Best BB contest (see instructions)

[Flashman]

The rudder hit did impair mobility.

However, it did not leave her dead in the water as a hit to the screws almost certainly would have (again, see P of W off Malaya).

I don't think the British really did wrong in arming the King George V class with 14" guns. 14" guns really did seem sufficient to pierce battleship armor in actual combat.

The KGVs' 14in guns were never entirely satisfactory, due to a long list of operational problems that were never quite solved; all those were problems with the mounting, of course, not the guns themselves.

Thank you for coming up with those figures. Energy at target of a 14" HE shell at 5,000 yards: 250 MJ (160 MJ KE, 90 MJ bursting charge. At 15,000 yards: 190 MJ (100 MJ KE, 90 MJ bursting charge).

Total striking energy of a 21" torpedo: 2300 MJ (almost all bursting charge).

Now, shells in general get a little more effect out of their limited bursting charge - they burst inside the ship if they pierce the armor, and strike various systems located on the surface of the ship.

However, the torpedo hits dumped a lot more destructive energy on the Scharnhorst, and they did it down under the waterline, attacking the part of the ship that keeps the water out.

By comparison, a comparable number of lighter shells rendered the USS South Dakota incapable of further combat (if still perfectly seaworthy). Had the South Dakota been hit by 11 torpedoes, it certainly would have sunk, to judge by all the expert complaint about its TDS.

The Kirishima only took nine 16" hits from the Washington. The Hood's rather unlucky explosion happened with substantially fewer hits, and the Prince of Wales pulled out of action with substantial damage after seven shell hits. What sank the Scharnhorst was not an unusually small amount of ordnance for its weight class. Sure, it took less punishment than the Yamato, but I have a suspicion the Yamato was not compliant with the Treaty of Washington's restrictions...

The distribution of hits is just as important here as the total number of hits; South Dakota was hit from extremely close range with fire directed at her upperworks, which contain the directors and many of the other things needed to make her the floating artillery battery which battleships, by their nature, are. This is a highly abnormal situation which her designers can hardly be blamed for not predicting; battleships almost always fought at ranges where aiming at anything other than the target ship itself would be just about impossible, given factors beyond the gunners' control (wind, gravity, the target's movement, etc.).

By contrast, Duke of York was shooting at Scharnhorst at close to the extreme edge of her 14in 45cal guns' range, in appalling weather and on radar bearings that were erratic at best (her radar having been damaged early on and only kept functioning by some spectacular jury-rigging). Thus, the 14in shells - the only ones capable of piercing Scharnhorst's vitals, though the 8in and 6in could maul her upperworks and the destroyers might have gotten a lucky hit on Admiral Bey - could not be aimed saved in the most rudimentary sense.

The same applies to torpedoes; one torpedo that strikes home on the screws is worth more than half a dozen that hit elsewhere, and there's no indication at all of how the hits against Scharnhorst were distributed.

One other factor that should be mentioned, though it is non-material and therefore difficult to quantify, is the quality of the crews involved. Historically, the Royal Navy proved throughout the Second World War to have an overpowering advantage in surface combat against their German and Italian foes, despite having ships which, at least on paper, were significantly inferior, thanks to superior quality of commanders and crew.

[Jedi Master Spock]

The throw weight overall is similar, but the 5"/38 is going to score a much higher number of hits thanks to its superior FCS.

The battle started with the South Dakota shooting at a Japanese destroyer at 18,000 yards. The destroyer (and the other destroyer and light cruiser it was with) retired undamaged, not hit by the South Dakota's batteries, and in this exchange over 30 torpedoes missed the South Dakota - perhaps in part because her destroyer escorts were well ahead of her. Two of them sunk, the others were very badly damaged. It was after this first phase of the engagement that South Dakota experienced its electrical failures.

The fire control system doesn't really matter if it fails halfway through the engagement.

Except that all of the guns in question are loaded with HE shells, not AP. Their penetration against heavily armoured targets is diddly squat.

I direct you to examine the "special common" round for the US 5"/38. That was an AP round, although it was supplied in much smaller numbers than the AAC rounds. This is largely because a 55 pound AP shell wouldn't pierce cruiser armor.

