to preserve it somewhere. It is kept only as a source of parts if the others were to be reactivated. Central gun on #2 turret was never repaired, and likely cannot be. Replacement barrels exist, but there are no spares for the breech mechanism AFAIK.

What do they look like under the waterline? Nothing special, a diagram of the Titanic in that area wouldn't be far off---there's only so many ways to design 900ft steam-powered ships. Only thing notable is the torpedo defense system, which is basically alternating spaces of fuel-filled and empty bulkheads, going from outboard to inboard. Doesn't really work though, only used on fast battleships.

Edited June 8, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[ewilen]

I think what Akilae would like to know is how the Iowas managed to be so fast and so well-armored at the same time. I'll take a stab at it, though I'll bet you could find better, more detailed, and possibly more accurate discussions through a web search.

Basically, once you've solved problems like streamlining and the bulbous bow, the thing that makes a ship fast is the ratio of length:width. Long, narrow ships are faster than short, beamy ones. The Iowas are very long for their beam.

Secondly, and I'm sure at least as important, the extra length of the Iowas compared to the earlier North Carolinas and South Dakotas allowed the installation of bigger engines, generating nearly twice the horsepower. This gave a top speed of about 33 knots, compared to 26-27 knots on the North Carolina or South Dakota.

Edited June 8, 2004 by ewilen

[David Hingtgen]

Raw power and length. The Iowa class is nothing more than a stretched South Dakota class. And every inch of that stretch was for more and bigger boilers etc. The South Dakota is the all time most "efficient" battleship. The Iowas are simply faster versions of that. The larger size allowed slightly thicker armor and slightly larger guns, but they have the exact same overall design as the South Dakotas, especially their armor design The South Dakotas were mainly designed to have greatly improved armor, and moderately improved speed over the North Carolinas. NC have flat-out insufficient armor. They were supposed to be 14in gunned, but were changed late in the design to 16in. But still had the armor of a 14in gunned ship. Not good. (treaty issues of course influenced all US fast battleships) South Dakotas introduced the "alternating" engine/boiler/turbine room idea into US ships, which allowed more machinery in a given space. Iowa took that machinery arrangement, made it simpler, but had a lot more room to do so.

Increasing a ship's length will increase its speed, its as simple as that. Japan did it more often than any other nation. Literally, take a ship, cut it in half, add a 200ft long section in the middle, and weld it back together. Instant +5kts. And that is, in effect, what the Iowas are. SD+200ft. But instead of an "empty" 200ft used for fuel, munitions, etc, it's an extra 200ft of nothing but machinery. So they got the speed boost from their extra length, plus the boost from having a lot more power.

The only modern day ships with more power than an Iowa are the Forrestal, Kitty Hawk, Enterprise, and Nimitz class ships.

In summary: the Iowas are so fast because of raw power and length, but are so well-armored too because they have the South Dakota's armoring. The real question is how the South Dakota is so well armored, and a big part of that is minimizing the size of the area that needs to be armored, and that is done by ingenious arrangement of the machinery.

Actually, that's one area that a lower-deck diagram would really help, showing the shaft/turbine/boiler arrangements, as that's EVERYTHING to the SD/IA design. Let's just say that some propeller shafts are several hundred feet longer than others.