If Sag-C = Baltimore, WWII cruisers as HH analog discussion.

Henry Brown wrote:But the converse of this is, the battleship has even less defense against guided missiles. While they might withstand one or two hits, I am less sure if they could keep taking multiple hits from guided missiles. Keep in mind modern missiles often use shaped charges in the warheads, so in some ways they are more dangerous than WWII era heavy naval guns.

This depends greatly on the type of missile she is hit by. Neither Harpoon nor Exocet is going to do more damage than a 5" HE round would. The much larger Russian and Chinese ASMs would do much more damage, but like the smaller Harpoon or Exocet the warheads are "blast" type, not shaped to my knowledge. At around 750kg to 1200kg warhead weight in a missile as large as a lot of fighter planes this is more than sufficient against modern warship designs.

Oddly, the smaller anti-TANK missiles are better able to handle the heavy deck, side and turret armor of a BB. But while the larger missile would do a large amount of damage to superstructure and such, a jet of molten metal coming in through the side of a turret would likely trigger a turret explosion and possibly magazine explosion. Remember the Iowa turret explosion? Had that explosion traveled down the ammo hoists to the handling flats below the turret gunhouse, we might today be laying wreaths on the ocean surface where Iowa blew up in a blast similar to the one that claimed Arizona.

But even if they can withstand the hits and keep coming, I don't think the treaty battleships are fast enough to ever get in range of a guided missile cruiser. If memory serves me, the top speed of the North Carolina and South Dakota class ships was somewhere between 26 and 28 knots. Pretty sure all modern missile cruisers can do in excess of 30 knots, so I don't see how the battleships could ever catch up.

The Iowa class battleships could do 33 knots, so there is a chance that they might be able to catch a guided missile cruiser. However, the original post specified treaty battleships. And the Iowas are not treaty battleships.

Fast note, neither the North Carolina class nor the South Dakota class can be considered "treaty" battleships. Both classes were put into service with 16" rifles as main armament, the treaty limit was 14". The NC originally was designed with 12 - 14" but the design was modified during construction to 9 - 16"/45 cal weapons. The SD class was designed from the start with 16"/45 cal main armament.

robert132 wrote:Fast note, neither the North Carolina class nor the South Dakota class can be considered "treaty" battleships. Both classes were put into service with 16" rifles as main armament, the treaty limit was 14". The NC originally was designed with 12 - 14" but the design was modified during construction to 9 - 16"/45 cal weapons. The SD class was designed from the start with 16"/45 cal main armament.

I am aware of the gun size and the design process of the North Carolina. In fact I live about 3 hours from Wilmington NC and have been lucky enough to tour the North Carolina multiple times over the years.

But if I remember correctly there was an "escalator clause" in those naval treaties which allowed guns larger than 14 inches to be put on ships if it was found that other nations were not following it. Since Japan was already breaking the treaty, the NC and South Dakota classes were technically in compliance. And issues of gun size aside, both the NC and SD classes were designed to comply with the 35,000 ton treaty limit.

The Iowas were 45,000 ton ships. But much of the extra 10,000 tons were devoted to speed. Other than the fact that the main gun barrels are slightly longer (16"/50), they don't carry any extra firepower. And I don't think the Iowas had much thicker armor than the South Dakotas (though it was thicker than the NC class).

robert132 wrote:

Theemile wrote:
HUH - Missile launchers? on WWII Baltimore, Brooklyn and Cleveland classes?

Also the Brooklyn was ~25% larger than the CL, being 14,000-17,000 tons, with the CLs being 11,000-14,000 tons, with a good portion of that being increased armor.

While the number of 6" rifles is larger in the case of Brooklyn vs Cleveland the standard displacement of the two classes is very similar, 9,700 tons for Brooklyn vs 10,000 tons for Cleveland.

At 610' x 61'4" the Cleveland measured just a bit larger than Brooklyn at 608' x 61'9".

Both ship's powerplants were rated at 100k HP and the ship's CLAIMED top speed was the USN standard 32.5 knots. I say "claimed" because even today the top speed of any particular ship or ship class is classified.