I most especially suggest you look at the AP shells that the good people in New York harbor felt the Richelieu would find use for. The secondary armament of the Richelieu could pierce 4.8" of belt armor at 11,000 yards. US 5"/38 guns firing their AP shells would have to be within 4,000 yards to achieve the same penetration. I'm not sure if US AAC shells could pierce that armor at point blank.

The Japanese heavy cruisers Takao and Atago - which did get shot at with a lot of 5" rounds at Guadalcanal, but were not significantly damaged - had a peak armor thickness of 5" in the belt.

The KGVs' 14in guns were never entirely satisfactory, due to a long list of operational problems that were never quite solved; all those were problems with the mounting, of course, not the guns themselves.

One reason why I nominated the Nelson instead of a more recent British ship. The Nelson class had quite a few issues, but most of them were resolved by the end of their service. However, let's get back to this.

The distribution of hits is just as important here as the total number of hits; South Dakota was hit from extremely close range with fire directed at her upperworks, which contain the directors and many of the other things needed to make her the floating artillery battery which battleships, by their nature, are. This is a highly abnormal situation which her designers can hardly be blamed for not predicting; battleships almost always fought at ranges where aiming at anything other than the target ship itself would be just about impossible, given factors beyond the gunners' control (wind, gravity, the target's movement, etc.).

The Washington snuck in quite close to engage the Kirishima. The Rodney closed in on the Bismarck to a range considered point-blank as well.

Designers might be faulted, but those engagement ranges did happen.

By contrast, Duke of York was shooting at Scharnhorst at close to the extreme edge of her 14in 45cal guns' range, in appalling weather and on radar bearings that were erratic at best (her radar having been damaged early on and only kept functioning by some spectacular jury-rigging). Thus, the 14in shells - the only ones capable of piercing Scharnhorst's vitals, though the 8in and 6in could maul her upperworks and the destroyers might have gotten a lucky hit on Admiral Bey - could not be aimed saved in the most rudimentary sense.

The same applies to torpedoes; one torpedo that strikes home on the screws is worth more than half a dozen that hit elsewhere, and there's no indication at all of how the hits against Scharnhorst were distributed.

The USS North Carolina is cited for excellent damage control, in addition to good torpedo defense in not being substantially affected by the single torpedo hit it took (which caused it to list 6 degrees for a few minutes).

Every torpedo hit, even one amidships, presents a threat to a hull's integrity; hits to the tail and nose of a ship are even worse (the former because of motive system damage; the latter because the nose can't be adequately protected).

I'm pretty sure that if the South Dakota was struck by eleven torpedoes at Guadalcanal, it would have been very likely to sink regardless of where on the ship they struck.

One other factor that should be mentioned, though it is non-material and therefore difficult to quantify, is the quality of the crews involved. Historically, the Royal Navy proved throughout the Second World War to have an overpowering advantage in surface combat against their German and Italian foes, despite having ships which, at least on paper, were significantly inferior, thanks to superior quality of commanders and crew.

They had a very strong naval tradition.

Given that a 14" gun is adequate to threaten a battleship, let's look at the King George V. It had 14.7" belt armor, thicker than the South Dakota's and Richelieu's (although I believe the Richelieu had a greater total mass of armor) and a 28 knot speed in trials, meaning that it has a slight edge over the South Dakota in both speed and armor thickness.

The King George V, which along with the Rodney shelled the Bismarck, used a slightly heavier round than the Kirishima, and having the unusually large battery of 10 guns (the North Carolina would have had 12 before it was redesigned) it has a distinct edge in firepower over its Japanese competitor, and a slight edge in main battery shells per minute over all other battleships mentioned but the Scharnhorst. At least in theory. In practice, there were some reliability issues with the gun mountings...

The secondary battery is its weakness. Its 5.25" guns, mounted in eight twin turrets, fired 80 pound AP or HE shells at 7-8 rounds per minute, meaning its secondary throw weight was less than even the Richelieu's - and without its uniquely powerful AP shells. Their slow swiveling rate and relatively low rates of fire meant they performed poorly against aircraft.

