Montana Class BB

[Dilandu]

That 15m rangefinder, while active, is going to give Yamato a big advantage during any daylight engagement. That thing is ginormous, and Japanese optics are no joke.

Sure. Assuming that Americans did not pull rather obvious trick with putting smoke screen between them & enemy and firing using radar) But okay, let's even assume they wouldn't.


What would happen with this "ginormous structure", if several 14-inch/16-inch HE shells would hit the superstructure below it, and exlpode, severing cables, shaking the whole construction and producing a fountains of heavy fragments? How good would be Japanese optic after being shakened and probably shattered by shockwaves? Let's not forget, it isn't radar antenna; to make rangefinder absolutely useless even the slight damage would suffice.

 

[SSgtC]

Sure. Assuming that Americans did not pull rather obvious trick with putting smoke screen between them & enemy and firing using radar) But okay, let's even assume they wouldn't.

View attachment 716820
What would happen with this "ginormous structure", if several 14-inch/16-inch HE shells would hit the superstructure below it, and exlpode, severing cables, shaking the whole construction and producing a fountains of heavy fragments? How good would be Japanese optic after being shakened and probably shattered by shockwaves? Let's not forget, it isn't radar antenna; to make rangefinder absolutely useless even the slight damage would suffice.

So, I get what you're saying. But the US would most emphatically not be firing HE rounds at an enemy battleship unless they had nothing else in the magazines. USN doctrine was to fire AP rounds at anything above a destroyer. They aren't going to suddenly switch to using HE against a battleship.

You're using a lot of hindsight here in saying that the USN knew the guns on the Standards couldn't pen the Yamato's armor. You have to remember, the US thought the Yamato-class battleships were armed with 16" guns until well after they were both sunk. So any battleships firing on a Yamato would be using AP rounds in the expectation that they could get at least some penetration of the Citadel

 

[Julio Garay Terrazas]

Add "Sovetsky Soyuz" for more fun)

Only the little figure is missing (And as usual I don't remember where I got it).

 

[Foo Fighter]

OK, but, taking thisa a stage further would serve to illustrate the scope for variation in this discussion. Look at how many hits were requirted to stop Bismark. Less armour and alone against numerous foes while unable to manouvre the ship.

Again, the argument has been made that three ships are ranged against the Yamato class ship, how likely is that?

As a paper exercise this discussion has merit but in reality there are far too many holes in the collander to allow it to float.

Sorry, btw, Bismark was unable to offer any real defence so is at a further disadvantage and could not in any case, outrange her opponents.

Bismark was scuttled too.

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Bismark was scuttled too.

After reading numerous accounts from the survivors...ship was doomed. 100%.

So, I get what you're saying. But the US would most emphatically not be firing HE rounds at an enemy battleship unless they had nothing else in the magazines. USN doctrine was to fire AP rounds at anything above a destroyer. They aren't going to suddenly switch to using HE against a battleship.

You're using a lot of hindsight here in saying that the USN knew the guns on the Standards couldn't pen the Yamato's armor. You have to remember, the US thought the Yamato-class battleships were armed with 16" guns until well after they were both sunk. So any battleships firing on a Yamato would be using AP rounds in the expectation that they could get at least some penetration of the Citadel

That's what I figured, thanks for confirming.

What would happen with this "ginormous structure", if several 14-inch/16-inch HE shells would hit the superstructure below it, and exlpode, severing cables, shaking the whole construction and producing a fountains of heavy fragments? How good would be Japanese optic after being shakened and probably shattered by shockwaves? Let's not forget, it isn't radar antenna; to make rangefinder absolutely useless even the slight damage would suffice.

What goes around comes around. What good is an early radar or US optics versus severe vibration? Wouldn't their gunnery be degraded as well?
By "ginormous" I was referring to the rangefinder itself, because 15m is huge...intended for effective long-range gunnery, outside the capabilities of most ships to penetrate their armor or even hit them. It's a qualitative advantage, which the Yamato embodies.

