Dreadnaught (Texas) vs. Most Modern (Iowa) Battleships

...

The dreadnoughts are like giant tanks at sea with it's thick metal hulls all around to handle the battering of heavy shells when those big 14" guns exchange fires. No frills like cruise missiles installed, advanced radar, sonar, helicopter landing deck, etc. The crew and officers lives are literally based on their bravery, discipline and accuracy.

one thing here bro:
in the reality of WW1, the deadliest threats used to come from under the water ... the protection against them in the case of the Texas at that time was just the double bottom, and the anti-torpedo bulkhead (really thin armor) in the mid section, and coal behind it! as for Iowas:
The underwater protection scheme of the Iowa class battleships consisted of the series of bulkheads and tanks between them, which were created by the outer plating and three consecutive longitudinal bulkheads. Two outer tanks could be filled with fuel or ballast water. Two inner ones would remain empty. The liquid-filled tanks were to absorb the energy of torpedo explosion, the third, empty tank was to prevent hull leaks, while the fourth, also empty, tank served as protection of the machinery spaces.
The bottom of the hull was protected by the inner bottom stretching between the longitudinal anti-torpedo bulkheads at the entire length of the ship. The double bottom was a storage area for the drinking and process water supplies, as well as the fuel reserve. The space between the second and third bottom always remained empty. The purpose of the triple bottom system was similar to that of the anti-torpedo bulkheads; it was to absorb the shock of underwater explosions.
the quote is from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
...

I'll comment on the armament next.

from Campbell (Naval Weapons WW2):

14"/45 Marks from 8 to 12 (mounted on the Texas, just don't know which one)
chamber volume of almost 18 cubic inches (294 l)
420 pounds of propellant used to shoot 1500 pounds shell, with 792 m/s muzzle velocity, up to 31360 m at 30 degrees elevation

but for 16"/50 Mark 7...
chamber volume of 27 cubic inches (442.5 l)
655 pounds of propellant, 2700 pounds shell, 762 m/s muzzle velocity ... don't have the figure for 30 degrees elevation, would be about 34 km ... max. range 38720 m with the APC shell

... so something optimistic about the Texas :) now:
The first US battleship anti-aircraft guns were turret-top 3" guns mounted aboard Texas in 1916.
 

Scratch

Captain
That is a nice and interesting thread, Jeff, very informative.

The Texas, to my unschooled eye when it comes to battleships, still has that "stubby" WW I era look. Don't know how to better describe it. The Iowa already looks much more streamlined. And, according to wiki, was about 10 kts faster, owing to her propulsion to a large extent I suppose. But also hullform? Or has that more influence on stability than speed?

The Yamato also seems closer to that "new" hull-form.

Another question I have would be on the main batteries. Over time, back then, ever larger gun size was perhaps the single biggest aim to achieve. I see some logic that fewer turrets make the whole thing more efficient. Texas era ships, seem to have had generally more turrets (with fewer guns,

Was the amount of independently "targetable" guns ever a concern in battleship design, or were the main batteries normallly aim at the same target anyway?

Anyhow, the modernized Iowa provided a really great mix of firepower and fire support. It would have been great if it had gotten a few MLRS boxes, or even an ATACAMS capability.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
That is a nice and interesting thread, Jeff, very informative.

Another question I have would be on the main batteries. Over time, back then, ever larger gun size was perhaps the single biggest aim to achieve. I see some logic that fewer turrets make the whole thing more efficient. Texas era ships, seem to have had generally more turrets (with fewer guns,
Actually the Texas had 5 x 2-gun turrets for 10 main guns.

The Iowa had 3 x 3-gun turrets for a total of nine main guns.

The caliber of the guns also makes a difference. The Texas 14" guns were 45 caliber. The Iowa class 16" guns were 50 caliber.

scratch said:
Was the amount of independently "targetable" guns ever a concern in battleship design, or were the main batteries normallly aim at the same target anyway?
The different turrets were definitely capable of independent targeting. Each gun in a turret also had the capability of differing elevations.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Jura, you will find this interesting regarding Battleship on Battleship surface engagements in world War II.

In the Pacific there were really only two. One was the 4th Battle off Savo Island by Guadalcanal on the evening of November 14, into the early morning hours of November 15, 1942. The other was the battle of Suriago Strait during the evening of October 25, 1944.

Here's some info on the first one, off Savo Island near Guadalcanal:

4th Battle of Savo Island (off Guadalcanal), November 14-15, 1942

Imperial Japanese Navy:
1 x Battleship Kirishima
2 x Hevy crusiers
2 x Light cruisers
9 x destroyers
4 x Tranports

US Navy:
2 x Battleshipa Washington and South dakota
4 x Destroyers

KondoKirishimaNov14.jpg
Japanese heavy cruiser and battleship Kirishima sailing towards Guadalcanal, November 14, 1942​

Kirishima and the two heavy cruisers were detached as a bombarment group for Henderson field. The two light cruisers and four destroyers screened these vessels, the four transports and other destroyers were to perform the landing of einforcements on Gualdalcanal at first light.

The four US destroyers screend the battleships forward, and at 23:22 began an engagement with the Japanese destroyers and light cruisers. Three of them were sunk, the other damaged. But they achieved their mission of engaging the forwad Japanese forces, allowing the battleships to pass and engage the principle Japanese surface units. One japanese destroyer was severally damaged as the battleships passed by.

