A talk with a World of Warships fanboi

[cowboy40]

I was having a conversation with some people who like to play World of Warships, and wow, all the misconceptions they have about naval warfare and even the ships they play in the game. One they really talk about and have the wrong ideas about is the USN’s Montana class. IT’s funny though, because these misconceptions have been around for years before that game was dreamed up. The three biggest are as follows:

No. 1 - The Montana was designed ignoring the limits imposed by the Panama Canal.

This isn’t so! The design of Montana and her sisters actually was a sister project. The other part of the plan was to build a third set of locks in the canal. That could have handled ships up to 140 feet wide and 1,100 feet long. The new locks were scheduled for completion at around the same time that USS Montana was expected to be commissioned. In 1938, when the plans were drawn up for both the Montana class battle wagons, and the Canal project, the USN was more worried about the ships being able to pass under the Brooklyn Bridge in New York Harbor. So No, Montana did not ignore the Canal. The fact is World War II diverted the materials for the Canal project, but even after the war, the plans were picked back up…The USS Forrestal and her sisters were actually designed to use the new locks if they had been completed.

No. 2 – The Montana was an enlargement of the Iowa class battleships.

This is so far from the truth. The Montana actually has more in common with the North Carolina and South Dakota II class battleships. Montana was designed using the old principles of having the armor placed outside the main hull, like in the other battleships. She was designed as a replacement for some of the older “standard” battleships, so she was built to stand the line, and the USN wasn’t sure how well the new principles being designed into the Iowa would have held up, so they ran back to mama and the older ways of design and construction. The plans for these ships to be part of a modern “line of battle” is what dictated this. Yes, some of the engineering principles used with the Iowa was used in the layout of the ships engine rooms, but this was more just a matter of technical development throughout the USN.

Just a note on the Iowa. Yes she could stand the line, but in reality she was designed from the start to be part of the then Scouting Force, not the Battle Force. Iowa was actually designed around the principle of the fast battleship. So she was actually a very radical departure from the rest of the battle line. She was designed from the start to be able to maintain pace with the carriers of the scouting force. At the time the Iowa class was designed, most of the carriers were thought of as a means to find the enemy, get a strike in on them before the battle line arrived and fall back while the battle wagons had the gun duel. Iowa took everything into account to gain speed. To keep her streamlined the armor was placed inside the main hull, higher pressure boilers, longer/narrow profile hull, and again she traded some armor weight for speed. Montana class, on the other hand, was designed to the older profiles of the North Carolina class. Exterior armor, Long/wide hull profile, and they traded the speed for protection.

No. 3 – The Montana class was designed as a counter to the Yamato class of the IJN.

Again NO! At the time the USN started work on the Montana, they had no idea of what a monster the Yamato and her planned sisters were going to be. They actually thought they were going to be 35,000 ton ships, even though they were getting reports that challenged these thoughts, and that the Yamato was only going to carry 16.1 guns. The USN didn’t finally find out what monsters they were until they were fighting them in World War II. So, this often leads to the question of why the Montana was so big at 60,500 tons if she wasn’t designed to fight Yamato class warships. Simple answer is. Montana was designed to withstand hits from her own 16 in/50 guns at the planned battle ranges. Her immune zone was designed to shrug off 16 inch 2700 lb rounds at 12 miles. This is what gave her the massive size. It called for large amounts of armor, which called for bigger hull, and if they had tried to make her as fast as Iowa, that would have called for larger engines then what was planned and so on.

Now I think if Yamato and Montana had meet in battle, it would have been close, but I think Montana would win. I say this because her twelve 16in/50 cal guns could put more waight in the broadside. By the time Yamato could put two salvos down range the Montana, in theory can get three salvos down range. As Montana was protected from her own size guns, the Yamato only had protection from 16 inch gunfire, and not her own 18.1 inch guns. Montana would have had better firing control based around a good ballistics radar and good optical sights, while Yamato had excellent optical fire control, her radars lacked. In the end I think the Montana would have gotten hits first and more of them. That of course is just my opinion. I think the Montana was a better balanced design then the monsters of the Yamato type.

That is just some thoughts that came out of a conversation the other day….

[cowboy40]

What are your thoughts on the Montana and/or Iowa classes...you can even talk about Yamato class..lol

[starcruiser]

Per Combined Fleet the Iowas would probably have won (albeit, with more damage) against a Yamato. The speed advantage, the superior fire control (yes, ballistic computers, radar etc.) and adequate armor would have combined with the good performance of the faster firing 16 inch rifles and disabled the Yamato's ability to fight effectively in fairly short order.

