In the previous article, we compared the vertical and horizontal defenses of the strongholds of the battleships Pennsylvania, Rivenge, and Bayern. Consider now the armoring of hulls outside the citadel, artillery and other elements of these ships.
Main caliber artillery
The first place in terms of the level of turret protection should be given to the American "Pennsylvania" - the 457-mm frontal plate and 127-mm horizontal roof of the turret were extremely powerful protection, which even 380-381-mm shells could not have mastered on 75 cables. The only vulnerable spot was only the sides of the towers: there they were protected by 254 mm (closer to the frontal plate) and further by 229 mm. But you need to understand that in battle, when the towers are deployed on the enemy, a shell hit in the side of the tower is possible either at a very large angle, at which 229-254 mm armor plates cannot be penetrated, or if the battleship is firing at another target, thereby exposing the lateral projection of the towers under fire. But in this case, no tower would have protected the guns and their crews, because the sides of the Bayern's towers were 250 mm, and the Rivendzha's were 280 mm. That is, slightly better than that of the American battleship, but still not enough to withstand heavy shells if the latter hit the side armor plate at an angle close to 90 degrees.
At the same time, the Bayern turret's forehead was protected by 350 mm, and the Rivendzha - by 330 mm armor - both were quite vulnerable to 356-381-mm shells on 75 cables. The roof of the tower for the German battleship was 100 mm, for the Rivendzh - 118 mm. It would seem that there is an obvious advantage of the British battleship, but alas - the Bayern's turret roof was located horizontally, like the American battleship, but the British ship had an inclination to the frontal plate, so its armor resistance was lower than that of the German and American battleships. By the way, later the British corrected this defect, but already on the "Hood".
Let's not forget that Bayern's horizontally located turret roof and frontal plate were connected by another 200 mm thick armor plate located at an angle fall 13, 05 degrees., fell into it at an angle of about 47 degrees to the normal, and, at least theoretically, he had enough armor penetration to overcome 200 mm armor plate.
Thus, we can say that the forehead of the towers of the Bayern and Rivenge could have been pierced by a 380-mm projectile, while that of the Pennsylvania could not, despite the fact that the roof of the tower was best protected by an American ship, and the sides towers are almost equally vulnerable to all battleships. The second place in the defense of the towers, most likely, should still be given to the Bayern due to the greater thickness of the frontal sheet and the horizontal arrangement of the roofs. "Rivenge", alas, this time was in third place.
Barbettes. Here, again, Rivenge looks the worst. It is clear that the British tried to optimize the displacement, and it is also clear that the armor resistance of a round barbet in cross section will be somewhat better than that of a conventional armor plate, simply because it is very difficult to get into the barbet at an angle close to the normal - any deviation from the ideal trajectory leads to the fact that the projectile hits the barbet with a deviation. But, despite all of the above, the "patchwork" 102-254 mm armor of the barbets of the British battleship could hardly withstand the 356-380-mm shells of its "opponents".
As for Bayern and Pennsylvania, everything is quite interesting. On the one hand, the barbet of the German battleship is thicker - 350 mm against the 330 mm of the "Pennsylvania". But at the same time, the barbets of the American battleship retained their thickness up to the upper armored deck, but at the Bayern they had 350 mm only up to the forecastle deck or the upper deck - in the areas opposite which were located 170-250 mm armor belt thickness of the barbet of the German battleship in sequence decreased to 170 and 80 mm. Such protection would be quite enough in order to reflect the fragments of the projectile, if such were exploded inside the ship at some distance from the barbet. But if the projectile, having pierced the 170 mm belt, would have landed in the 170 mm section of the barbet, the latter would almost certainly have been pierced, even if the projectile had not penetrated inside as a whole. And the same applies to other trajectories, in which a 250 mm side breaks through, a 30 mm bulkhead behind it and an 80 mm barbet - at a distance of 75 cables, such protection was not able to stop a heavy projectile.
At the same time, the 74.7 mm upper armored deck of "Pennsylvania", although it was not an absolute protection against 380-381-mm shells of its European "opponents", but, most likely, would lead to the detonation of such a shell during the penetration of the deck. And in this case, the 114 mm armoring of the barbet from the upper to the lower armored deck would perfectly keep the fragments of the projectile and the most destroyed deck from penetrating into the protected space.
