| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 1Big Rich |
|||
|
Posts: 1747 (26-Aug-2007 00:01:40) |
Well if you've read Tiornu's sticky thread about the new digs, you've seen that the board is having trouble pulling in the picture in my post. So
here's the hyperlink:
http://xoomer.alice.it/bk/NWS/Fictional/image-html/VV-US_refitbmp.html
Your Text Signature ...
|
||
|
PMN1 |
|||
|
Posts: 2915 (26-Aug-2007 01:26:27) |
In WTRE, a 37,500 ton limit was mentioned. Harry Flashman said he had seen a reference to this while researching WTRE but could not find it on a second visit.
Now given Japan, Germany and Italy cheated anyway, this is not going to affect them but 37,500 tons might well have an interesting effect on RN and USN thinking. |
||
|
Dave Bender |
|||
|
Posts: 5063 (26-Aug-2007 03:23:34) |
Now given Japan, Germany and Italy cheated anywayLet's not point fingers. Britain and the U.S. cheated also. |
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3128 (26-Aug-2007 04:11:29) |
Dave Bender wrote: There's different levels of cheating. I think the US and the UK tried to, and largely did, honor the various naval treaties (although the USN's
lawyers' reading of the Washington Treaty was, shall we say, a trifle creative with regard to the allowed displacements of the Lexington and Saratoga),
while the Italians and Germans (who were bound, via the Anglo-German Naval Treaties to honor the qualitative limits specified in the Washington and London
Treaties) ignored them. The Japanese seemed to want to honor the qualitative limits (until Yamato), but decided to cheat when they found that their
combination of specs and treaty limits were mutually incompatible.
|
||
|
jtjohn1 |
|||
|
Posts: 40 (26-Aug-2007 15:07:41) |
Throd wrote: Actually it was the Sou Daks that had protection Vs the 16" shells not the NCs, they were protected Vs the 14" shell. To be honest probably the most balanced of the treaty BBs was indeed the Sou Daks. Sou Dak Vs Littero = Sou Dak has WAY better AA suites, better Fire Control, more heavily armed and armored. is less apt to breakdown and has WAY better operational range. Littero is faster. Sou Dak Vs BSM = Sou Dak has WAY better AA suites, better Fire Control, more heavily armed, is less apt to breakdown and has WAY better operational range. BSM is faster and has better armor (For her expected fighting conditions IE Close range stick the BSM in the Pacific and the Sou Daks armor scheme is better) Sou Dak Vs KGVs = Sou Dak has better AA suites, better Fire Control, more heavily armed and has WAY better operational range. KGV is SLIGHLY faster and better armored. Sou Dak Vs the Rich = Sou Dak has WAY better AA suites, better Fire Control, more heavily armed and has WAY better operational range. Rich is faster and I THINK better armored (Though not 100% sure on this) The main knock Vs the Sou Daks was thier speed (Not as fast as the other nations BBs) and thier habitability (Very cramped) |
||
|
Dave Bender |
|||
|
Posts: 5064 (26-Aug-2007 16:51:44) |
There's different levels of cheating Give me a break. Cheating is cheating. Breaking Hague Conventions (like hunger blockades and fire bombing civilians) is always wrong.
|
||
|
P3D |
|||
|
Posts: 453 (26-Aug-2007 18:26:38) |
jtjohn1 wrote:Untrue. SoDak has weaker main belt, and the Italian Terni armor is about a generation more advanced than the US class A. And the 16"/45 has way too weak belt penetration compared to the Italian 15"/50, 4" worse at 30,000 yards, and 8" worse at 10,000 against each other's belt. Littorio deck is still immune below 25,000yards or so. Littorio was designed for medium combat ranges (say below 25-26000 yards) not for 16nm shooting. Considering that the Littorio was faster, and that not too many hits were scored at longer distances, the SoDak apparently has some deficiencies here. And if you equalize fire control (give radar to the Italians), I don't want to be in the SoDak while the Littorio's guns has 10000 yards longer range. And the equivalent of the Littorio and Roma is the North Carolina, not the SoDak. |
||
|
1Big Rich |
|||
|
Posts: 1750 (26-Aug-2007 18:49:55) |
Dave Bender wrote: This is the logic that says stealing a bicycle is equivalent to stealing a Rolls-Royce. Indeed, both are crimes, but one is clearly greater. I'm no
advocate of moral relativism, but in law there are felonies and misdemeanors.
There is a hell of a difference between the USN's General Board shaving half an inch of armor on the secondaries, cutting the immune zone by 800 yards,
and evaluating the design based on wartime stores (10 tons versus 30 the ship's store would carry in peace, theoretical allocation of 75 rpg) and having a
North Carolina come out a 36,600 tons in 1941 (Friedman, US Battleships) of the RN dropping two guns of main battery, eliminating forward sheer on the
KGV's with the final contract design displacement of 35,490 tons and proceeding from the starting point that Bismarck is going exceed the limit by some
6,600 tons standard.
At very least, the Allies TRIED get ships that were compliant. The Germans SET OUT to violate the treaty. Even you can see that though your germanophilia,
Dave, whether you want to admit it or not.
Your Text Signature ...
|
||
|
BC Renown |
|||
|
Posts: 273 (26-Aug-2007 20:20:46) |
Being closer to the tonnage limitation than all the others, I think the North Carolina and the King George V class BBs best represent the intent of the
Washington Naval Disarmament Treaty. Of these two I pick North Carolina. Bismarck, Vittorio Veneto, Richelieu and even South Dakota were all considerably over
the 35,000 ton limit and none of these had better anti-aircraft capabilities than North Carolina, an importance that cannot be overstated - it being widely
written and spoken that aircraft caused the demise of the battleship. I'll concede there were no guarantees in naval warfare but, I am fairly certain it
would have required a post-treaty battleship to have taken out a North Carolina. (romantic dates notwithstanding)
Last Edited By: BC Renown
26-Aug-2007 20:25:21.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Creeping Death1929 |
|||
|
Posts: 831 (26-Aug-2007 22:03:23) |
Sou Dak Vs KGVs = Sou Dak has better AA suites, better Fire Control, more heavily armed and has WAY better operational range. KGV is SLIGHLY faster and better armored. Regarding FC, you mean AA FC right? Because KGV's surface FC was pretty much equal with the US ships. |
||