After that, just clean up the mess and move on. Any Iowa that engaged a Yamato would probably have to go in for major repairs afterwards but still...?

The Montana? Would probably have been hit a bit more often, larger and slower target after all but, 12x 16 inch rifles? Same type of fire control? Holy crapola, the Yamato would be in trouble fast.

Oh - and WoW fanbois need to remember to take EVERYTHING from that game with a bucket of salt over the shoulder. Just like World of Tanks, it's a arcade game, not a simulation of actual combat.

[cowboy40]

Jul 14, 2018 18:03:07 GMT -7 starcruiser said:

Per Combined Fleet the Iowas would probably have won (albeit, with more damage) against a Yamato. The speed advantage, the superior fire control (yes, ballistic computers, radar etc.) and adequate armor would have combined with the good performance of the faster firing 16 inch rifles and disabled the Yamato's ability to fight effectively in fairly short order.

After that, just clean up the mess and move on. Any Iowa that engaged a Yamato would probably have to go in for major repairs afterwards but still...?

The Montana? Would probably have been hit a bit more often, larger and slower target after all but, 12x 16 inch rifles? Same type of fire control? Holy crapola, the Yamato would be in trouble fast.

Oh - and WoW fanbois need to remember to take EVERYTHING from that game with a bucket of salt over the shoulder. Just like World of Tanks, it's a arcade game, not a simulation of actual combat.

Well you also have to remember that even though the Montana is bigger and slower then the Iowa, she has more armor; that would compensate for the slower speeds.

Where Montana would have the advantage is in in gunnery. Those twelve rifles fired shells that had better ballistics then the heavier Japanese 18.1 inch shells. Montana could put more of them down range faster then Yamato, while at the same time using ballistic computers working off tracking the rounds as they go out and mixing that with both radar and optical range finding. There is no doubt in my mind that the American systems would work better.

I know i am going to sound like i am playing off to an American ego here, but I think if the Montana would have been built, She would have been the better balanced in comparison to the Japanese monster. In opinion, the Montana would have probably been the best battleship design in the afloat.

[starcruiser]

Well - the armor issue is not as simple as it seems. First thing - NO Battleship can have the heaviest armor everywhere. There will always be areas of vulnerability in any design.

The Montana's were well thought out and used an updated version of the 'all or nothing' armor system developed before World War 1 (Nevada class being the first to use it). Despite that focus on the flotation raft and vitals, there could only be so much protection for the optical fire control directors and essentially none whatsoever on the radar (since the radar wouldn't work if covered up). This means that if the Yamato got lucky and hit such a critical system, the Montana would be fighting at a disadvantage (relatively speaking). The superior speed of the Iowa class, and it's smaller size, would have reduced the chance of a hit.

You also have to remember that the faster ship gets to decide if the engagement is even going to happen, and how it happens. Yamato would only be able to run if it got a lucky hit that affected an Iowa's speed enough to allow that option. An Iowa could also hold off the engagement until dusk, when it's radar is still able to provide effective fire control, and the Yamato is almost blind...

Anyway you look at it though - the Montana class would have been an impressive sight and unless the -stupidly- big super-battleships Germany and Japan had on the boards had been built, would probably have ruled the seas with impunity.

[cowboy40]

Actually all those huge stupid ships...would remain only on paper.....they were very far out side the industrial capability of either Japan or Germany...

As for Japan...Yamato was really pushing her industrial ability. Just look at the fact that Japan completed only two battleships after the London Treaty broke down. While on the other side of the Pacific, the US actually completed 10 of the 17 battleships it put orders for. Japan would have been better off not building Yamato and her sisters....They had plans for four..laid down three and completed two as battleships and one as a carrier. Yamato was a waste of resources that would have better been spent on more carriers or smaller battleships.

Not even the US could have really built a ship much larger then Montana without having to face cutting back on other projects..

[cowboy40]

Both the Montana and the Yamato were handsome designs. the USS Montana class just have that look of power and prestige that a battleship should have. Thee "artist" impressions show just how beautiful and banlanced the ships were in design. You can't deny they would have made great show the flag sips...and I think you can see the balance that would have made them the dominant force on the seas.

[cowboy40]

When you look at the Yamato class...well you see a handsome ship, but there are features in the design that just don't look right and throw off the balance of the ships in appeariance...For instance the sway of deep in forward deck leading to the bow...this always seems to look like a weakness in construction, though it wasn't...but it throws off the appearance to the ships some how...





