Better battleships Vanguard class or Iowa class

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
ickysdad		#121	[-]
Posts: 2770 (25-Sep-2007 22:34:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Just whoose opinion is it that Iowa or Sodak would sink from one hit like POW got in hjer rudders? Or if POW would have sunk if she had thier layout?
dunmunro1		#122	[-]
Posts: 1165 (26-Sep-2007 04:34:57) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	ickysdad wrote: Just whoose opinion is it that Iowa or Sodak would sink from one hit like POW got in hjer rudders? Or if POW would have sunk if she had thier layout? It's my opinion, based upon the SoDak/Iowa machinery layout. If SoDak/Iowa was hit on the starboard, outboard shaft, and the shaft passage flooded and distorted, as it did with PoW's, port outer prop shaft, then all the machinery spaces except the forward DG room on SoDak and the forward Boiler Room, on Iowa would have flooded, and this would have sunk the ship outright. I am not saying that a hit on the props or prop shaft would do this, necessarily, since on PoW only one prop shaft hit caused extensive flooding, even though two shafts were hit, and the shaft that did cause flooding, only flooded its' engine room, after it was restarted, but if it did cause flooding, the loss of the ship, from that one hit, would have been an inevitable result. Last Edited By: dunmunro1 26-Sep-2007 06:00:59. Edited 1 times.
Electric Joe		#123	[-]
Posts: 3629 (26-Sep-2007 07:00:27) Straw Boss Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	dunmunro1 wrote: ickysdad wrote: Just whoose opinion is it that Iowa or Sodak would sink from one hit like POW got in hjer rudders? Or if POW would have sunk if she had thier layout? It's my opinion, based upon the SoDak/Iowa machinery layout. If SoDak/Iowa was hit on the starboard, outboard shaft, and the shaft passage flooded and distorted, as it did with PoW's, port outer prop shaft, then all the machinery spaces except the forward DG room on SoDak and the forward Boiler Room, on Iowa would have flooded, and this would have sunk the ship outright. I am not saying that a hit on the props or prop shaft would do this, necessarily, since on PoW only one prop shaft hit caused extensive flooding, even though two shafts were hit, and the shaft that did cause flooding, only flooded its' engine room, after it was restarted, but if it did cause flooding, the loss of the ship, from that one hit, would have been an inevitable result. The operative question is whether the shaft is enclosed in a tunnel passing through those other spaces and unfortunately, I cannot recall at the moment what I saw aboard Alabama and New Jersey. If the shaft is enclosed in a tunnel, the damage to the shaft will not necessarily cause damage outside the tunnel or its associated engine room. If the shaft passes through the bulkheads "naked" there is a risk. From the descriptions I've read of PoW, it sounds like her shafts passed through the bulkheads "naked" which would explain the flooding up the shaft alley.
ickysdad		#124	[-]
Posts: 2771 (26-Sep-2007 08:01:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	EJ, Would the skegs outboard on SoDak be any better then just the simple prop support on POW? It seems like it's just alot more substantial then what the KGV class had. Duncan.. It seems according to Friedman's that the British even measured KGV's TDS as 13' amidships and NC's at around 18'. Last Edited By: ickysdad 26-Sep-2007 08:08:12. Edited 1 times.
dunmunro1		#125	[-]
Posts: 1166 (26-Sep-2007 08:31:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	ickysdad wrote: . Duncan.. It seems according to Friedman's that the British even measured KGV's TDS as 13' amidships and NC's at around 18'. As I've stated earlier, a TDS cannot be summarized by a single figure, as it is a complex topic, especially, as what is behind the TDS is very important, as is the depth and design of the TDS at any given point on the hull. The 13' depth is the average depth of the TDS abreast the auxiliary spaces, but abreast the engine rooms the additional holding bulkhead increases it to 16'. IIRC, Friedman states that NC's TDS is 18 1/2' deep at its deepest point and 17' 11" for Iowa.
ickysdad		#126	[-]
Posts: 2772 (26-Sep-2007 19:43:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Duncan, You can play with figures all you want the bulkhead your talking about is a longitudal subdivision type of bulkhead totally different then what is considered part of the TDS. The type of subdivision Iowa,SoDak ,and North Carolina had had it's advantages & disadvantages as did KGV's. The British themselves acknowledged that thier longitudal system of subdivision could cause very rapid off-center flooding and to thier credit they did install fast pumping facilities but that type of subdivision did contribute to POW's capsizing. The former is one of the reasons the USN got away from it. Was the RN right? Was the USN right? I guess it just depends on the circumstances.
