phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) (08/15/90)
From: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) In article <1990Aug9.015753.8169@cbnews.att.com> paul@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Paul Bailes) writes: > > I think the Lions to be better value for money than the US Iowas: > these battlecruisers (only 12" belts!) surely would have been at risk > at close range - was the USN relying on their speed to keep far away? >Paul Bailes You and the old-line admirals of the 30's. The _Iowa_ class violated a cardinal rule of battleship design in that they had almost no immune zone (23,600 to 27,400 yards) against their own weapons. But they really weren't designed to stand up against a battle line -- they were planned to protect carriers from Japanese heavy cruisers and _Kongo_ class battlecruisers. The belt, BTW, was sloped at 19 degrees, giving the effective protection of 16" plate. The contemporary _Montana_ (BB-67) class was designed to fill the traditional battleship role. The class was cancelled, largely in favor of the more useful _Essex_-class carriers. In at least one sense, it isn't possible to appraise the performance of American battleship armor. As far as I can tell, no U.S. battleship was ever hit on her main armor by a large-caliber shell in combat. Counter- examples are welcome. [mod.note: South Dakota was hit in the belt by two 8" shells, and in #3 barbette by a 14" shell, off Guadalcanal on 14/15 November '42, with no penetrations. The 8's aren't really "large-caliber" in the sense you mean, but the barbette would count as "main armor." - Bill ] >[mod.note: Courageous, Glorious, and their sister, Furious (which carried >18" guns) were officially designated "large light cruisers." - Bill ] If I remember correctly, _Furious_ was a "hermaphrodite" carrier for a while, carrying both planes and one 18" gun. Through the 20's and 30's, when carriers were new, many U.S. vessels with half-length flight decks and full heavy-cruiser armament were proposed but never built. The 8" batteries on the _Lexington_s were removed in early 1942 and never used in anger. [mod.note: Lexington was sunk before receiving this coversion. - Bill ] -- | phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG | Phil Gustafson | (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!phil | UNIX/Graphics Consultant | | 1550 Martin Ave., San Jose CA 95126 | | 408/286-1749
thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley) (08/28/90)
From: plains!umn-cs!LOCAL!thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley) In article <1990Aug15.032745.27552@cbnews.att.com> phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes: > > >From: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) >In article <1990Aug9.015753.8169@cbnews.att.com> paul@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Paul Bailes) writes: >> >> I think the Lions to be better value for money than the US Iowas: >> these battlecruisers (only 12" belts!) surely would have been at risk >> at close range - was the USN relying on their speed to keep far away? >>Paul Bailes > >You and the old-line admirals of the 30's. The _Iowa_ class violated a >cardinal rule of battleship design in that they had almost no immune >zone (23,600 to 27,400 yards) against their own weapons. But they >really weren't designed to stand up against a battle line -- they were >planned to protect carriers from Japanese heavy cruisers and _Kongo_ >class battlecruisers. Not really, they were designed as *fast* versions of the earlier battleships, and were armored as battleships. They were originally designed with an immune zone of 18,000-30,000 yards against the 16"/45 (on the North Carolina and South Dakota classes) and 21,700-32,100 yards against the 16"/50 they carried themselves, and these are respectable immune zones. The problem came when Ordnance developed the 2,700-lb shell for the new guns, and suddenly the immune zones shrunk to 20,200-25,500 yards and 23,600-27,400 yards respectively. In 1940, a sketch design of a ship with a good immune zone against the new shells (and 5"/54 secondary armament) came in at 51,500 tons and 28 knots. The earlier battleships had their immune zones also suffer; the S.D. class wound up with 20,500- 26,400 against their own guns (but the turret faces had to be supplemented, since they could be penetrated out to 41,700 yards!) and the North Carolinas were weaker still (having been designed for 14" guns). It was not until the Montana class that U.S. BBs were designed to resist the new shells, and of course those were never even started. David Thornley