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. Blaster

    Blaster New Member

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

    Tiornu Member

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

    Ossian phpbb3 New Member

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

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    probably by looking at the older BB"s in the Italian war fleet :)
     
  5. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

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

    Blaster New Member

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

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
    Vittorio Veneto was a sistership of Littorio.
    Perhaps the main thing that Littorio has on KGV is 3000 tons.
     
  8. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

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

    Blaster New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    via TanksinWW2
    What about what KGV has on Littorio?
     
  10. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

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

    Blaster New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  12. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    just a little faster, by 1 1/2 knots
     
  13. Tiornu

    Tiornu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    21
    via TanksinWW2
  14. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    but bismarck is the only one that sunk another bb/ bc
     
  15. Blaster

    Blaster New Member

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

    Ome_Joop New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    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:
     
  17. Notmi

    Notmi New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Suomi Finland Perkele
    via TanksinWW2
    Reason for 14" guns on KGV is combination of international naval treaties and (lack of) money and time.
     
  18. Notmi

    Notmi New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Suomi Finland Perkele
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  19. Ebar

    Ebar New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    On a space station in geosynchronous orbit above y
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  20. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

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

Share This Page