|
Post by archelaos on Oct 16, 2018 5:26:54 GMT -6
But it is still interesting how much fatal hits (lucky hits) were in WW2 on battleships: - HMS Hood - blew up - Bismarck - torpedo hit on stern that disabled him - Prince of Wales - torpedo hit on stern Add South Dakota to this list, though she survived thanks to Washington winning her duel, and Vittorio Veneto, also crippled by a single torpedo, resulting in Matapan massacre (While she survived simmilar hit to one that had sunk PoW, they had comfort to stop and make repairs).
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 16, 2018 5:55:21 GMT -6
Add South Dakota to this list, though she survived thanks to Washington winning her duel, and Vittorio Veneto, also crippled by a single torpedo, resulting in Matapan massacre (While she survived simmilar hit to one that had sunk PoW, they had comfort to stop and make repairs). USS South Dakota had some malfunction due to error but not because of enemy fire as I am aware. We can take it as incidents during battle. Vittorio Veneto get one hit to stern, it was dangerous but not vital as she recovered and using only 2 shafts she was able to make 20 knots. The Italian losses was due to the hit on Pola not Vittorio Veneto as at the time of the hit Italians were already on course to port. Even the first hit on Prince of Wales is probably not fatal itself. Critical issue was restarting damaged shaft which tear the bulkheads so much that she was just in dangerous sinking (some sources stated that after restarting the shaft she was doomed but other sources stated that without further damage she was not in sinking condition in that weather however very badly damaged. My own conclusion is that she was very near condition to sink but some additional damage was needed, but dead in water and without air cover and half of AA guns out of action she had no chance). Torpedo hit has very similar effect as to Vittorio Veneto however restarting shafts immediately was her end. So I do not consider them as lucky fatal hit. Neither hits on HMS Royal Oak or HMS Barham as both was sunk by cumulative damage that was higher that ship was designed for. It is quite interesting to see that even battleships are not just about firepower(guns)-protection(armor)-speed.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Oct 16, 2018 6:13:29 GMT -6
I was under the impression that SoDak lost power as a result of a hit (the one on barbette?), but if it was a result of human error, I stand corrected.
As for VV, the question is, what would have Italians done if they knew they had 3BBs chasing them. Trying to get moving asap is a distinct possibility. And the hit on Pola was a result of wild turning during third air attack, turning that was a response to success in damaging VV in the earlier strike.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 16, 2018 7:08:01 GMT -6
I was under the impression that SoDak lost power as a result of a hit (the one on barbette?), but if it was a result of human error, I stand corrected. As for VV, the question is, what would have Italians done if they knew they had 3BBs chasing them. Trying to get moving asap is a distinct possibility. And the hit on Pola was a result of wild turning during third air attack, turning that was a response to success in damaging VV in the earlier strike. Italians do not know exact numbers of BB but after air attack they knew that Mediterranean fleet is going after them. This was reason they cancelled mission.
|
|
|
Post by marcorossolini on Oct 16, 2018 9:04:14 GMT -6
Here's a curveball for you guys. Lot's of chatter about cruisers and capital ships, what about destroyers? Specifically pre-1925 destroyers that are in our (proper) time period!
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Oct 16, 2018 11:53:04 GMT -6
Here's a curveball for you guys. Lot's of chatter about cruisers and capital ships, what about destroyers? Specifically pre-1925 destroyers that are in our (proper) time period! Given those requirements, I'm going to go ahead and cheat and give my answer as the Fubuki, from 1926, because it seems cruel to strip it of its rightful place for being so very close to but not quite within an arbitrary cutoff date. Surely, the best destroyer class for its time.
|
|
|
Post by director on Oct 16, 2018 18:40:01 GMT -6
"1. During the action off Guadalcanal on the night of 14-15 November 1942, SOUTH DAKOTA was hit by at least 26 projectiles. The most serious material damage was that sustained by electrical wiring circuits. Many interior communication and fire control circuits were severed, particularly in the superstructure where the damage was most extensive. All radio transmitting antennae and all radars, except the one on Main Battery Director II, were rendered inoperative. Short-circuits from this damage caused an overload on the I.C. switchboard which resulted in loss of power on fire control and interior communication circuits throughout the ship for approximately three minutes. 2. Minor flooding resulted from one hit below the waterline and two hits close to the waterline. The list of about 3/4° which developed was removed by shifting fuel oil. 3. Before receiving the first hit, SOUTH DAKOTA experienced electrical difficulties initiated by the shock of Turret III firing astern. Although not the direct result of enemy action, an analysis of this casualty has been included herein because the loss of power to Turret III seriously hampered SOUTH DAKOTA during the action." Ship took at least 39 hits of various caliber and, while 'mission-killed', was structurally undamaged. Points 41-50 may be of interest. Can be found here: ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/WarDamageReports/WarDamageReportBB57/WarDamageReportBB57.html
|
|
|
Post by Spaghet Shipwright on Oct 16, 2018 19:50:51 GMT -6
Derfflinger and Kongo are designs I try to emulate as minor powers like Italy, Japan, Spain, ect that need their ships to serve for longer periods than the navies with larger budgets. 26-27 knots, 8x2 12"(minimum) armament, and a 12" main belt. If the tech with local or foreign yards are not able to build up to these specs I just build a half-way dreadnought solution, as their inferiority can be masked in the battle-line.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Oct 16, 2018 22:07:41 GMT -6
Derfflinger and Kongo are designs I try to emulate as minor powers like Italy, Japan, Spain, ect that need their ships to serve for longer periods than the navies with larger budgets. 26-27 knots, 8x2 12"(minimum) armament, and a 12" main belt. If the tech with local or foreign yards are not able to build up to these specs I just build a half-way dreadnought solution, as their inferiority can be masked in the battle-line. Are these your minimum requirements for capital ships in general, or just for battle cruisers? What do you mean by half-way dreadnoughts? I like the combination of the relatively light armament of AB / XY turrets with the savings used for heavier armour, though with only 12 inch guns I'd be concerned by about 1910 that it's not enough, particularly since Battle cruisers need to be able to stand up on their own again their opposite numbers or else simply run away, which is presumably not the intention with such a heavily armoured ship. Having said that, in my previous game I took what I thought to be a gamble on a numerous class of battleships completed in 1912-13, which I suppose are an earlier iteration of the design you have proposed: With only 8 14 inch guns at -1 quality, I was worried about how they would perform, but they showed up for all three major fleet battles fought over the course of the campaign, and did not disappoint.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Oct 16, 2018 22:43:56 GMT -6
Here's a curveball for you guys. Lot's of chatter about cruisers and capital ships, what about destroyers? Specifically pre-1925 destroyers that are in our (proper) time period! I've been partial to the Admiralty-M Class Destroyers (Royal Navy) from WW I, mainly due to their 34 knot speed. Playing as the British in SAI, they are one my favorites for BC escorts. However the V/W class win my heart, as they had super-firing guns, a fair torpedo armament, and could do 34 knots.