The Iowa class BB was rated at (you guessed it) 32.5 knots even though it's acknowledged that all four ships exceeded 35 knots in builder's trials and I've heard it said by reputable sources that during her Vietnam commission New Jersey was able to stay with Enterprise (CVAN-65) in a long distance high speed run that saw both ships run their escorts over the horizon. Even during her last underway training cruise just before inactivation Enterprise was still able to muster enough speed to outrun all of her gas turbine powered escorts.

In both cases (Brooklyn and Cleveland) the stats are from NAVSOURCE.

whoops, I meant the Baltimore CAs were 25-30% larger than the CL classes. The wartime CLs were very similar in size to each other throughout the war, despite changes in the primary armament.

robert132 wrote:

Henry Brown wrote:But the converse of this is, the battleship has even less defense against guided missiles. While they might withstand one or two hits, I am less sure if they could keep taking multiple hits from guided missiles. Keep in mind modern missiles often use shaped charges in the warheads, so in some ways they are more dangerous than WWII era heavy naval guns.

This depends greatly on the type of missile she is hit by. Neither Harpoon nor Exocet is going to do more damage than a 5" HE round would. The much larger Russian and Chinese ASMs would do much more damage, but like the smaller Harpoon or Exocet the warheads are "blast" type, not shaped to my knowledge. At around 750kg to 1200kg warhead weight in a missile as large as a lot of fighter planes this is more than sufficient against modern warship designs.

Oddly, the smaller anti-TANK missiles are better able to handle the heavy deck, side and turret armor of a BB. But while the larger missile would do a large amount of damage to superstructure and such, a jet of molten metal coming in through the side of a turret would likely trigger a turret explosion and possibly magazine explosion. Remember the Iowa turret explosion? Had that explosion traveled down the ammo hoists to the handling flats below the turret gunhouse, we might today be laying wreaths on the ocean surface where Iowa blew up in a blast similar to the one that claimed Arizona.

[quote]Maybe, maybe not. While shaped charges and Explosively formed Projectiles stand a better chance of penetrating the armor of a BB than blast charges, there is the problem of they were designed with the armor a tank can carry and the fact that a tank is basically one room inside that armor. Depending on the ship and where the armor is, you could be talking anywhere from 3 inches to as much as a foot and a half of hardened steel to penetrate. Three inches likely can be penetrated, not sure an RPG7 for example would penetrate 18 inches of face hardened steel.

The potential of turret explosions was known when the ships were designed so procedures and hatches were designed to prevent turret explosions from becoming magazine explosions; What was wrong with Beatty's Battle Cruisers at Jutland was that in pursuit of faster firing those blast doors were bypassed and safety procedure were ignored.

There is also the possibility that the fact that in many places there is a deck or two above the main armored deck and a row of compartments between the main belt at the outside of the hull that could act as a Whipple Shield preventing damage to critical components.

Henry Brown wrote:The more I think about this, I am not sure that comparing the Sag-C to the Baltimore or Des Moines class is valid. Because the Sag-C has MDM's while Sollie SD's only have single drive missiles. Because of this, the Sag-C has a range advantage and can actually engage and destroy capital ships.

I think the Baltimore and especially the Des Moines class ships are some of the best heavy cruisers of the all-gun era. They could have taken on ships of a comparable size/class with an excellent chance of success. But there is little to no chance that either class could have taken on a full size battleship of the same era and won. Which is basically what a Sag-C can do with any non-pod laying SD.

Though if you want to think of the pre-pod SD as something like a Lord Nelson-class pre-dreadnought then a Des Moines class seems to have an excellent chance unless they screw up and get surprised at very close range.

Though that's cheating because the Des Moines is about the same displacement (being much longer and slightly narrower) as the ~40 year older battleship. But it's got a massive speed advantage (33 vs 18 knots) and its 9 autoloading 8" guns have longer range (30,000 yards) than either the 4 12" guns (22,860 yards) or 10 9.2" guns (‎29,200 yards[1]) of the Lord Nelson. Not to mention radar spotting to feed back into a fire control computer vs pre-director individual mount aiming on obsolete pre-dread.