 

[Dilandu]

So, I get what you're saying. But the US would most emphatically not be firing HE rounds at an enemy battleship unless they had nothing else in the magazines. USN doctrine was to fire AP rounds at anything above a destroyer. They aren't going to suddenly switch to using HE against a battleship.

You're using a lot of hindsight here in saying that the USN knew the guns on the Standards couldn't pen the Yamato's armor. You have to remember, the US thought the Yamato-class battleships were armed with 16" guns until well after they were both sunk. So any battleships firing on a Yamato would be using AP rounds in the expectation that they could get at least some penetration of the Citadel

Okay, that's an argument. I really thought that facing apparently heavier battleship they would try first to deplete her as much as possible.

 

[Firefinder]

What goes around comes around. What good is an early radar or US optics versus severe vibration? Wouldn't their gunnery be degraded as well?

Yes but not as much.

While the US did have issues with the early Radars.

It was after MULTIPLE FULL SALVO FIRINGS.

A full salvo is all guns firing at once more or less and was extremely rare even in combat. Partial firing and similar naval weapon engages prolong the time to breakage greatly.

With Vibration coming into factor only at full speed and only on the North Carolina Class, the South Dakota and Iowas did not have said issue as badly to effect gunnery.

A hit nearby will fucker the system on both.

But until that point?

The Yamatos be working at say a 75 percent to the Washington 80 percent degradation. Which come closer to a 50 75 split once you account for the vast differences of IJN and USN fire control practices respectfully. Resulting in the USN ship being more likely to get the first hit dispite the range disadvantages.

Throw in that more ships firing on a target vastly increases the hit chances on said target?

Multiple on 1 sucks ass no matter how you try to slice it.

Makes for amazing stories but it actually extremely hellish cause well the odds are against you in the extreme.

Before adding in doctrine difference in soft specs.

Like damage control...

Which the IJN doctrine for...

Was a case of good in theory, bad to outright actively harmful in practice.

So any hit is going to hurt more or similar despite the fire power differences. Due to being unable to bounce back as effectively after a hit.

There so many factors involve its not funny.

From the hard Specs to the Soft ones like Damcon, training and morale.

 

[SSgtC]

Okay, that's an argument. I really thought that facing apparently heavier battleship they would try first to deplete her as much as possible.

No. For the simple reason that, in theory, a battleship can have her entire superstructure blown away and still be capable of combat. Everything you need to destroy to mission kill (or outright kill) a battleship is under the armor. Demolishing superstructure will make it less effective, but it won't kill it

 

[Scott Kenny]

Again, the argument has been made that three ships are ranged against the Yamato class ship, how likely is that?

Given how many more battleships the US had in the Pacific over the Japanese?

Pretty good odds that the Yamato would be facing an entire division of USN battleships. Remember that all the 16" battleships were in the Pacific!

 

[MadRat]

Concentration of firepower doctrine made it quite certain if air, submarine, and the destroyers could not take it out. Ultimately they did it in with weapons for which it was most vulnerable. Why risk a battleship if unnecessary?

 

[EwenS]

...... You have to remember, the US thought the Yamato-class battleships were armed with 16" guns until well after they were both sunk.

Not true. USN intelligence was circulating reports of 17.7 inch guns in spring 1943 and 18 inch following aerial recce in Feb 1944. After obtaining the latter, it seems to have been later in 1944 early 1945 before that was fully accepted, but still before Yamatos sinking.

History and Technology - "What did the USN know about Yamato and when?" - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

 

[Foo Fighter]

Given how many more battleships the US had in the Pacific over the Japanese?

Pretty good odds that the Yamato would be facing an entire division of USN battleships. Remember that all the 16" battleships were in the Pacific!