The question, then, I suppose, is whether crew quality makes up for the slightly lackluster firepower. If its speed disadvantage against the Richelieu, Scharnhorst, and Kirishima is not so significant, then neither is its similar speed advantage against the more heavily armed Nelson, which had a superior main battery and secondary battery.

I would rate the King George V to defeat the Scharnhorst due to its substantially superior armor. I would say it could defeat the Kirishima on account of the Kirishima's inferior armor. Both, of course, provided that the faster ships with their numerous light shells do not manage to put its fire control out of action.

I would say it loses to the Nelson due to inferior firepower. While it has the advantage in speed, allowing it to choose the range of engagement, the Nelson has superior firepower at all ranges, and - since its turrets' issues were resolved before retirement - especially in the long run. Its disadvantages against the Richelieu are a little too numerous to be neglected, so I say it also loses to that.

The South Dakota is a very difficult question. On the one hand, the King George V did have an edge in gunnery, a slight edge in armor, and a slight edge in speed. However, its advantage in armor is negligible compared to the South Dakota's superior armor penetration. I would say the South Dakota would be favored overall.

[JaceCady]

The throw weight overall is similar, but the 5"/38 is going to score a much higher number of hits thanks to its superior FCS.

The battle started with the South Dakota shooting at a Japanese destroyer at 18,000 yards. The destroyer (and the other destroyer and light cruiser it was with) retired undamaged, not hit by the South Dakota's batteries, and in this exchange over 30 torpedoes missed the South Dakota - perhaps in part because her destroyer escorts were well ahead of her. Two of them sunk, the others were very badly damaged. It was after this first phase of the engagement that South Dakota experienced its electrical failures.

The fire control system doesn't really matter if it fails halfway through the engagement.

That was a failure of the SoDak's electrical system, not a failure of her FCS per se. In any case, it's something of a red herring given that Japanese 6" guns at 18K yards will be even more ineffective. The more difficult the shot is, the more of a handicap their low RoF and poor FCS will be.

As for the Special Common rounds, they are not "true" armour-piercing rounds, they are high-explosive shells with a hardened casing for a modest increase in armour-piercing capability -- in other words, they're basically the same thing as modern SAPHEI type shells.

[Opecoiler]

The Richelieu is a very good choice, and I feel that its performance is close enough to the South Dakota class that in a hypothetical battle between the two, chance would be the deciding factor, not design. But if I was an admiral in charge of an entire fleet, I would choose the South Dakota, because its far superior AA batteries would enable it to defend both itself and other vessels from enemy air attacks-which were vastly more common than battleship duels.

[JaceCady]

The Richelieu is a very good choice, and I feel that its performance is close enough to the South Dakota class that in a hypothetical battle between the two, chance would be the deciding factor, not design. But if I was an admiral in charge of an entire fleet, I would choose the South Dakota, because its far superior AA batteries would enable it to defend both itself and other vessels from enemy air attacks-which were vastly more common than battleship duels.

The South Dakota has a solid advantage in main battery, with nine sixteen-inch guns with superheavy shells and state of the art radar fire control versus eight fifteen-inch guns with ordinary shells and unexceptional fire control.

[Jedi Master Spock]

The South Dakota has a solid advantage in main battery, with nine sixteen-inch guns with superheavy shells and state of the art radar fire control versus eight fifteen-inch guns with ordinary shells and unexceptional fire control.

I agree that US fire control systems were very good, but I have the feeling you're not precisely aware what you're criticizing.

While the USS South Dakota was undergoing repair and refit in New York harbor following the battering she received at Guadalcanal, she was joined there in January of 1943 by the Richelieu, which was refit (courtesy of the United States Navy) with new fire control systems and light AA guns for Allied service. The deadly "superheavy" 6" AP shells I mentioned earlier were also courtesy of those nice américaines in New York.

So much for that. More powerful? At 15,000 yards, the 16"/45 firing a superheavy AP shell delivered 249 megajoules of energy (171 MJ KE, 78 MJ bursting charge) while the 15"/45 firing its AP shell delivered 261 megajoules (169 MJ KE, 92 MJ bursting charge).