Taking into account the actual results of firing at Baden, we can say that the 330-350 mm barbet was not the ultimate defense against 356-381 mm shells and could be pierced by them, but only with an extremely successful hit. At the same time, on the German battleship, we see a large "window of vulnerability" opposite the upper armor belts, but the "Pennsylvania" does not have such a window. Therefore, the Pennsylvania barbets should be considered the best, and Bayern should be awarded an honorable second place.
Thus, it should be said that the battleship "Pennsylvania" had the best armor protection of the main caliber artillery, followed by the "Bayern" and the "Rivenge" was the closing one. However, in a dueling situation, this hierarchy changes somewhat.
Having evaluated the armor protection of towers and barbets, let's try to consider the consequences of armor penetration for each battleship. So, they were minimal for "Rivendzh", because in the event of a fire in the fighting compartment, the rupture of an enemy shell inside the barbet, etc. the case, most likely, would have been limited only to the death of the tower itself and the crew in it. After the Battle of Jutland, the British realized the shortcomings of their own towers and introduced the order that the Germans came to after the battle at Dogger Bank. In other words, the reloading compartment at the bottom of the barbet received 2 sets of flaps - one between the reloading compartment and the cellars, the second between the reloading compartment and the feed pipe. The calculations were trained so that one of these doors were always closed, that is, when a projectile or charge was fed through a conveyor into the supply pipe, the doors into the cellars were closed, and when ammunition was taken from the cellars, the doors leading to the supply pipe were closed. Thus, no matter at what moment an enemy shell exploded, whenever a fire broke out, it could not get into the ammunition cellar in any way.
But at the Bayern, alas, things were much worse, because the designers, in pursuit of economy, reduced the reloading compartments, so that the shells and charges were fed into the feed pipe directly from the cellars. Accordingly, if an enemy projectile made a fire or explosion at the moment when the doors were open, then the fire and explosion energy could well reach the ship's powder magazines.
As for the American battleship, the situation here was the worst - not only did the US designers come to the "brilliant" decision to store the shells inside the barbette, but they also seriously saved on the mechanization of the towers, which is why in the reloading compartment, during intensive work, they probably had to build up charges. Unfortunately, it is not clear from the descriptions of the towers how effectively they protected the powder magazines from the penetration of fire. But even if everything there was organized according to the English principle (which is doubtful), then in this case the explosion of the shells accumulated in the central reloading compartment could probably lead to fatal consequences. However, even if this is not the case, then only hundreds of shells with Explosive D as explosives in the turret and barbet are more than enough to award Pennsylvania the last place in terms of the consequences of breaking through the barbets and turrets defenses.
And in the end, this is what happens. Yes, the armor protection of the Rivenge's main caliber artillery was the worst of all, and in the event of its penetration, the battleship lost 2 * 381-mm guns out of 8, but the ship was practically not in danger. At the same time, for both Bayern and Pennsylvania, whose “big guns” were much better protected, the penetration of fire and explosion energy into the armored space of barbets or towers was still fraught with the death of the ship, while for Pennsylvania "This danger was significantly higher than for" Bayern ". And if we consider the hypothetical duel between Bayern and Pennsylvania, we will see that the "windows" in the defense of the German battleship's barbets are compensated to a certain extent by the great power of Bayern's guns. In other words, 380 mm projectiles had a better chance of penetrating the 330 mm Pennsylvania barbet and hitting the armored space at least with fire and shrapnel than the 356 Pennsylvania projectiles to overcome Bayern's 350 mm barbet.
Thus, it turns out that, despite the better protection of the American battleship's barbets, the heavier guns of the Bayern to a certain extent equalize the situation. Apparently, Bayern had about the same chances to hit the Pennsylvania barbets as the Pennsylvania barbets - Bayern barbets, and Rivenge, although obviously losing in this competition, but the consequences of armor penetration for it are minimal.
Thus, perhaps, in terms of the aggregate parameter of protection of artillery of the main caliber, the first place should be divided between Bayern and Pennsylvania, and Rivendzh should write the second, and not so much lagging behind.
Protection of auxiliary artillery
Here, the first place is expected to be "Bayern". And the point is not at all in the slight superiority of the horizontal protection of the casemate - 170 mm for the German battleship versus 152 mm for the English one, but in the location of the ammunition cellars.