The pre-dread's main belt and barbettes might withstand the much newer armor piercing 8" rounds, but at long range they'd be falling onto deck armor, where pre-dread were almost hopeless. And even if the armor kept out all the shells the rain of 8" rounds would destroy the superstructure and anything outside the most armored areas.

Heck, in ideal conditions I'd give a Des Moines a reasonable chance of at least crippling and leaving behind any WWI battlecruiser or battleship; including the 25 knot Queen Elizabeth class superdreadnoughts. (Their 15" guns theoretically outranged the 8" on the Des Moines; by about 3,000 yards; but I don't think their unmodified turrets had enough barrel elevation to reach that. And the chances of actually landing a hit at that range, in a high speed gun duel, are remote at best given their minimal fire control)

This isn't the over 4x range advantage a Sag-C has over an SDM equipped SD - but it's enough, used well, to beat up on tougher ships that just don't have the same fire control as a late/post WWII USN CA.

[1] That range number was for that gun in a coast artillery mount, I don't know if the turrets the Lord Nelson carried her 9.2" guns in had enough elevation to reach that range.

Henry Brown wrote:I am aware of the gun size and the design process of the North Carolina. In fact I live about 3 hours from Wilmington NC and have been lucky enough to tour the North Carolina multiple times over the years.

But if I remember correctly there was an "escalator clause" in those naval treaties which allowed guns larger than 14 inches to be put on ships if it was found that other nations were not following it. Since Japan was already breaking the treaty, the NC and South Dakota classes were technically in compliance. And issues of gun size aside, both the NC and SD classes were designed to comply with the 35,000 ton treaty limit.

Very true Henry. Both classes were intended to remain within the 35k ton restriction of the treaty because there was hope that it could be resurrected from the dead like Lazarus. My reply was incomplete because I was running late for an appointment, I'm glad you caught it.

The NC class was armored to stand up to the 14" weapons she was originally intended to mount, when the change was made to the 16"/45 she became the first post Dreadnought class USN battleship to not meet the standard of being able to stand up to her own main armament.

The SD class was armored to stand up to the 16"/45 caliber rifles both classes mount, and the class was intended from the start to mount those rifles.

The Iowa class was designed in recognition of the fact that the Washington Battleship Treaty was dead, buried and rotting away. As you point out their armoring scheme is very similar to the South Dakota class's, even a bit lighter in places to keep her a "trim" 45,000 tons full load displacement. That almost destroyer like long, fine hull is the true secret of her speed. Combine that beautiful hull with the 212k hp her plant produced and you had a 45,000 ton speedboat.

The Iowas were 45,000 ton ships. But much of the extra 10,000 tons were devoted to speed. Other than the fact that the main gun barrels are slightly longer (16"/50), they don't carry any extra firepower. And I don't think the Iowas had much thicker armor than the South Dakotas (though it was thicker than the NC class).

Very true Henry. Interestingly, the Iowa class was only the 2nd battleship class built that was not armored to stand up to her own main armament and that became true only after the introduction of the 2,700 lb "super-heavy" Armor Piercing round for the MK-7 16"/50. The standard AP round for both the MK-6 (NC and SD) and MK-7 16" (Iowa and Montana)weighed in at around 2,300 lbs.

I don't know if you've made it up this way to Norfolk, but we have the Wisconsin downtown if you'd care to visit. Her internal tour isn't as extensive as North Carolina's but the museum is still working on that and they hope to have most of the ship open for tours before too much longer.

Castenea wrote:

robert132 wrote:This depends greatly on the type of missile she is hit by. Neither Harpoon nor Exocet is going to do more damage than a 5" HE round would. The much larger Russian and Chinese ASMs would do much more damage, but like the smaller Harpoon or Exocet the warheads are "blast" type, not shaped to my knowledge. At around 750kg to 1200kg warhead weight in a missile as large as a lot of fighter planes this is more than sufficient against modern warship designs.

