Which fourth-generation dreadnought do you think looks best?

[MadBurgerMaker]

Came down to Bismark and Iowa for me.  Iowa has generally maintained her beauty, while Bismark is a rusting hulk on the bottom of the ocean.     Voted Iowa.

[Agelastus]

Having all big guns pointing towards the bow was a very aggressive design (true, Nelson class was similar in that aspect but Great Britain had 15 dreadnoughts while France had only 6!). Perhaps the French expected their main mission to be hunting German commerce raiders?

I think it had more to do with weight saving and maintaining a 30 knot top speed, since they had accepted 15" instead of 16" rifles. Don't forget that Richelieu was designed to adhere to the 35000 tonne Washington Treaty limit.

[The Brain]

i have a 15'' rifle

[Maladict]

I've always been rather partial to the KGVs. I guess Vanguard will do, though I find its lack of quads disturbing.
Yamato gets the honourable mention.

[Agelastus]

I've always been rather partial to the KGVs. I guess Vanguard will do, though I find its lack of quads disturbing.

I've always had a sneaking admiration for this particular "Never-Were". It's almost a shame the idea didn't occur to people seventy years ago.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/magnif_f.htm

[Neil]

Don't forget that Richelieu was designed to adhere to the 35000 tonne Washington Treaty limit.

Originally, although the treaty got abandoned somewhere along the way.  Like Littorio and King George V, Richelieu was a third-generation battleship at its heart that got modified and boosted up along the way.

[Agelastus]

Originally, although the treaty got abandoned somewhere along the way.  Like Littorio and King George V, Richelieu was a third-generation battleship at its heart that got modified and boosted up along the way.

That doesn't change the fact that the fundamental design decisions, such as turret placement, were made at a time when the 35000 tonne limit was being adhered to - yes, she bloated later, but then so did the KGVs and South Dakotas.

Littorio's more like a Bismarck, in my opinion - you know "Designer, here is the treaty tonnage - how much more do you need and think we can get away with?"

[grumbler]

I've always had a sneaking admiration for this particular "Never-Were". It's almost a shame the idea didn't occur to people seventy years ago.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/magnif_f.htm

The 14" guns were not nearly good enough to warrant wasting this much effort to get more of them to sea.  The Brits would have been better off cannibalizing Rodney and/or Nelson for 16" turrets.

[Agelastus]

The 14" guns were not nearly good enough to warrant wasting this much effort to get more of them to sea.  The Brits would have been better off cannibalizing Rodney and/or Nelson for 16" turrets.

That's an interesting question - would one 54000 tonne battleship be cheaper than the two 38000 tonne battleships it replaced in this alternate timeline, or would have replaced had it been thought of in OTL? [The guns were going to sea anyway, of course, in OTL.]

That's why I like it - the guns were going to sea anyway, and I'm a fan of "bigger is better". It's also a heck of a lot more reasonable than some of the other ships on that site!

[Neil]

I've always had a sneaking admiration for this particular "Never-Were". It's almost a shame the idea didn't occur to people seventy years ago.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/magnif_f.htm

The 14" guns were not nearly good enough to warrant wasting this much effort to get more of them to sea.  The Brits would have been better off cannibalizing Rodney and/or Nelson for 16" turrets.

On the other hand, they proved to be adequate for what little was asked of them.

[DontSayBanana]

Gotta say I'm actually not a fan of the aesthetics of the Yamato or the Bismarck. Both seem like jumbled piles of guns at weird oblique angles that would look more appropriate in a modern cartoon. Littorio's just downright gawky. Vanguard and Iowa run neck-and-neck in my book, so I think I'll give it to Iowa based on familiarity: http://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/

[grumbler]

On the other hand, they proved to be adequate for what little was asked of them.

Excluding the two times they were asked to do what they had been designed to do (attack a ship of similar size and capacity to their own) they failed miserably.  The first time, their buddy-ship died unavenged; the second, their buddy-ship carried the burden of putting down Bismarck pretty much unassisted.

In no action of which I am aware did a single 14" rifle successfully respond to every call for salvo.  Maybe there was a shore bombardment where that happened.

[Warspite]

Grumbler: were those two incidents down to the gun itself, or the systems of equipment and drill in which they were integrated?

[Neil]

On the other hand, they proved to be adequate for what little was asked of them.

Excluding the two times they were asked to do what they had been designed to do (attack a ship of similar size and capacity to their own) they failed miserably.  The first time, their buddy-ship died unavenged; the second, their buddy-ship carried the burden of putting down Bismarck pretty much unassisted.

You forgot about the third time, when the Duke of York destroyed the Scharnhorst.  Prince of Wales and KGV participated in their engagements, insofar as it was tactically sound to do so.

In no action of which I am aware did a single 14" rifle successfully respond to every call for salvo.  Maybe there was a shore bombardment where that happened.

Wasn't Prince of Wales' B turret the reliable one?  I thought that one operated well during the Denmark Strait engagement.

But yeah, the 14" gun did have some major flaws, although being a 14" gun wasn't one of them.  And the quad mounting exacerbated it.

[The Minsky Moment]

You forgot about the third time, when the Duke of York destroyed the Scharnhorst. 

Perhaps grumbler does not consider that of "similar size and capacity."