The Japanese battleship Kirishima and the two heavy cruisers engaged Washington and South Dakota beginning just before midnight on the 14th. The Japanese ships located and concentrated on south Dakota who had already experienced a non-combat related electrical problem which had seriously impacted her communications and turret operations. South Dakota took twenty-five medium caliber and one large caliber hits that knocked out all communications and her gunfire control, those hits also set areas of her upper decks on fire. At 00:17 on the 15th of November, the south Dakota broke off and steered away from the battle, but did scoree a few hits on Kirishima, though nothing major. South Dakota's commanding officer later summarized, "The Japanese had rendered one of our new battleships, the South Dakota, deaf, dumb, blind, and impotent."

NavalGuadalcanalWashington.jpg
USS Washington firing on Kirishima in the very early hours of November 15, 1942​

In the mean time the Washington was able to approach, undetected to within 9,000 yards of Kirishima and open fire. Washington fired a total of seventy-five 16-inch and one hundred and seven 5-inch rounds during the engagment and struck Kirishima with at least nine 16-inch rounds and upwards of forty secondary, 5-inch rounds. Several of the hits were below the waterline on Kirishima. This punding caused massive and severe damage to Kirishima, leaving her burning all along her upper deck, taking on massive amounts of water, and with her rudder jammed, circling uncontrolled to port.

The Japanese turned away.

The severelly damaged Japanese destroyer and the fatally damaged Kirishima were scuttled and sank by 03:00 hours of Novmber 15th. The rest of the japanese surface group departed so as to be away from Guadalcanal's Henderson Field by daylight. The four transports beached themselves on Guadlalcanal and were detroyed the next day by air attack and destroyer gun fire.

BeachedTransports.jpg
Japanese trasnports buring oin the beach of Gualdalcanal, November 15, 1942​

The result:


Imperial Japanese Navy:
Lost Battleship Kirishima
Lost one desttroyer
Lost four tranports

US Navy:
Lost three destroyers
Damged Battleship South Dakota

I think I will start a separate thread about World War II Battleship on Battleship surface engagements.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
thanks, Jeff, I'm leaving for a dinner right now ... but it seems to me you forgot the Hiei Battleship (the one with the searchlights :)
Nope, not for the engagement of November 14-15. The Heil was not there in that battle. She was involved in a separate engagement on November 13th.

In that earlier engagement there was no battleship on battleship exchange. The Japanese did have the Heil and Kirishima, but the heaviest US combatants in that engagement were two heavy cruisers and three light cruisers.

The US suffered a crushing tactical defeat in that first engagement, but the Japanese did not follow through and the force did not bombard Henderson Field and the landings were not made. so the Japanese did not achieve any strategic advantage.

It was on the 14th and 15th that the Kirishima returned and met the US Battleships, and that was the engagement I am documenting.
 
Last edited:

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Exactly right. The Yamato class was much bigger in beam because they did not worry about getting through the canal.
Japanese have do the Yamato thinking if the USA build a equivalent this BB class can' t go by Panama Canal.

Iowa also long but Yamato better armored and more big guns 457 vs 406 mm, in general armor represents about 20/30 % of tonnage for a BB.

I think even Montana planned after Iowa class would have stayed inferior.

For protection Yamato as much BB is mainly protected against shells much vulnerable against torpedoes a protection more horizontal as vertical, however to sink two waves of 150 aircrafts were needed and about 20 torpedoes and 20 bombs damn !

Bismarck less big/powerful was very advanced technically.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I think even Montana planned after Iowa class would have stayed inferior.
The Montana class battleships were going to have the following characteristics:

Displacement: 72,000 tons full load
Length: 924 ft.
Beam: 121 feet (I think too big for the Panama Canal)
Draft: 36 feet
Speed: 30 knots
Crew: 2,800 (As Flagship)
Armament:
12 x 16-inch/50 cal guns (4 turrets x 3)
20 x 5-inch/54 cal guns (10 x 2 Turrets)
40 x Bofors 40mm AA guns
54 x 20mm AA guns
Armor:
16.1 inches (409 mm) belt armor tapering to 10.1 inch
7.2 inches (183 mm) side-belt armor tapering to 1"
18 inches (457 mm) forward bilhead armor
15.25 inches (387 mm) aft bulkhead armor
21.3 inches (541 mm) barbette armor
22.5 inches (572 mm) turret face armor
9.9 inches (251 mm) turret roof armor
9.3 inches (236 mm) Deck Armor
Aircraft:
4 x O2SU Kingfisher Patrol float planes
2 x Stern Catapults

With their twelve 16-inch/50 cal guns, and their better fire control, I think they would have been a deadly match against the Yamato class...but we shall never know.

Here's how the first in class, the USS Montana, BB-67, would have looked:

BB-Montana-03.jpg

BB-Montana-02.jpg

BB-Montana-01.jpg

Five were planned and their construction approved, but before they started building them in 1942, the absolute need for Essex class carriers caused them to be first delayed, and then canceled.

By 1943 it was clear to US naval planners that the US Navy had plenty of battleships and that their time, as the capitol ship of the Navy, was past. As I say, more Essex carriers were ordered instead.

One thing did come of them, their hull design was used for the Midway class carriers, providing better maneuverability and stability for that carrier design.
 
Top