dunmunro1		#127	[-]
Posts: 1167 (26-Sep-2007 21:15:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	ickysdad wrote: but that type of subdivision did contribute to POW's capsizing. PoW's internal, longitudinal, subdivision kept her afloat despite the fact that B engine room, and all the compartments through which the prop shaft passed, completely flooded within 18 minutes. Remove the longitudinal bulkheads, and PoW could have sunk in 18 minutes, but might have lasted a few minutes longer due to the larger volume of the compartments involved. Anyways we've discussed the TDS differences and, hopefully this will illustrate the different design choices.
Electric Joe		#128	[-]
Posts: 3632 (27-Sep-2007 02:30:42) Straw Boss Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	ickysdad wrote: EJ, Would the skegs outboard on SoDak be any better then just the simple prop support on POW? It seems like it's just alot more substantial then what the KGV class had. Duncan.. It seems according to Friedman's that the British even measured KGV's TDS as 13' amidships and NC's at around 18'. Yes, the South Dakota's outer-shaft skegs would probably preclude the type of damage suffered by Prince of Wales. There is simply no A-bracket, and no shaft extending outside the skeg to be flailed around and into the hull. Without that off-center weight flopping around out there in empty space (water) there isn't as much force attempting to pretzelate the shaft. Therefor it is unlikely to go sufficiently out of true to open up the entire shaft alley. Not so with either North Carolina or Iowa. -- Regarding the debate you and Duncan are having, you have to be careful looking at bulkheads inboard of the TDS and calling them holding bulkheads, I don't care what Navy you're looking at. The holding bulkhead is the inboard-most unpierced bulkhead of the TDS. Those wing compartments through which Prince of Wales' outer shafts ran are tempting to count as part of the TDS, but they can't be. One reason is that they could well be pierced by everything from wireways, to ventilation ducts and even scuttles, or (heaven forbid, and I don't think the British did this) hatches. This is stuff that's not going to show up in the simple line drawings we get in books (no criticism to A.D. Raven and compatriots, they're not drawing contract plans). The other reason is that the space above those compartments is not part of the TDS and/or not capped in the manner of the TDS. Thus, even if this inner compartment's inner bulkhead "held" in the manner of a holding bulkhead, it might be for naught once the compartment fills if water then fills upward and floods horizontally. Last Edited By: Electric Joe 27-Sep-2007 04:26:25. Edited 1 times.
Electric Joe		#129	[-]
Posts: 3633 (27-Sep-2007 03:00:17) Straw Boss Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	dunmunro1 wrote: ickysdad wrote: but that type of subdivision did contribute to POW's capsizing. PoW's internal, longitudinal, subdivision kept her afloat despite the fact that B engine room, and all the compartments through which the prop shaft passed, completely flooded within 18 minutes. Remove the longitudinal bulkheads, and PoW could have sunk in 18 minutes, but might have lasted a few minutes longer due to the larger volume of the compartments involved. Anyways we've discussed the TDS differences and, hopefully this will illustrate the different design choices. Actually, Prince of Wales subdivision helped to kill her, but because of the shaft-flail. The flail caused much of the length of the alley to flood, resulting in a large amount of water in the ship very far from the center-line. This necessitated flooding an extensive portion of the starboard forward TDS, compromising it in the case of the hit abreast B-turret. Even the counter-flooding and the hits on the starboard side were not enough to reverse the list. Check that. The flooding from two (maybe three) torpedo hits, could not be countered by counter-flooding and four torpedo hits on the opposite side. This was directly attributable to the longitudinal subdivision. So should we march the designers out and shoot them? No. The longitudinal subdivision did provide a superior degree of compartmentation in general, and in normal circumstances would have served this ship very well. I am not a fan of the subdivision of North Carolina and South Dakota with the exception of the fact that it would limit listing. Otherwise, it is insufficiently fine for my taste. So why did fine subdivision fail Prince of Wales? The answer is that she appears to have been born under a hex. This ship had some simply hideous luck. The A-bracket hit and subsequent flail damage was a freak circumstance in anyone's book and virtually impossible for any design to handle well with the possibly unique exception of South Dakota. That's bad enough luck. But then to have whatever took place abreast P3 and P4 take place on top of that has to be extraordinary. Not only are we looking at the perverse possibility of two torpedoes striking close enough together in time, but far enough apart in space not to destroy each other, yet still close enough in space to render common damage, this event took place almost exactly where bomb damage incurred during construction may or may not have been properly repaired. Something about this ship offended the gods. Last Edited By: Electric Joe 27-Sep-2007 04:24:39. Edited 1 times.
