Richeliu vs Bismarck vs KGV vs Vittorio Veneto

But Littorio had 12 inch guns, here! Man, can't KGV measure up to anything more than a heavy cruiser? It's firepower is seriously overrated. I can't believe it got around an 8! It can't even measure up to Littorio!Well, Bismarck's is even weaker. Why are all the machines I think are good really lame? Then again, KGV might have been a better overall ship, since firepower isn't everything. If not, I wonder how the Brits survived the naval war with ships like this. Seriously...

 

?

 

Littorio had FIFTEEN inch (381mm) guns in 3 x triple turrets (2 forward, one aft)

Where on earth did you get the idea she had 12" main armament?

 

probably by looking at the older BB"s in the Italian war fleet

 

The Italians didn't have any 12in battleships during WWII.
Hey, the chevrons are small again. Now I can be happy with my reversion to non-com.

 

Weird. Or was that Vittorio Veneto that had 12 inch guns? Anyway, the larger shell probably explains it. But does KGV have anything on Littorio?

 

Vittorio Veneto was a sistership of Littorio.
Perhaps the main thing that Littorio has on KGV is 3000 tons.

 

Apart from the littorio class all the other BB's were dated from WW1 and those had (originally) 12 inch guns. But off course they were modernized before WW2 :wink:

 

What about what KGV has on Littorio?

 

Littorio had an exceptionally short citadel. KGV had almost as much of her waterline armored as Bismarck.
Littorio had a shallow belt. KGV had more armored freeboard than any other treaty design.
What do you think the KGV designers could do with an extra 3000 tons? (Answer: Lion)

 

So Littorio has more firepower, and KGV has more armour. That's two of the three categories filled-firepower, protection, and speed. I'm guessing Littorio was faster.

 

just a little faster, by 1 1/2 knots

 

Here's a link to the "baddest" competition:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
Jon's assessments are not meant to be the last word, but he provides a great launch-pad for discussion.

 

but bismarck is the only one that sunk another bb/ bc

 

If KGV's guns were at the bottom of the spectrum, how come it scored higher than Vittorio? And why do 14 inch guns lack the oomph to compete? KGV's armament produced a heavier broadside than Bismarck, and Bismarck was pretty bad. Besides, why did the Brits not arm the KGVs with more adequate armament if ten 14 inch guns are not gonna' be enough?

PS At least KGV's armour is good.
PSS SoDak far surpasses my original expectations. If her crew didn't goof at Guadalcanal, I think she'd have pounded Kirishima into dust and far overshadowed Washington.

 

If you look at 1 salvo yes...but after a minute Bis has 3 complete cycles and other at the most 2....

in one minute...
Bis would have fired 42K lbs (24 shells)
KGV would have fired 32K lbs (20 shells)
Vittorio would have had 1 cycle and is still reloading (18k lbs , 9 shells)... :cry:

 

Reason for 14" guns on KGV is combination of international naval treaties and (lack of) money and time.

 

I have doubts that Bismarck guns would have managed to that 3rpm for anything longer than couple of minutes. Besides, it depends on elevation too. That 3 rpm is managed only when shooting at (or near) loading angle 2,5 degrees which means that range is only around 6000m.

Generally, it think that theoretical rate of fire is made too important in that comparison.

 

Put simply when international treaties limiting gun size failed to go through the British had already commited themselves to 14" guns. Redesign of ships and guns would have cost them years (guns have often taken longer to builld than the rest of the ship) Basically the RN desided that a so-so battleship at sea is better than a good battleship that still sitting in dock, in pieces.

 

Better a couple BB's at sea then one in dock :grin:

Guns take longer then a ship to be build? Isn't a gun not easier to build? just a metal cilinder with a hole drilled inside?