[Homer_J_Simpson]

If you would like to be added to or deleted from the Realtime +/- 70 Years ping list drop me a freepmail. Articles going back to 1/27/08 can be found by searching by keyword "realtime."

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Let's see how a battleship thread fares compared to a tank thread.

This article got me wondering about the relative cost of producing a BB vs. a CV. On the one hand, a carrier is just a floating hanger with a landing strip on the roof. But you have to include the aircraft in the cost since that is the main armament. Even though the aircraft are not fixtures on the ship. I would think the materials and engineering going into a battleship would be tremendous, especially for the maing guns and fire control system.

I am confident that I will soon learn more on this topic than I ever new there was to learn about it.

[DouglasKC]

Ramping up for war.

And whatever happened to the New York boy who was going to ride his bike to Mexico? Did they find him?

[Camel Joe]

Are these two the North Carolina Class or the newer Iowa Class?

[pabianice]

More than coincidence? You decide.

[Eye of Unk]

Japanese battleship Musashi Displacement: 68,200 tons 72,800(max) tons Length: 263 m (863 ft) overall 256 m (840 ft) waterline Beam: 38.9 m (127.8 ft) Draft: 11 m (36 ft) at full load Propulsion: 12 Kanpon boilers, driving 4 steam turbines 150,000 shp (110 MW) four 3-bladed 6.0 m propellers Speed: 27.46 knots (50.86 km/h) Range: 7,200 nmi. at 16 kt (13,000 km at 30 km/h) Complement: 2,399 Armament August 1942 (as built): 9 × 460 mm (18.1 in) (3×3) 12 × 155 mm (6.1 in) (4×3) 12 × 127 mm (5 in) (6×2) 24 × 25 mm AA (8×3) 4 × 13 mm (2×2) Armament October 1944 (as sunk): 9 × 460 mm (18.1 in) (3×3) 6 × 155 mm (6.1 in) (2×3) 12 × 127 mm (5 in) (6×2) 130 × 25 mm AA (32×3, 34×1) 4 × 13 mm (2×2) Armor: 650 mm on front of turrets 410 mm (16.1 in) side armor 200 mm (8 in) central deck armor 226.5 mm (9.06 in) outer deck armor Aircraft carried: 7, 2 catapults

[Eye of Unk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Musashi

[J Aguilar]

A comparison of the armour disposition in the top battleships that fought WWII:




All thickness in millimeters

British Prince of Wales still fulfilling the 35,000 ton limit of the naval treaties. Bismarck showing a classic German disposition "full-armour", with even upper decks protected. Yamato and Iowa made use of modern tilted belts (10% less weight for the same protection) and light top armoured decks in order to detonate the airborne bombs and low speed long-range shells before they could reach the main armour, which would contain the shock wave.

Armour was a significant percentage in the weight of a battleship (around 45%) and a resource consuming luxury that few nations could afford. You have to add to these belts and decks the turrets, guns, armoured pasages down them and the shooting control system, also well protected.

It is said that Hitler's battleship program (four super Bismarck's even better armoured) would have carried to the brink of collapse Germany's steel industry

So much resources spent when an aircraft carrier could launch its planes to attack objetives at +250 nm whilst a battleship could fire its guns just at 25 nm (with enough accuracy to hit a moving target: 15 nm).

Thus before WWII it was already known that in an open battle, battleships would be sunk before they were able to get the aircraft carriers within its range, since well armoured, BB's could not hold full protection under the waterline down to the keel for weight restrictions. This area was the target of airborne torpedoes equiped with already existing magnetic fuzes.

However, incorrect use of carriers by the British led to the sunk of the Glorious, retreating from Norway, in the summer of 1940. The world had to wait for the sinking of the Bismarck, one year later, to see how planes did what the best battleships of the Royal Navy were not able to do. Unfortunately, the British learnt it after losing 1,800 men in the sinking of the Hood.