.

[starcruiser]

Not getting any arguments here!

Most of the last generation of Battleships were handsome and powerful looking ships.

The least "handsome" would probably be the Richelieu class of the French Navy:



The all-guns-forward look (similar to the Nelson class) just makes the ship look unbalanced. Add the rather ugly mack and superstructure on top and gag...

Compare that to the German Bismarck:



Similar armament, a little heavier (and more heavily armored) about the same speed and MUCH better balanced.

[cowboy40]

Yes Bismark and Tirpitz....wonderful warships....nice looking battle wagons that took the lessons learned from World War I by the Germans, who built another well balanced ship. They were probably the best balanced battleships in 1941.

As for Nelson and similar ships, they put to many eggs in one basket, and this was taken out to far by the French with the design of Richelieu class. those guns were just grouped to close together. I think that was a bad mistake in design principles.

[cowboy40]

Another factor i think we need to consider along the the lines of fire control used by the USN and the IJN, is also the firing practices used.

The Japanese used a method of firing full broadside salvos, trying to concentrate on patterns with as little dispersion as possible, To accomplish this the IJN designed the guns to fire in salvo with each other in a delayed method with each gun firing just around 40 to 80 milliseconds from each other. This lowered blast interference on each preceding round in the salvo. This meant they put a lot of weight down range, but at the same time it also meant the possibility of only one or two rounds landing on the target while they were trying to straddle the target. This also lead to a less accurate fire then what you would find on their opponents approach. This also led to time pacing between salvos...usually around 30 seconds on 16 in and 14 inch guns, while the 18 inch weapons actually had a 45 second firing cycle. 45 seconds is an eternity in combat.

The USN followed a different tactic. Instead of firing full salvos, the USN split them among the battery. On ships with triple turrets That meant each turret would fire a round, and while the gun was gong bock to battery another gun would be firing and then the third, and by the time the no. 3 guns were firing, No. 1 was ready to fire again. This type of fire was introduced on the New Mexico class. (This meant the older battleships of the Arkansas, Texas, Nevada, and Pennsylvania types used a similar method of broadside salvo to the British). The later method deployed by the USN kept a constant corrected fire going down range. This also lead to more hits being scored.

In the end this would give Iowa and Montana classes an even better advantage in battle.

[cowboy40]

For those who are interested in this subject here is just a partial list of the books that i consulted from my collection. I have several more that I looked at, but these are the main ones that i have pulled the material for this subject from.

Campbell, J. (1985). Naval Weapons of World War Two. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press.

Friedman, N. (1985). U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press.

Garske, Jr., W. H., & Dulin, Jr., R. O. (1995). Battleships: United States Battleships, 1935-1992. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press.

Jentschura, H., Jung, D., & Mickel, P. (1986). Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869-1945. (A. Preston, Trans.) Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press.

Jordan, J. (1985). An Illustrated Guide to Battleships and Battlecruisers. London: Salamander Books Limited.

Silverstone, P. H. (1989). US Warhips of World War 2. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press.

Terzibashitsh, S. (1977). Battleships of the U.S. Navy in World War II. (H. O. Vetters, & R. Cox, Trans.) London: Brassey's Publishers, Ltd.

============
Now John Jordan's book i have listed isn't no where the technical texts that the other books on this list are, but i listed it here, because it has some of the best photographs and color line drawings you can find on this subject.

[krebizfan]

Bismarck had a number of major flaws:

Three screws paired with a single rudder resulted in a loss of steering after very light damage.
The hydraulic lines ran outside the main armor. A single hit from a destroyer could prevent the turrets from turning.

[cowboy40]

Another factor, to look out here, is the level of damage control the USN built into the designs of the Montana. The TDS was three levels deep. two liquid filled on the outside of the bulges and one air filled on the inner. Sub-division of the ships was incredible. Her magazines were designed to be rapidly flooded and all the sub-division was designed to be used for precise counter-flooding. The USN put every thing it had learned, or even theorized, in damage control measures into the Montana design. These measures including using the unit principle for propulsion with each engine and boiler room in its own little armored box in the design.

You can probably say the Americans became obsessed with survivablity in the Montana design!!!

[starcruiser]

Jul 16, 2018 20:00:27 GMT -7 krebizfan said:

Bismarck had a number of major flaws:

Three screws paired with a single rudder resulted in a loss of steering after very light damage.
The hydraulic lines ran outside the main armor. A single hit from a destroyer could prevent the turrets from turning.