Oddly, the smaller anti-TANK missiles are better able to handle the heavy deck, side and turret armor of a BB. But while the larger missile would do a large amount of damage to superstructure and such, a jet of molten metal coming in through the side of a turret would likely trigger a turret explosion and possibly magazine explosion. Remember the Iowa turret explosion? Had that explosion traveled down the ammo hoists to the handling flats below the turret gunhouse, we might today be laying wreaths on the ocean surface where Iowa blew up in a blast similar to the one that claimed Arizona.

Maybe, maybe not. While shaped charges and Explosively formed Projectiles stand a better chance of penetrating the armor of a BB than blast charges, there is the problem of they were designed with the armor a tank can carry and the fact that a tank is basically one room inside that armor. Depending on the ship and where the armor is, you could be talking anywhere from 3 inches to as much as a foot and a half of hardened steel to penetrate. Three inches likely can be penetrated, not sure an RPG7 for example would penetrate 18 inches of face hardened steel.

Very true, an RPG-7 (most common Russian RPG out there) was intended for use against what we class as a light armored vehicle today, something like the old M-113 or today's Bradley fighting vehicle. But it has proven capable of defeating the side armor of a variety of tanks and even crippling the M-1 Abrams with a "golden BB" shot.

However, heavier AT rockets and missiles like Maverick and heavier can defeat the front armor glacis plating of many MBTs, some of those rate in the neighborhood of 12 to 16 inches of hardened steel. Battleship turret faces were in many cases between 12" to 18" with the turret roof nearly as thick but the sides, and back were much, much thinner.

The potential of turret explosions was known when the ships were designed so procedures and hatches were designed to prevent turret explosions from becoming magazine explosions; What was wrong with Beatty's Battle Cruisers at Jutland was that in pursuit of faster firing those blast doors were bypassed and safety procedure were ignored.

Yup, and it was the fact that the turret crew followed procedures that kept the fire and explosion from traveling down into the magazine areas around the turret casement. I had a kid come to work for me shortly before that explosion who had served in that turret crew, he explained the workings of the Iowa's hoists and "flash" doors. He lost a lot of friends that day.

There is also the possibility that the fact that in many places there is a deck or two above the main armored deck and a row of compartments between the main belt at the outside of the hull that could act as a Whipple Shield preventing damage to critical components.

Yep, you see this in both the North Carolina and South Dakota class museum ships.

robert132 wrote:
I don't know if you've made it up this way to Norfolk, but we have the Wisconsin downtown if you'd care to visit. Her internal tour isn't as extensive as North Carolina's but the museum is still working on that and they hope to have most of the ship open for tours before too much longer.

Funny you should mention that. I was up that way 2 weeks ago. It was a combination trip of catching up with an old friend from high school/college and of seeing the band Nightwish at the Norva in Norfolk. But I also managed to find time to tour the Wisconsin. And went over to the Mariner's Museum and saw the parts of the Monitor that have been salvaged.

Something to ponder in discussions about duels, is that most modern ships carry torpedo capable helicopters. Using radar a helicopter should be able to safely get into effective range of a BB on a dark night. Sure they aren't the super heavy back breaker torpedoes that hunter killer subs carry, but would still be unpleasant. Ask the Bismark about biplanes carrying torpedoes.

Daryl wrote:Something to ponder in discussions about duels, is that most modern ships carry torpedo capable helicopters. Using radar a helicopter should be able to safely get into effective range of a BB on a dark night. Sure they aren't the super heavy back breaker torpedoes that hunter killer subs carry, but would still be unpleasant. Ask the Bismark about biplanes carrying torpedoes.

I’m not actually sure if any of those torpedoes have an anti-surface ship mode. They’re all, AFAIK, designed for sub hunting and they're probably programmed to avoid engaging surface ships so you can safely drop them on subs near your convey, battle group, etc.

Given that they’d be fairly ineffective at sinking ships (small warheads optimized to poke holes in subs) the designers may have hardwired the surface target lockout so operator error can’t lead to accidentally damaging a friendly ship.


But if you were allowed to play mix and match on what the ship carries, an anti-tank attach chopper could probably pick off turrets or fire control directors with laser guided anti-tank missiles. Couldn’t sink the target, but could cripple its effectiveness.