|
|
|
Post by Spaghet Shipwright on Oct 17, 2018 2:19:48 GMT -6
Derfflinger and Kongo are designs I try to emulate as minor powers like Italy, Japan, Spain, ect that need their ships to serve for longer periods than the navies with larger budgets. 26-27 knots, 8x2 12"(minimum) armament, and a 12" main belt. If the tech with local or foreign yards are not able to build up to these specs I just build a half-way dreadnought solution, as their inferiority can be masked in the battle-line. Are these your minimum requirements for capital ships in general, or just for battle cruisers? What do you mean by half-way dreadnoughts? I like the combination of the relatively light armament of AB / XY turrets with the savings used for heavier armour, though with only 12 inch guns I'd be concerned by about 1910 that it's not enough, particularly since Battle cruisers need to be able to stand up on their own again their opposite numbers or else simply run away, which is presumably not the intention with such a heavily armoured ship. Having said that, in my previous game I took what I thought to be a gamble on a numerous class of battleships completed in 1912-13, which I suppose are an earlier iteration of the design you have proposed: With only 8 14 inch guns at -1 quality, I was worried about how they would perform, but they showed up for all three major fleet battles fought over the course of the campaign, and did not disappoint. By "half-way" I was referring to dreadnoughts featuring cross-deck fire, and other sub-optimal turret layouts. The logic being that my dreadnought's main function is to prevent enemy blockades (as a minor power), and as such isn't as negatively affected by slight design deficiencies due to their small workload as opposed to my workhorse battlecruisers. On the topic of your Victorious class, armor is a tricky thing to commodify as AP tech quickly advances, but 12" belts and turret faces are the bare minimum I put on any BB or BC I expect to fight in the battle line. Also those 14" rifles will keep them relevant as secondary line units still capable of dealing damage even if their armor is no longer up to snuff.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Oct 19, 2018 13:43:13 GMT -6
I'd like the chance to bring up the Brandenburg-classes. Germany's first pre-dreadnoughts, they're rather interesting that they basically were dreadnoughts, having a main battery arrangement of three twin 280mm turrets. The amidships turret had a shorter calibre length, and they were designed for the classic close-range battle the Germans assumed was going to be the norm.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 19, 2018 15:32:41 GMT -6
I'd like the chance to bring up the Brandenburg-classes. Germany's first pre-dreadnoughts, they're rather interesting that they basically were dreadnoughts, having a main battery arrangement of three twin 280mm turrets. The amidships turret had a shorter calibre length, and they were designed for the classic close-range battle the Germans assumed was going to be the norm.
Personally, I'd be more inclined to call them semidreadnought battleships with an abnormally-heavy intermediate battery than dreadnought battleships; the dreadnought standard is all-big-gun uniform-caliber, but the Brandenburg class is more of an all-big-gun mixed-caliber design, even if not in quite the same way as the typical semidreadnought battleship whose main and intermediate batteries differ in bore caliber rather than (or in addition to) barrel length caliber.
|
|
|
Post by director on Oct 20, 2018 14:17:14 GMT -6
From what I've read, the shorter guns in the midship turret had slightly different ballistic qualities from the others, which made accuracy in battery firing somewhat problematic.
I've always liked them, however. I wrote an AAR for a 'Victoria' game as the US, wherein the US researched battleships before anyone else. I postulated that their late battleship designs moved to three twin turrets. I assume the design was not considered a success since neither Germany nor anyone else copied it.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Oct 20, 2018 19:41:58 GMT -6
Personally, I'd be more inclined to call them semidreadnought battleships with an abnormally-heavy intermediate battery than dreadnought battleships; the dreadnought standard is all-big-gun uniform-caliber, but the Brandenburg class is more of an all-big-gun mixed-caliber design, even if not in quite the same way as the typical semidreadnought battleship whose main and intermediate batteries differ in bore caliber rather than (or in addition to) barrel length caliber. You besmirch the honor of the semi-dreadnoughts calling something with only six big guns by that name. The Dantons and Satsumas had a 6 gun secondary battery on each side in addition to the main four guns and the Radetzkys had four.
|
|