dunmunro1		#130	[-]
Posts: 1168 (27-Sep-2007 03:46:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Electric Joe wrote: Y -- Regarding the debate you and Duncan are having, you have to be careful looking at bulkheads inboard of the TDS and calling them holding bulkheads, I don't care what Navy you're looking at. The holding bulkhead is the inboard-most unpierced bulkhead of the TDS. Those wing compartments through which Prince of Wales' outer shafts ran are tempting to count as part of the TDS, but they can't be. One reason is that they could well be pierced by everything from wireways, to ventilation ducts and even scuttles, or (heaven forbid, and I don't think the British did this) hatches. This is stuff that's not going to show up in the simple line drawings we get in books (no criticism to A.D. Raven and compatriots, they're not drawing contract plans). The other reason is that the space above those compartments is not part of the TDS and/or not capped in the manner of the TDS. Thus, even if this inner compartment's inner bulkhead "held" in the manner of a holding bulkhead, it might be for naught once the compartment fills if water then fills upward and floods horizontally. Just to be clear, the KGV/Vanguard TDS AB and holding bulkheads are one and same, except, abreast the forward engine rooms (see the image on page 6 of this thread), where an additional holding bulkhead was added, because that space was not shielded by an auxiliary space. The bulkheads separating the main machinery spaces and the auxiliary spaces are not holding bulkheads, but these spaces were intended to be sacrificed if the TDS failed, and they are heavily subdivided. The machinery schematic on page 6 does not show this, but while the main machinery spaces were 3 decks high with no horizontal subdivision, the auxiliary spaces each have 3 deck levels, so in theory, even if the shaft alleys flooded the spaces through which they passed, these spaces were quite small, and the total tonnage of water would be relatively small, however, the poor level of watertightness of PoW's ventilation system and number of vertical passageway hatches left open, led to more flooding than the designers envisaged.
zadmiral	Vanguard vs Iowa	#131	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 1 (15-Jul-2008 21:09:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	This gunnery engagement between Vanguard and Iowa would be totally one sided. The Iowa with her superior speed would maintain a 36000 yard range from Vanguard, which due to her obsolete guns could never reach the Iowa. Granted the percentage of hits would be very low. at say 1 percent. But that gives about 6 to 12 hits in a long gunnery engagement minimum. Vanguards 5.88 inch armor deck simply could not stop a 2700 lb shell at that range. The end result would be disasterous...and quite possibly catastrophic..(like the loss of the Hood) All the discussion about belt angles ,thicknesses and quality of steel are irrelevant. If you cant hit your enemy..and he can hit you...you lose...every single time.
zadmiral		#132	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 2 (15-Jul-2008 21:40:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The Vanguards 15 inch/42 were indeed tried and true. But they were seriously outranged by the 16 inch Mk7 gun on the Iowas. In addition the Vanguard was not designed to withstand the impact of a 2700 lb projectile..only a 2300 lb. The Vanguards armor deck at 5.88 inches simply would not stop a 2700 lb shell at long range. American Naval doctrine of the period was to engage at very long range and maintaining this range advantage would be easy with Iowas superior speed. The Vanguards guns would never reach the Iowa. And if they did "sneak up" to within range, the notoriously poor quality of British naval projectiles would also be a factor. Combine that with the outstanding qualities of US projectiles and the end result would be predictable. The Vanguard would get mauled. And quite possibly(as in the Hoods loss) catastrophically destroyed. Do the Math.......
boblaurabyu		#133	[-]
Posts: 21 (17-Jul-2008 01:27:29) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	in a recent article that I read it pointed out that C turret was mothballed shortly after completion on the Vanguard and often she sailed without a full main weapons load out, what this tells me is that Vanguard was more of a show-boat than a warship with her limited gun range, lower speed and no super-heavy shells a 6 gun (being realistic) has almost 0 chance vers Iowa
emc		#134	[-]
Posts: 3947 (17-Jul-2008 03:44:34) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	boblaurabyu wrote: in a recent article that I read it pointed out that C turret was mothballed shortly after completion on the Vanguard and often she sailed without a full main weapons load out, what this tells me is that Vanguard was more of a show-boat than a warship with her limited gun range, lower speed and no super-heavy shells a 6 gun (being realistic) has almost 0 chance vers Iowa Pedantically, the HMS Vanguard had no "C" turret; it had A, B, X, and Y turrets. Of course, in my view, the USN battleships were roughly as useful as the Vanguard. Oh, well, I would say that in the unlikely event of a battle of the obsolete behemoths, one of the Iowas would be much more likely to defeat the Vanguard than vice versa. The Constitution would probably beat Henry Grace a Dieu, too, an equally relevant contest.