True, we're talking 9 guns vs 8 guns, but the peak firing cycle of the South Dakota was 30 seconds, while the peak firing cycle of the Richelieu was 25 seconds.

Armor penetration? The South Dakota's "immunity zone" was all of 1,000 yards wide against the Richelieu's guns (29,000-30,000 yards), and just before that, there's about a 3,000 (26,000-29,000) yard band where the South Dakota's guns pierce the Richelieu's deck and belt armor. This is an advantage, but given that only a couple hits were scored in the ~26,000 yard range in WWII by a battleship firing on a moving target, a rather small one. For perspective, it's barely more important than the fact that the Richelieu's guns had a higher maximum firing range (41.7 km vs 36.9 km - which pretty much only mattered if you were bombarding shore targets).

I agree with Opecoiler below - in a hypothetical battleship duel between those two, the odds are quite close.

The Richelieu is a very good choice, and I feel that its performance is close enough to the South Dakota class that in a hypothetical battle between the two, chance would be the deciding factor, not design. But if I was an admiral in charge of an entire fleet, I would choose the South Dakota, because its far superior AA batteries would enable it to defend both itself and other vessels from enemy air attacks-which were vastly more common than battleship duels.

I agree - mostly. I have one small point, however, on which I'm going to have to disagree conditionally.

The Richelieu was capable of throwing 37,000 pounds of shells per minute into the air as opposed to the 48,000 pounds per minute of the South Dakota's classmates (and about 44,000 lb/min for the South Dakota itself), and a quarter of that was from the slow 6" guns. There's no question the South Dakota had a substantial edge as an AA platform over the Richelieu. (Not, of course, the post-war Jean Bart refit, but I'm pretty sure that one edged over the weight limit.)

However, here's the caveat, and it's a big one:

If I were an admiral who was planning on fast action, and had good fuel supply lines to support that fast action, I would prefer the Richelieu. I would rather be able to move my carriers at their full speed of 30+ kts with a relatively small margin of AA inferiority, rather than choosing between slowing my carriers down to 26 knots or separating my battleships and carriers.

Being better against cruisers, destroyers, and submarines is a nice small bonus at that point, of course, but it's not the main concern in a campaign where air power reigns supreme.

EDIT: Whoops, 16"/45s for the South Dakota, not 16"/50s!

[JaceCady]

The South Dakota has a solid advantage in main battery, with nine sixteen-inch guns with superheavy shells and state of the art radar fire control versus eight fifteen-inch guns with ordinary shells and unexceptional fire control.

I agree that US fire control systems were very good, but I have the feeling you're not precisely aware what you're criticizing.

While the USS South Dakota was undergoing repair and refit in New York harbor following the battering she received at Guadalcanal, she was joined there in January of 1943 by the Richelieu, which was refit (courtesy of the United States Navy) with new fire control systems and light AA guns for Allied service. The deadly "superheavy" 6" AP shells I mentioned earlier were also courtesy of those nice américaines in New York.

So much for that. More powerful? At 15,000 yards, the 16"/45 firing a superheavy AP shell delivered 249 megajoules of energy (171 MJ KE, 78 MJ bursting charge) while the 15"/45 firing its AP shell delivered 261 megajoules (169 MJ KE, 92 MJ bursting charge).

A rather irrelevant point; armour penetration is a function of shell design and mass, not bursting charge.

[Jedi Master Spock]

A rather irrelevant point; armour penetration is a function of shell design and mass, not bursting charge.

Not at all irrelevant.

Shell energy, however, dictates the total destructive effect of the shell. When a shell strikes an armored hull and fails to penetrate, this energy is applied to the outside of the ship and its surroundings, which causes little damage to the ship. After a shell pierces through the armor, however, all its remaining energy winds up being deposited in the interior of the ship.

So, while the South Dakota is a little more likely to pierce the armor, the Richelieu will deal a little more damage on each penetrating hit. Against most targets, the firepower advantage of either main battery is pretty small.