It's still equates to an even better force multiplier that the Montana would have, and which the Vanguard would not. Renown opened up again at Scharnhorst, which had suffered an engineering casualty in the starboard engine room (Whitley, German capital ships of WW2, page 116) and as a result had slowed down, allowing the British ship to close some distance again. Except when the Renown really wanted to engage the S+G and would have, if not for those heavy seas that got in the way. The difference being that the US as per Gosu's sources is not confident about heir ability to keep their guns on target if they have to perform such evasion, whereas Vanguard can. 8) circa 1942 then? For all these battleships there comes a point where the turrets aren't workable anymore because they are battleships not submersibles and the main armament isn't designed to work when regularly underwater. By canadian boy in forum The World Wars It's one side of the same coin as far as i'm concerned. A bit more complex than that. Nothing about the Iowa taking enough water over the bows to render her guns unusable. HMS Vanguard Vs. USS Iowa battleship? Fast and handles really well. Who would win? Plus I stated from the beginning that most of the time Iowa would win. Vanguard is a better gun platform (better FCS and stability) Also, which Dulin and Garzke Battleships book is referenced?
As a rhetorical question an answer is not really necessary. .
Mr.
Primary guns: 15 inch/16 inch.
Oh? HMS Vanguard was ridiculed for one reason only - "she was armed with her Grandmothers teeth". And as I already mentioned, the Bismarck himself didn't know exactly where he was going to be next and this made aiming torpedoes where he was going to be challenging.
85K 10,856 50. On an unrelated note, it's a crying shame that the Admiralty didn't see fit to preserve Vanguard. The Enterprise was lighter than the Iowa, by a fair margin.Because the limitation treaties placed a 10 year prohibition on new warship design, they also placed limitations on total tonnage fixed to a ratio between the various powers. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding. HMS Vanguard Vs. USS Iowa battleship?
Vanguard was built for the North Atlantic's rough weather, Iowa for being a combination Atlantic Pacific boat narrow enough to get through the Panama CSomething I came across about a stability comparison in such seas:See above Pun, lots and lots of detail if you have the time to look at the link I provided to answer such questions.I go with Iowa pretty much for the same reasons I went with Yamato, but my point was that Vanguard is actually a better ship than one might think at first glance. Assume 1946 clear visibility but moderately choppy seas typical of the North Atlantic no other ships or planes, identically skilled crews and a dual to the death.Iowa. Moreover, even with a loss of 15-20 mps velocity, the Iowa's guns are still more than sufficiently to penetrate the Vanguard's belt by a good 4" at 20k yards, and at 25k should still be favored, compared to the Vanguard that only gets 10" of belt (or 4 and change deck) at 25k. Dulin and Garzke Axis and Neutral Battleships in WW2 p468-469 said: Top speed: 30.4 knots/35.2 knots. It involved an indicator that the target was changing course, a history of previous course changes, operator input, and only then the calculation on the predicted enemy maneuvering. “With hardly a movement on her and the spray flying out from either bow . With going back to the OP I mean back to Iowa and Vanguard, and not discussing 1940 Renown versus the terrible twins.
And funnily enough the guns on the Iowa are new, because the ship hadn't seen service yet. Width: 108/108 feet. So frankly, it's not just an issue of the FCS being tasked with keeping a good track despite it's own relative maneuvering, but simultaneously compensating an approximate solution on the enemy maneuvering. If an Iowa really, really had to, it could stop dead in the water from full flank speed in Sorry for the delay, I've been re-reading my various D K Brown books to find the quote, it's actually footnoted, the original reference is to Warship International, Volume 24, page 276 / Dulin and Garske, Battleships, page 468. You have to protect your citadel whilst also dealing damage. Taffy 3 at least lost some destroyers. Belt: 14 inch/12.1 inch. As for the action at Surigao---not only were the Japanese hampered by the terrain, but also had inferior fire-controls to work with.I say it could really go either way depending upon the circumstances of the battle, but I feel like the majority of duels between these ships would go the Iowa's way. I always took the OP as a general discussion request, not a single match in a specific set of circumstances. The Iowa was fairly maneuverable.