NewGolconda		#135	[-]
Posts: 3505 (17-Jul-2008 03:46:56) Commonwealth Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	An Iowa holds a roughly 8000 yards range advantage over Vanguard. She also holds a speed advantage of 2-3 knots. However, it is worth doodling this out with a pad and pen, because one 33 knot ship trying to hold a narrow range band of a few thousand yards vs a 30 knot ship will need some precise ship handling and split second timing. Range rate is roughly 2000 yards closing with both these ship heading toward each other and only about 100 yards minute opening with both ships travelling in the same direction. At least both ships have surface radar and an AIO/CIC to make the most of these sort of decisions. Overall fighting range for any action will depend on the unique tactical situation and helm orders as much or more than it depends on 3 knot speed differences. Quick question - at what range was the Mk 8 FC radar considered effective at spotting 16in shell splashes? Notoriously poor qualities of British projectiles is a bit of a misnomer. British AP shells were probably the best in the world from 1918 through to at least the late 1930's. The WWII RN themselves were of the opinion that their shell design choices were better than the WWII American super heavy shells, and that the latter were prone to "base slap" vs vertical armour at the sort of ranges the RN considered realistic. Were they right? I doubt if we will ever be in a position to know definitively. IMHO much will depend on the ranges at which an action was likely to take place, with the RN being far more conservative as to the nature of a possible decisive range. What is the relationship of the pattern size to Vangaurds danger space at 40,000yrds, 35,000 yards and 30,000 yards? What about weather conditions etc? Does it matter much if the action takes place during a force 8 gale in the North Atlantic vs Force 2 in the Philippines Sea? It is true that Vanguard was never commissioned in a fully efficient manner. By the same token there was no need. Various estimates of the work required to bring her to this state were made continuously, and a number are present in Groves "Vanguard to Trident". The Iowa is the more modern ship with the most effective armament. Both ships have fairly complete answers to the fire control problem. You would expect it to have the upper hand in many situations. But the Vanguard is junk crowd are a long way off the money. Iowa would probably be a better Pacific carrier escort. Vanguard might be better for Russian Convoy heavy unit roles. Iowa might stand more of a chance v Yamato. Everything needs to be in context.
zadmiral	Message to Marsh	#136	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 3 (17-Jul-2008 08:20:36) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I tried to e-mail directly to you but was unable to find your e-mail addy. I cant believe you actually think the Vanguard was the better of the two ships, but as you are from the UK it must be a loyalty issue and not neccesarily a knowledge of ships decision. All the radar in the world would not have increased the 32000 yard range of the Vanguards main battery. And the notoriously poor quality of the 15 inch projectiles would also work against her. In fact Vanguard was outranged by every other capitol ships guns in WW2. And in the era of radar she would have been defeated by any ship she faced . Check your souces before you make a claim such as that.
zadmiral	8 inch vs Bismarck	#137	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 4 (17-Jul-2008 08:35:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Razor your wrong..British 8 inch shells only penetrated the thin upper belt NOT the main side belt..in fact James Camerons expedition showed only 3 full pentrations of bismarcks main belt and that was from 406 or 356 mm shells ..not the 203mm.
Michael		#138	[-]
Posts: 366 (18-Jul-2008 19:02:29) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	zadmiral wrote: ... And the notoriously poor quality of the 15 inch projectiles would also work against her. This "notoriously poor quality" issue - what exactly are you basing this on? It's true that British shells from the WW1 period were poor (until the Greenboy shells were introduced c 1917/1918), however I'm not aware of any major criticism of WW2 shells. What are your sources for this please?
Getz		#139	[-]
Posts: 410 (21-Jul-2008 01:05:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	He doesn't have any. There were no significant quality issues with British WWII era 15" shells.
Michael		#140	[-]
Posts: 369 (21-Jul-2008 17:28:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Thought so - he went VERY quiet when asked for sources!

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Better battleships Vanguard class or Iowa class

Quick Reply