Lion Class Vs Iowa Class Battleships

Comments · 470

• FY

  @fyorbane · 3 years ago

  The Lion class were actually somewhere between the S.D class and the Iowa's. Armour protection on the Lion's was actually improved over the KGV's [ not just the same]. The belt was a uniform 15" where as the KGV class was thinner [14"] covering the machinery spaces. There was also the addition of 2" between the lower deck and inner bottom below the citadel bulkheads. Barbettes were thicker at 15" max as was the Turret faces. Turret sides were also thicker at 10" as opposed to 9" max in the KGV. Of course the Lion design changed over the war period so they got larger with better torpedo protection and more extensive splinter protection.

  27

• FX

  @fXBorgmeister · 5 years ago

  You should do a collaboration with Drachinifel. Would be really great to get you two together.

  341

• ST

  @steeltrap3800 · 5 years ago

  As anyone who does any reading on the subject would know, it&apos;s very interesting to see just how many designs are considered before arriving at the one chosen for construction. As you also said, changes could and did occur to designs even when there may be one or more hulls laid down, although obviously there are limits as to how extensive they could be.<br><br>It&apos;s always an interesting subject looking at the various built and designed ships. As with the aircraft carriers, the USA and UK had different strategic conditions to consider and those directly affected the designs. I suspect the external versus internal inclined belt armour is an example of that. If you&apos;re worried about dockyard constraints, plus the fact those dockyards may come under direct enemy attack, you probably place a premium on being able to get capital ships repaired ASAP. That&apos;s not something the USA ever really had to deal with.<br>As an aside, I&apos;ve always thought the SoDaks a great design, and that they get rather short changed in public perception as the North Cal were the first after Pearl and the Iowas are so famous for their speed etc.<br><br>Ultimately, of course, the USA&apos;s overwhelming industrial and natural resources superiority meant the USN would become the dominant naval power, It simply took WW2, and Pearl Harbour somewhat specifically, to get the USA Congress to open the purse strings to build the ships to become that power.<br><br>Have you considered doing a video on armour types? I&apos;ve heard it said the UK armour in some respects was superior to its USA equivalent, so that &apos;flat&apos; 14&quot; belt, for example, could well be superior to the inclined belt of the Iowa. <br>An equally interesting one would be radar given the UK undoubtedly had the best radar tech in the world in 1939. Indeed radar is something I think many don&apos;t recognise as being one of THE greatest differences between the Allied and Axis powers, especially at sea where it proved decisive in many ways even to the point of affecting the results of specific battles (the sinking of Scharnhorst in the Battle of the North Cape being an obvious example, but possibly more vital if less glamorous being in subs v anti-sub warfare vessels).<br><br>Well I could ramble on for far too long, if I&apos;ve not already LOL.<br>Interesting video. Enjoying the content. Hope you and your colleagues are doing ok in these difficult times.<br>Cheers

  60

• RU

  @RubbishGremlin · 5 years ago

  Last two I&apos;d name HMS Bellerophon and HMS Agamemnon

  15

• GR

  @graham2631 · 5 years ago

  Would have been nice to have a &quot;Thunder Child&quot;

  42

• ME

  @mebsrea · 5 years ago (edited)

  IIRC, postwar experience with HMS Vanguard, of a similar hull design as the Lions, showed that, despite a lower design speed than the Iowas, effective speed in rough Atlantic weather was actually higher. As such, the Lions would have been ideal battleships for service with the Home Fleet, while the Iowas were of course best for operations in the Pacific.

  92

• SR

  @sr71blackbirddr · 5 years ago (edited)

  The KG5th ships get some flack but they where put to sea with hardly any training. HMS Warspite was one of the most formidable ships in the RN despite not being the most advanced.

  8

• GN

  @gnosticbrian3980 · 2 years ago

  FYI, unlike the US, the British economy was not in depression immediately before WW2; ir stopped declining soon after GB abandoned the gold standard in September 1931, although genuine recovery did not begin until the end of 1932.<br><br>Nathan Okun in his &quot;Table of Metallurgical Properties of Naval Armor and Construction Materials&quot; described the British armour as “the best of all known face-hardened armors in heavy, battleship-grade thicknesses”. &nbsp;US Class ‘A’ armour was of excellent quality (in terms of its purity, specification, heat treatment et cetera) but an engineering decision - requiring an excessively thick hardened face - meant it provided less effective protection, with 12″ of US Class A being equivalent to about 10″ of British armour. &nbsp;The KG V class had 15&quot; of main belt armour. &nbsp;To give the same level of protection, The Iowas would have needed 18 inches of main belt armour - but only carried 12.1 inches.<br><br>The sea keeping qualities of the Iowas was poor - being unable to keep up with Vanguard on NATO exercises in North Atlantic gales.

  3

• CD

  @Cdodders27 · 5 years ago

  IIRC the torpedoes that actually hit PoW&apos;s TDS were pretty much ineffective, it was the hits to the stern and bow that hurt

  21

• JO

  @jonsouth1545 · 5 years ago

  in the 1950s Iowa performed very badly in the North Atlantic NATO Naval operations in heavy seas when compared to Vanguard.

  56

• TO

  @toddf9321 · 5 years ago

  HMS Devastator and HMS Audacious have a nice ring to them.

  14

• WI

  @winlee4884 · 4 years ago (edited)

  The two final ships of the Lion-class should be named Tiger and Leopard, since the lead ship of the class is Lion. Also in naming the ship “Tiger” it pays homage to the battlecruiser HMS Tiger of 1913.

  3