The triple screw thing seemed to be a German obsession. Most major German surface ships used 3 screws instead of 2 or 4... The single rudder was a definite problem but, wasn't that unusual.

I have NO idea what they were thinking when it came to the hydraulic lines...

[cowboy40]

now the single rudder wasn't that all uncommon on big warships. Most cruisers had just single rudders....even some destroyers had large single rudders.

Eventually though most navies would learn twin or three rudders would be the way to go

[rabid]

Dang cowboy you are a fount of vintage military knowledge!

I just wish they'd make a game that could fully encompass all aspects of combat, Air, sea and land.

THe problem is Air is so naturally OP vs tanks and ships, and ships are so OP vs land based, running around as an COD style infantry man wouldn't be much fun. There's just no way to scale them properly.

[starcruiser]

If you restrict it to WW1/2 era tech, ships can only reach so far and aircraft - while dangerous in WW2 terms, are not completely overpowering. Any such game, would have to avoid the "arcade" crap of World of Warships/World of Tanks/World of whatever...

Got to include a decent model for flight (bombing/strafing/torpedoes/dog fighting etc...) , ground actions (infantry/armor/arty/AAA etc...) sea combat (including AAA/fire support/submarines etc...) and so on and so forth. There aren't many game companies out there that want to try to dig in enough to do a good job of it.

Any REALLY good simulation would also have to include the effects of weather, day/night, logistics (after all, Generals talk tactics and strategy, Professionals talk logistics) and so on and so forth ad infinitum amen...

[cowboy40]

Matrix Games' hex based map games take in account for logistics (including convoyed supplies), ground combat, air combat, strength and weaknesses,...etc etc etc.

The problem is these games are based on thoughts of gaming war that was used in similar hard copy games like Axis and Allies series, or games like 7th Fleet or other games of the era.

These games break it down into numbers. Mathmatics, but these games also use a weather model.

The reason they aren't played by the people who play World of Warships, is because they don't have the fancy 3D models and arcade style graphics..Those people that aren't serious about the realism...don't like these games.

Check out games like War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific or War in the Pacific.....gives a good theater wide action that covers almost all aspects of things....

[starcruiser]

Yep - the "smart" games aren't flashy enough...

Remember the "Great Naval Battles (etc...)" series? Semi-flashy for the era and reasonably accurate in their depiction of combat but, didn't really go far enough at times and didn't get developed/updated enough.

[cowboy40]

USS Canberra (CAG-2 ex CA-70 and later again CA-70)

We were talking about logistics here. Here is an example of the USN's way of solving logistics at sea. When USS Boston and USS Canberra were modernized and converted to guided missile cruisers, the USN also took the steps of giving these ships a secondary role. This role was the use of screen flagship. and also having the role of being a replenishment ship to the other ships in the screen she was running with.

When the ships were rebuilt, part of the old 5 inch gun magazines were converted to carry extra torpedoes and ASROC missiles for transfer to the destroyers (DD/DDG) and frigates (DL/DLG) of the screen. These weapons were all based around ASW weapons. This was part of the USN move to counter the large fleet of Soviet submarines during the late 50's and 60's. This kept the task force from having to fall back off the patrol line and come into the Support Squadron area. Not only were extra ASW weapons carried on the ship, so was extra aviation fuel for use with the DASH copters aboard the destroyers. These ships, in wartime, would have kept the screen, and its HVU being escorted, out to sea for just a bit longer!!!

These same principles were applied to the rebuilt Albany, the new Long Beach and the converted CLG of the Cleveland class. It was also planed to give the Baltimore and Oregon City cruisers still in active service and reserve the same capability. Most of these weapons weren't to be used by the cruisers but were meant for transfer to other ships in the screen. When the USN retired these big cruisers, thay lost a wonderful means of quick replenishment....to the ASW force!!!

[starcruiser]

Yes - the old cruisers turned out to be very useful boats! The only thing against them was manpower requirements (which could be reduced with planning and upgrades) and their age - which caught up with them in the 70's and 80's...

[cowboy40]

i know 30 extra weapons or so doesn't sound like much, but I have gamed these old ships out on paper and well i can tell you it does give a task force that little extra that might be needed to finish a mission or so. It keeps that pressure on the enemy. It might allow the carrier to stay on station a week longer pounding ground targets. Along with the other weapons the 'big' cruisers carried three or four extra crated QH-50 DASH to replace losses.