The fact is that at the Rivendzhey, the cellars of 152-mm guns were located behind the 2nd turret of the main caliber, and were fed into the casemate, from where they were transported to the guns. This required constantly keeping a large number of shells and charges in the casemate. The sailors of "Malaya" paid for such negligence when, during the Battle of Jutland, two German 305-mm shells, piercing the forecastle, exploded inside the starboard battery, and hell broke out in the battleship's casemates. Cordite ignited, the flames rose to the shreds of the masts, 65 people were killed and wounded. The electrical wiring in the casemate and nearby premises was completely destroyed, after the fire was extinguished, a 15-centimeter layer of water splashed on the deck of the casemate, and there was no question of repelling a possible mine attack.
At the same time, at Bayern, each gun was equipped with a separate supply of ammunition from the cellars, so in battle a German ship could do with much less ammunition in the casemates, which means that the resistance of the casemates as a whole to enemy fire was much higher.
Well, the "Pennsylvania" anti-mine guns did not have any protection at all, and this, of course, should be considered a major drawback of the ship. As mentioned earlier, the American commander faced a difficult choice in the event of a battle. It would be utter folly to keep the crews directly at the guns; they should have been called into the batteries only during the threat of an attack by enemy destroyers. But what about the ammunition? If you submit them to the guns in advance, you could get exactly the same thing as with the "Malaya", only with the disadvantage that the "Malaya" still had someone to start the fight for survivability immediately, and the "Pennsylvania" did not because her batteries and nearby rooms were to be kept empty. And if you do not supply ammunition to the guns, will it not turn out that by the time the crews take their places according to the combat schedule and the shells are delivered, the battleship will already receive several torpedoes on board?
So, in terms of mine artillery protection, Bayern is in first place, Rivenge is in second, and Pennsylvania is in third.
Conning tower
Here the first place, perhaps, should also be given to Bayern, and here's why. On the one hand, if we compare the thickness of the armor, then the American battleship is more protected, its conning tower had 406 mm of armor on a 37 mm substrate, and the roof consisted of two 102 mm sheets. But on the other hand, the conning tower of the Arizona was only one-tiered, while the Pennsylvania's was two-tiered, but only because the Pennsylvania was supposed to be the flagship, and the second tier was intended for the admiral. At the same time, Bayern's conning tower was three-tiered - the upper one was protected by 350 mm vertical armor and 150 mm roof, the middle one was 250 mm, and the lower one, which was already located under the forecastle deck, was 240 mm. At the same time, the wheelhouse of the German battleship was conical, located at an angle of 10 degrees. to the board and up to 8 degrees. - to the traverse. The roof was 150 mm thick.
Thus, the German ship's wheelhouse provided protection to a significantly larger number of crew than the American one, and one should not forget that Bayern had two conning tower, and not one like the Pennsylvania. Of course, the aft cabin had only 170 mm of sides and 80 mm of the roof, but still it was. In addition, the German wheelhouses were distinguished by a very ingenious device: at the beginning of the battle, the slots were closed, excluding the possibility of fragments entering the wheelhouse, and the review was carried out through periscopes. All this was not on the American battleships, so it is worth considering that the command staff of the Bayern was nevertheless better protected, despite the formal superiority of the Pennsylvania in the thickness of the armor.
The British, alas, were in third place - they also had two wheelhouses, but the main, forward conning tower had a very moderate reservation - the walls were only 280 mm thick, the aft one - 152 mm.
Corps outside the citadel
Here, it would seem, everything is clear, and "Pennsylvania" should be included in the obvious outsiders - well, what kind of protection is there outside the citadel in the "all or nothing" system! Nevertheless, this is not entirely true, and if you look closely, then it is not at all true.
If we look at the stern of European battleships, we will see that from the citadel and almost to the very sternpost, it is protected by armor plates of moderate thickness. At "Rivendzh" it is at first 152 mm, and closer to the stern - 102 mm armor plates. At the same time, in order to hit the steering of the British battleship, the enemy shell first had to pierce a 152 mm plate, then a 25 mm deck, or first a 152 mm plate and then a 51 mm deck. To be honest, this kind of defense looks downright weak.
