Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Richeliu vs Bismarck vs KGV vs Vittorio Veneto

Discussion in 'The War at Sea' started by Blaster, Jan 18, 2007.

  1. Ossian phpbb3

    Ossian phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bonnie Scotland
    via TanksinWW2
    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)?
     
  2. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  3. Ossian phpbb3

    Ossian phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bonnie Scotland
    via TanksinWW2
    How does the RN Armour stand up to 11" shells? I presume the twins will be effectively defenceless against 15"
     
  4. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  5. Blaster

    Blaster New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  6. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  7. Ossian phpbb3

    Ossian phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bonnie Scotland
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  8. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    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?
     
  9. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  10. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    Due to the angle of impact.
    What do BB's prefer the most at close range? Shooting with low or with high angle?
     
  11. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  12. Blaster

    Blaster New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  13. Ossian phpbb3

    Ossian phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bonnie Scotland
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  14. Blaster

    Blaster New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    via TanksinWW2
    Well, KGV has mediocre speed, but has extensive armour. Now about the firepower...
     
  15. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  16. Blaster

    Blaster New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    via TanksinWW2
    Even Littorio was better?
     
  17. Notmi

    Notmi New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Suomi Finland Perkele
    via TanksinWW2
    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).
     
  18. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  19. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    But here guns were damaged faster by the shots and had to be renewed faster then then other ships
     
  20. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, Littorio's guns had only one third the barrel life of a SoDak.
     

Share This Page