The biggest advantage this gave, in my opinion, was a force multiplier.

I think the USN made a mistake not building any more "Big" cruisers after the completion of USS Long Beach (CGN-9). Yes they were expensive to man and operate, but they gave the fleet advantages that outweighed their costs in my opinion.

[cowboy40]

These folks who play World of Warships is at it again believing a lot of misinformation or miss-understood info. Case in point the introduction to USS Worcester in this review video. I find their lack of history or not even researching it, really bothers me.



In this video, the narrator, makes some claims that just aren't true about this class of ships. The one that really got my hackles up is the claim that these wonderful light cruisers were designed as a response to the Kamikaze attacks that were made during the Okinawa campaign. That is just not so. Point to fact, the lead ship, of this class, was laid down on January 29, 1945. This was several months even before the April 1, 1945 landings on Okinawa took place. The second ship of the class, USS Roanoke, was laid down on May, 15, 1945. Anyone, with any logic to their thought, would understand that means these ships were in design for a couple of years before construction could begin and New York Shipbuilding Co.

He mentions, these ships are hide to conceal. Yes he would be right, these ships were not meant to be used in a manner that would require concealment. These were meant to be the ultimate escort cruisers for task forces. Again this brings us to another point he makes in the intro. These ships were very optimized to use its main battery as duel purpose guns, with its fire control being mainly geared for AA use. He was right, they are. Therefore you don't want to hide from the attackers of the HVU you are protecting. He claims the ships are not as well geared toward a gun duel...right again, but this is by design. As far as that game goes, his tactical assessment really isn't far off, but I don't think he understands the real use of this ship, he complains how she can't go in and duke it out with other ships so well, but again she wasn't designed for that, Use her as an escort to the carriers, fellow.

He points out Korea, well the ship did well in the GFS (gun fire suppot) role. She was used on the gun line along the coast and she was used at Inchon where her heavy battery laid down a lot of fire. She did this just as good as the other allied cruisers, even though she didn't have the level of fire direction equipment for the role.

This brings us back to her fire control being optimized for the AA role. That fire control was geared toward knocking down heavy land based bombers, AKA B-17 Flying Fortress types. development of the main guns and the turrets started back in the late 1930's.

This ship was designed around a couple of flawed tactical thoughts. First, the design was developed to defeat high altitude attacks. It was proven at Midway that AA fire couldn't really engage effectively the B-17's from Midway and those bombers proved the second flaw that high altitude bombers just couldn't drop ordinance on maneuvering ships.

I think what bothers me, is his bullshit on the history of the design of the USS Worcester and USS Roanoke

[cowboy40]

Works to look at that help explain the Worcester class's history are:

Adcock, Al. U.S. Light Cruisers in Action. Vol. Warships in Action #12. Carrollton: Squadron/Signal Publications, Inc., 1999.

—. US Heavy Cruisers in Action Part 1. Vol. Warships in Action #14. Carrollton: Squadron/Signal Publications, Inc., 2001.

—. US Heavy Cruisers in Action Part 2. Vol. Warships in Action #15. Carrollton: Squadron/Signal Publications, Inc., 2001.

Blackman, Raymond V.B., ed. Jane's Fighting Ships, 1953-54. London: Sampson Low, 1953.

—. The World's Warships. Third and Completely Revised. London: Macdonals & Co, 1963.

—. The World's Warships. Fourth and Completely Revised. London: Macdonald & Co., 1969.

Campbell, John. Naval Weapons of World War Two. Annpolis: Naval Institute Press, 1985.

Chesneau, Roger, ed. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1922-1946. London: Conway Maritime Press, 1992.

Friedman, Norman. U.S. Cruisers, An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1989.

Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II. New York: Crescent Books, 1995.

Miller, David. The Illustrated Directory of Warships, 1860 to the Present. London: Salamander Books Ltd., 2004.

Silverstone, Paul H. The Navy of World War II, 1922-1947. New York: Rutledge, 2008.

—. US Warships of World War 2. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1989.

—. US Warships Since 1945. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1987.

Stille, Mark. US Heavy Cruisers, Pre-war classes. Vol. New Vanguard #210. New York: Osprey Publishing Ltd., 2014.

—. US Heavy Cruisers, Wartime and Post-war Classes. Vol. New Vanguard #214. New York: Osprey Publishing Ltd., 2014.

—. US Navy Light Crusiers 1941-45. Vol. New Vanguard #236. New York: Osprey Publishing Ltd., 2016.