Granted more were available but the ranging of one battleship means including the fleet of ships around that ship. The pacific is a big ol' bathtub granted but, making that many targets for mines and submarines seems cringeworthy. I know, off topic. I cannot see so many 'fleets' being deployed in the region of one Yamato class ship.

Especially when we consider the huge number of carriers and their aircraft which in the end, did the deed, which makes the question why would they deploy the big guns in that concerntration when they do not need to?

 

[Tzoli]

Not true. USN intelligence was circulating reports of 17.7 inch guns in spring 1943 and 18 inch following aerial recce in Feb 1944. After obtaining the latter, it seems to have been later in 1944 early 1945 before that was fully accepted, but still before Yamatos sinking.

History and Technology - "What did the USN know about Yamato and when?" - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

Intelligence via aerial photos ain't that accurare hence in every document the USN and RN listed the Yamato with 16" guns. It is the same that in the 1950's the USN thought the Soviets were building battleships the K-1000's. So they might had suggested that the Yamatos carry larger guns then 16" they did not had concrete knowledge. It is the same as determining the capabilities of the now under construction carriers vs actual info provided by the Chinese.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Granted more were available but the ranging of one battleship means including the fleet of ships around that ship. The pacific is a big ol' bathtub granted but, making that many targets for mines and submarines seems cringeworthy. I know, off topic. I cannot see so many 'fleets' being deployed in the region of one Yamato class ship.

Especially when we consider the huge number of carriers and their aircraft which in the end, did the deed, which makes the question why would they deploy the big guns in that concerntration when they do not need to?

Aside from the fact that the US was using fast battleships as carrier escorts, leaving the Standards to mob up?

 

[drwells42]

Intelligence via aerial photos ain't that accurare hence in every document the USN and RN listed the Yamato with 16" guns. It is the same that in the 1950's the USN thought the Soviets were building battleships the K-1000's.

Hi Tzoli.

Did the USN and RN actually believe the K-1000 hoax? I know for sure that Jane's Fighting Ships did, as did several magazines, but I haven't seen any USN or RN documents that suggest that they believe it.

I have at least one magazine article (Popular Mechanics, July 1950) showing a ship that looks like a cross between Project 23 and K-1000. To the best of my knowledge, the USN never even remotely considered a Montana revival in response, and around 1950, the RN's Lion project breathed its last. Curiously enough, 1950 is the same year that the Soviet Project 24 died.

As for the 18" guns on the Yamato, my theory is that some people in the USN believed that they had 18" guns, and others didn't. In the end, it didn't matter much, as the USN didn't change tactics or construction plans.

I'll drive the Yamatoholics a bit crazy: the one time that the Yamato was involved in a surface action, she was chased away by a spread of torpedoes from the USS Heerman (DD-532) a Fletcher-class destroyer. Moral of this story: real battles don't always behave like simulations. It's not that simple, and there are often unforseen circumstances.

I did a wargame once that involved the Yamato, Nagato, Haruna and Kongo vs. several older USN battleships and a few newer ones. I can't remember the exact results, but I do recall it did not go as expected.

DRW

 

[Tzoli]

As cold war ain't my specialty I don't have documents how well the USN believed the K-1000 but knowing the secretive nature of the Soviet Union towards western Imperalist powers and knowing how the RN was afraid of the Sverdlovs, it isn't unlikely they believed it strongly.

But consider this:
The Germans build the Deutschland class big gun cruisers, the other navies start to design similar ships, (RN, MN, RM) the ONI reports either:
1. willingly, (to persuade the politicians to encourage a naval building programme)
2. erroneously, (not accurate info was gained due to Japan's secrecy)
3. misinformation from the IJN (Possible but not read anything from the Japanese side on the Chichibu "hoax")
4. all the above (most likely)
that the Japanese were building 2-3 Deutschland like big gun cruisers with 30,5cm guns, the Chichibu class.
The USN actively starts to design the Alaska class Battlecruisers/Large Cruisers to counter these warships.
The IJN got hold of information about the Alaska design process and construction so they design their own counter to them, the B-65 with first 3x3 31cm later with more info about the Alaskas 3x2 35,6cm cannons.
The Soviets design their own Alaska counter the battlecruiser/large cruiser of the Stalingrad class.

