Which fourth-generation dreadnought do you think looks best?

[Neil]

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."

If he were to say that, then I would say that he can't have it both ways.  If 39,000-ton Scharnhorst was inferior to the 44,000-ton KGVs, then 51,000-ton Bismarck was superior to them, in which case the actions of the KGVs and the Bismarck are no longer a contest between equals.  Scharnhorst was armoured on a similar scale to Duke of York, and her 11" guns were extremely powerful for their size.

[Agelastus]

If he were to say that, then I would say that he can't have it both ways.  If 39,000-ton Scharnhorst was inferior to the 44,000-ton KGVs, then 51,000-ton Bismarck was superior to them, in which case the actions of the KGVs and the Bismarck are no longer a contest between equals.  Scharnhorst was armoured on a similar scale to Duke of York, and her 11" guns were extremely powerful for their size.

Is there a particular reason you prefer full load to standard displacement?

Not that it makes any difference for your point, of course.

[Admiral Yi]

Yamato looks the scariest. 

[Alatriste]

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!

My guess is, the 54,000 tons ship would have been more expensive that two 38,000, because building only one ship of a class is inherently more expensive, and due to the need to modify dry docks and other shore facilities.

[Neil]

If he were to say that, then I would say that he can't have it both ways.  If 39,000-ton Scharnhorst was inferior to the 44,000-ton KGVs, then 51,000-ton Bismarck was superior to them, in which case the actions of the KGVs and the Bismarck are no longer a contest between equals.  Scharnhorst was armoured on a similar scale to Duke of York, and her 11" guns were extremely powerful for their size.

Is there a particular reason you prefer full load to standard displacement?

Not that it makes any difference for your point, of course.

Full load is more reliable I find.  I remember hearing about all the things that would be done to get the 'standard' displacement as low as possible, in order to meet the treaty.

That, and I like larger numbers.

[Agelastus]

True.

I know that N3 and G3 were limited because of the size of Britain's infrastructure to around 49000 tonnes. The trouble is the guy who invented this never-were does not seem to have specified any dimensions, or better yet, simmed it with SpringSharp.

[CountDeMoney]

As much as I dearly love the Iowa, and the aesthetics of the Bismarck are pleasing, nothing says Battleship Baddassedness like the Yamato.

[grumbler]

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

The combination of gun, mounting, loading system, and turret.  All o0f these would have been present had the "extra" 14" turrets been used on some super-ship designed to cary four of them.been used to

[grumbler]

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.

I didn't "forget" about the third time, i excluded it through wording.  Bothy ships only particiapted insofar as it was "tactically sound" to do so (which is to say when there was an effective capital ship to occupy the enemy's fire).

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.

Twin 14" turrets were more reliable than quad turrets, though not reliable per se.  Every one of PoW's guns failed at least once in her engagement, as did every one of KGVs in hers, and every one of Duke of York's in hers.  It was a newly-designed gun with a newly-designed mounting in newly-designed turret, and none of those designs were produced by anyone as capable as the designers of the 16" gun, mounting, and turret on the Rodsons.

[Ideologue]

Yamato for a mistress, Iowa for a wife.

[grumbler]

If he were to say that, then I would say that he can't have it both ways.  If 39,000-ton Scharnhorst was inferior to the 44,000-ton KGVs, then 51,000-ton Bismarck was superior to them, in which case the actions of the KGVs and the Bismarck are no longer a contest between equals.  Scharnhorst was armoured on a similar scale to Duke of York, and her 11" guns were extremely powerful for their size.

Note that I said "size and capability."  Had I said "full-load tonnage" you would be correct.

Salvo weights for the three ships make the point clear:
Scharnhorst: 2970 kg
Bismarck: 6400 kg
KGV 7210 kg

"One of these things is not like the other things."

Armor penetration was along similar lines except at close ranges (where the Scharnhorst guns could punch above weight class).

So, you cannot have it both ways.  If ships' capabilities is only to be measured by tonnage, then your mention of armor is irrelevant.  If their capabilities are a mix of offensive and defensive measures, then Scharnhorst is nowhere near the equivalent of the King George V class, though the Bismarck is.

[grumbler]

My guess is, the 54,000 tons ship would have been more expensive that two 38,000, because building only one ship of a class is inherently more expensive, and due to the need to modify dry docks and other shore facilities.

But the fuel and crew requirements for the two ships are much more than the one.

But the point is that the two ships were built, but aging, and replacing them would not have been in the cards before the late 1930s (still too new) nor during/after the late 1930s (war scare makes every existing ship valuable).  If, hwever, the British felt they needed a fast supership for the Far East, the last thing they would want is one armed with the 14" turrets from a KGV class, so either the 15" twin or 16" triples would have been the only options, with the latter clearly superior.

[Neil]

Duke of York might be a more versatile combatant, but Scharnhorst was still designed to fight dreadnought battleships (albeit French ones) at those relatively close ranges, and it was at around those ranges that North Atlantic battles would frequently be fought.  Scharnhorst was less powerful than Duke of York, but the power of her guns and quality of her armour made the difference less than you might think from just looking at throw weights.  Similarily, Bismarck's powerful guns and heavy armour make it a more powerful ship than the KGV, despite the KGVs superior throw weight.

[Agelastus]

Grumbler, why do you keep harping on about "extra" turrets - the turrets on that hypothetical ship are from Anson and Howe. In other words, they are not a brilliant choice, but they are already there, and replacing two small ships with one larger ship really does not make a lot of difference given when Anson and Howe were completed historically.

Still, it is only a hypothetical, and I am well aware that such a concept did not cross the Admiralty's mind; doesn't change the fact that it would be an interesting ship for a naval combat simulation.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Yamato... though they all seem pretty similar to me.