Richeliu vs Bismarck vs KGV vs Vittorio Veneto

Which is precisely what makes the other combinations interesting....

For example, R & R vs the Twins (in a situation where the KM had to stand and fight)?

 

If the seas are rough, you have to think R & R can land more hits. But the German ships are more modern, so they ought to be able to win if they can function properly.

 

How does the RN Armour stand up to 11" shells? I presume the twins will be effectively defenceless against 15"

 

The British ships are poorly armored. There's no getting around it. The Twins have some considerable thicknesses; their belts are thicker than Bismarck's. I would recommend for the British to keep things at long range--say, 25,000+ yards--but Repulse has limited reach with her guns, and the British wouldn't take my advice anyway.

 

Repulse is one of the Rs, what's the other? And what about KGV, PoW, and other ships of that class? Someone said they have extensive armour coverage, although not so much for torpedo hits. And there's also Nelson and Rodney, with 16 inch guns. And how are ten 14 inch guns insufficient? Enough to beat Littorio, at least.

 

Repulse's sistership was Renown, which had received a more comprehensive modernization in the late-1930's. Renown had a run-in with the Twins amid some very nasty weather. On paper, the German should have cleaned Renown's clock, but the 28cm battery could not function properly in those heavy seas. Unable to maintain fire and unsure what ships Renown had in support, the Germans broke off after taking a bit of damage.
This will turn into a very long thread if we jam all our hypothetical "versus" ideas into it.

 

Sorry, Blaster, I got us onto totally different warships.

As said, Repulse and Renown are two British battlecruisers, vintage about 1916, with 6 x 15" guns in three twin turrets. Fast, heavy punch and light armour -- a classic Jackie Fisher warship

The Twins are the German battlecruisers (or battleships depending on your opinion) Scharnhorst and Gneisenau -- built in the 1930s and armed with 9 x 11" guns in three triples.

 

Normaly i wouldn't believe that. Oke, thicker, but does this also means stronger? Or did both classes used the same type of steel for the belt?

 

Yes, the Twins used the same armor as the Bismarcks. Bismarck shaved 30mm of the main belt but added a thick upper belt and much better deck protection. I believe Tirpitz took another 5mm of the belt but had some added to the deck. The poor deck protection on the Scharnhorsts is one reason why I think the British would do better at long range.

 

Due to the angle of impact.
What do BB's prefer the most at close range? Shooting with low or with high angle?

 

At close range, there's no way to get enough descent angle to penetrate deck armor, so there's no advantage to lower gun velocities. Even a low-velocity shell is likely to penetrate armor, but hitting is easier with higher velocities.

 

Yes, Scharnhorst and her sister ship versus Repulse and Renown. I think the British ships are better because they have larger guns. By the way, I think 10 14 inch guns are sufficient-they have a heavier broadside than Bismarck eight 15 inch guns. And Bismarck was pretty good.

 

Bring on HMS Furious!

Does anyone spot a contradiction here?

Blaster, a warship relies on three factors -- speed, firepower and protection. You cannot consider one independently of the other two.

 

Well, KGV has mediocre speed, but has extensive armour. Now about the firepower...

 

KGV and Bismarck probably had the weakest raw firepower among the treaty ships. However, neither had pronounced dispersion problems, and their FCwas adequate, improving as radar matured.

 

Even Littorio was better?

 

Well, you can say many things about Littorios but not that they had weak firepower. I believe Littorios had the most formidable main battery of all 'treaty' battleships built in Europe. They fired heaviest shell (885 kg) at third highest muzzle velocity (850 m/s, only Scharnhorsts and Dunkerque had higher) and had second most guns (9).

 

Holy Cow! I've been demoted! But what happened to those elegant little chevrons we used to have?
Littorio had a broadside of 17,560 lbs, compared the KGV's 15,900 lbs, Bismarck's 14,209 lbs, and Richelieu's 15,591 lbs. Like Richelieu, Littorio's shells combined mass with great velocity, making individual hits very destructive. Littorio also appears to have had excellent optical FC.

 

But here guns were damaged faster by the shots and had to be renewed faster then then other ships

 

Yes, Littorio's guns had only one third the barrel life of a SoDak.