 

[csatahajos]

Hi all!

I've had several times the intention to post into this topic, but time is really now. So as many of you might be aware I'm running a 3 part article on the Montana class over at warshipprojects.com , with the 3rd part lagging behind a lot, exactly to investigate some open questions.
I've been kindly provided by some very nice research material, thanks to Chris Wright and Bill Jurens, but there still are some open questions, like the bridge configurations, at least regarding the fleet flagship variant for hull BB-69. There are fairly detailed weight info for both force flagship and fleet flagship variants and it is safe to say the latter would have had a larger CT , just like BB-57 and BB-61, but not necessarily in the same form (an additional level added in below) as that would not suit the existing official Navy models and final (though not contract) plans. So this is one fairly difficult part.

The other hazy part in the story are the fast designs and their sub-variants (BB-65Y 1-3 and BB-65-8 A-D) which are almost casually mentioned by both Friedman and Dulin&Garzke. As you might know the relevant Spring Styles books are most probably destroyed and Norman (Friedman) told me he only has copies of what is already in his books (generally only the BB-55 prelims). So our only hope once Chris gets back to NARA is that Montana class files would reveal some more info. The issue with this is these were recently declassified only (not 'cos they were so secret but probably they were stored with other files that were indeed containing sensitive info, and neither the Navy nor NARA had the manpower to sort these out).
I've also heard that there might be a revised book coming out from D&G, but only for the Axis and Allied BBs, not the US ones...but maybe. Their original book has so many inaccuracies or better said conflicting info that I'm not sure this would be in the focus anyway.

Finally I see a lot of back-and-forth arguments on the 16" vs 18" guns question. I think I've covered this pretty well already in the first two parts of my Montana class genesis article, but in short, the 18" gun was considered several times during various parts of the development cycle and at least once it was serious. The arguments listed here in the topic are all valid (or partly so) but there was one factor which rarely gets mentioned and judging from General Board correspondence files it mattered the most: the design and production times. The Mark 7 16"/50, together with it's mount were already available and in production, ready to go. While funding was secured for the Mark 4 test gun to be converted back from it's 16"/56 incarnation to the Mk A 18"/47 and was actually done, it was a bit late already and a production version was not even in sight (at least we don't have info on it). Also Captain Chantry, who was instrumental in shaping the class' development was in favour of the heavier gun and he quite correctly suspected that the enemy would up it's caliber as well. However it was already pretty difficult to provide aducate protection vs. the existing gun and shell and it is highly doubtful if they would have allowed again the gun part of the new design to outgrow the protection (as it was with all three fast BB classes), especially not in a design who's main point was to up the protection to the level of it's guns.
There were other, stonger political forces in play too, the President and Adm. King. The former was pro for the big BBs to a points but the latter was sort of an avid opponent of the whole 'classic' or 'heavy' battleship concept during the whole of the project (already when he was part of General Board before his promiton to CINCLANT and COMINCH).
So I feel there were a lot of outside factors in play outside of pure technical questions against the bigger gun at several points.

 

[drwells42]

Nothing remarkably new here, just a black & white version of the May 1941 plans we've seen previously. I think that these are easier to read.

As nearly as I can tell, the USN continued to tinker with the design at least until 1942, and possibly into 1943, but if any later drawings still exist, I haven't seen them.

DRW

 

[Creative]

Source from the USS Kidd Veterans Museum https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=876297587839445&set=pb.100063776340572.-2207520000&type=3 Model of Montana class Battleship USS Louisiana BB-71. It appears to be the same model as this https://www.history.navy.mil/our-co...tleships/montana-class-bb-67-71/NH-44529.html