Yuku free message boards

ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLRIGHTY then. Second try; the first one was lost to the ether of cyberspace...D@MN YOU, SORIVAR!!... Sorry, ITW moment there. AIGF, Sorivar...

Anyway, back to the grind.

The battleship's first job is to go out and kill other battleships. For that, maximum destructive power is required. Given the existence of WWI era BBs with 12 x 14" and 8 x 15" or 16", I think at least 12 x 14" is required. 8 x 15" or 16" would be more desirable, given the increased destructive power of the individual shell retains more relevance in an escalator-clause or post-treaty scenario.

To your point on the flexibility of a flexibility of faster designs, I think a good turn of speed is a key characteristic. However, to emc's point on a decades difference between ideal, while 24 or 25 knots might be adequate in 1930, in 1942 it would be unacceptable. Fleet speeds were on the rise in the inter-war period. Nelson and Rodney were among the fastest battleships in the world when completed, but by the time the Second World War came around, their theoretical 24 knots was too slow, machinery issues further slowing Rodney notwithstanding. For the WWII era, I think at least 27 knots is ideal.

I think a true DP secondary battery is a requirement for the ideal. Tonnage is just too valuable on 35,000 tons for an anti-DD/CL batter AND a large caliber heavy AA outfit. While there were 6" DP guns, they fired too slowly for anything but barrage fire. Guns between 4" and 5.25", with the ability to fire and train fast enough to engage fast-moving targets. Even the 5.25" suffered some of the 6" disadvantages, but they were solvable, as Vanguard proved. I think guns of 4.7" or 5" are ideal, caliber based on the individual nation's desired destructive power and performance considerations.

With a true DP secondary battery, medium AA moves into the tertiary battery. I think a strong tertiary battery of medium AA is part of any idea. Guns between 37mm and 57mm. Some examples: the French 37mm, the Bofors or the 2-pdr in RN service. In 1933 that might be 2 octuple pom-poms. In 1942, that might be four or more quad Bofors mounts.

Light AA is variable over time. The .50cal Browning might be acceptable with the lighter fabric covered aircraft early on, but as time goes by its effectiveness wanes. I think the Oerlikon is about the ideal, the Japanese 25mm not a bad second, but hampered by the more complex triple mount. The US 1.1" is in the light category in destructive power, but the mount is just too heavy, large complex and requires too much effort (for the water cooling) to be a useful light AA type.

With the AA, it needs to be able to hit something. There is also a need for a good tachymetric fire control, able to engage both high level and fast moving sea level targets. The USN had a good grasp on this, I think in part due to the indigenous airpower keeping them well appraised of the aviation threat. The Mk 33 could track targets up to 400 mph, before this performance was practical in a combat attack aircraft. Having recently procured Brown's British Warships 1939-1945 series, I note he states that the RN was working on a tachymetric system, well advanced when it was abandoned. He notes that Admiral Chatfield thought this was the biggest mistake between the wars. He also notes that during a review of naval AA measures, the RAF representative also advised that dive bombing posed no threat. While the same assessment might come from an RN officer, I'd like to think that with control of it's own air arm, the RN would be better able to make that assessment themselves, than get it from a service wedded to the heavy bomber...

I know I'll encounter disagreement on this one, but I think any ideal treaty capital ship should have an aviation component. Long-range gunnery is a reality since WWI. Ships like Hood and the USN's Big 5 were completed with long-range gunnery in mind. Absent radar (not a factor early on, and once developed, could it really be counted on in the role absent the wartime development) good long-range gunnery requires spotting.

If my ideal battleship sounds something like this:



it's no accident.

Finally, a comment on

For Italy, the Littorios were overkill

I don't agree, Tim. I think they were pretty ideal. The largest navy in the world has a significant presence in the Med, and France is a historical opponent of Italy. While outside the treaty, the Venetos combined a good turn of speed to extricate themselves from less than advantageous circumstances, while having a very destructive gun in quantity to make firepower respectable and good protection, TDS notwithstanding. (D@mn, had to use 'notwithstanding' twice in the same post!) With France going to Dunquerque and Strasbourg, Italy's move to the Venetos was logical. They were also very active, so it's not like they were harbor queens like Tirpitz. They were very hampered by the RA. If the RM had an indigenous aviation arm, the Mediterranean War would have been much more difficult for the Royal Navy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I just viewed this with the 'preview' button before posting, and while 'bolds' I placed in the thread are OK, using Theodore's 'break' advice for paragraphs, I can see all the coding for those and the image I placed in the thread (in part as an experiment) was listed in the preview as only 'image' and only tabbed in my quote from Tim's post. I'm curious to see how this will look as posted, but if it's exceedingly busy and there is no picture, my apologies in advance. Chalk it up to getting used to the new board...

Regards,

Big Rich