At Bayern, the stern protection looks much more thorough: the side belt from the citadel to the stern was 200 mm thick, decreasing in the underwater part to 150 mm, but after this protection is overcome, the projectile will still need to penetrate 60 or 100 mm of the armored deck … This is noticeably better than Rivenge's.
But here at "Pennsylvania" the side was protected by as much as 330 mm belt, which, however, only slightly rose above the water (by 31 cm) and had only a little more than a meter in height, and then gradually decreased to 203 mm. But on top there was a powerful 112 mm armored deck, laid on a 43.6 mm "substrate" of ordinary shipbuilding steel. It would be extremely difficult to penetrate such protection even with a 380-381-mm projectile, so we can say that the stern and steering of the American ship were protected better than the German and much better than the British battleships.
But, on the other hand, the nose of the "Pennsylvania" was not completely protected by anything. "Rivenge" had the same 152 mm armor plates, closer to the stem they were replaced by 102 mm, the "Bayern" nose was protected by a 200-170-30 mm armor belt.
Of course, the armor protection of the nose of European superdreadnoughts could not withstand the 356-381-mm armor-piercing shells. But nevertheless, she largely protected from high-explosive or semi-armor-piercing shells, which were usually used for zeroing, and, of course, was an absolute protection against shrapnel hits, while an American battleship literally from scratch, due to a close gap, could receive enough extensive flooding of the bow. Thus, most likely, the palm in this matter should be given to the Bayern - although its steering protection was inferior to the Pennsylvania, the value of the protection of the bow should not be underestimated. “Rivenge”, alas, was again in third place.
So, let's try to draw conclusions about the armor protection of the American, British and German battleships. In a hypothetical battle between Bayern and Rivenge, their strongholds would provide ships with roughly equivalent protection, but the towers, barbets, mine action artillery, steering, extremities and conning towers of the British battleship are weaker, so Bayern is obviously better protected than Rivenge. …
If we compare Bayern with Pennsylvania, then in the battle between them for 75 cables the citadel of the German battleship will still have an advantage. And even not so much due to the more powerful armor, but because of the relative weakness of 356-mm guns: in other words, the chances of hitting the citadel of the Bayern at the "Pennsylvania" are less than that of the "Bayern" to break through the citadel of the "Pennsylvania", and 380mm shells are higher. At the same time (again, taking into account the relative weakness of the 356-mm shells of the American battleship), the protection of the main caliber artillery at Bayern and Pennsylvania is approximately equivalent, and the same can be said about the rest of the protection of the corps, and the cabin and secondary battery of the German battleship are protected better.
And here in our rating of "sword and shield" the first place goes to the German battleship "Bayern": the combination of the power of its artillery (and the main caliber of the Bayern was ranked 1st in our rating) and, let's say, albeit faulty, but still very serious protection, in the opinion of the author of this article, makes it the undisputed leader among the three battleships compared.
But about the second place is already more difficult. Nevertheless, the combination of the very powerful defense of the citadel and the mighty 381-mm cannons gives Rivendzhu superiority over the American battleship. Yes, Pennsylvania still has an advantage in the armor protection of the main caliber artillery, but to a certain extent it is offset by the much smaller chances of Rivenge to take off in the event of its turrets or barbets being penetrated. Of course, the Rivendzha's steering and conning tower are less well protected, but the secondary artillery is better. And the key advantage of the British ship is that, all other things being equal, it is capable of "injecting" into the citadel of the American battleship a much larger amount of explosives than the "Pennsylvania" - into the "Rivenge".
Here, however, the dear reader may be slightly indignant, because in this series of articles, such important indicators of warships as speed, as well as anti-torpedo protection, remained outside the scope. But the fact is that the differences in the speed of the compared warships are very insignificant, and do not exceed 10%. For ships intended for combat at a distance of 7.5 nautical miles, such superiority does not provide practical advantages. As for the anti-torpedo protection, unfortunately, the author of this article simply does not have enough material to evaluate it. So, for example, the formally very powerful PTZ "Bayerna" did not save him from severe damage from a Russian mine, but it is difficult to say how the PTZ of the other two battleships would behave in similar situations. British ships of this class did not demonstrate great effectiveness in countering torpedoes during the Second World War, but, again, these were completely different ammunition.
This concludes our series of articles on Pennsylvania, Rivenge and Bayern.
