So, the Americans sacrificed booking for speed and armament. But has the result been achieved? The Americans really wanted to have battleships with a speed of 33-35 knots. In practice, nothing of the kind has been achieved. New Jersey gave 31.9 knots per measured mile and 30.7 knots on daily duty. Everything! That is, the speed of the "Iowa" does not stand out among the French, Germans and Italians (for reference: "Richelieu" - 31, 5 knots, "Bismarck" - 29, "Vittorio Veneto" - 30). There is no need to talk about any new type of the so-called high-speed battleship. This is actually not so scary: there are a lot of ships in the world that have not developed their design speed. Worse, chasing the record speed, the Americans INSTEAD of it got poor seaworthiness. To achieve high speed, it was necessary to create a ship with a sufficiently elongated bottle-shaped hull.
This was done to easily cut the waves. But it's one thing to do this, say, in the Baltic, where the wave is short and low (in most places), and another thing is in the Pacific Ocean, where the wave is long and high. This led to flooding in stormy conditions, in addition to high stress in the hull set. There is a mention of how in the joint maneuvers after the war, in which Vanguard and the same New Jersey participated, in bad weather conditions the Briton behaved much better than the American, despite its smaller size. The British also noted a stronger roll, as well as the shivering of the ship at high speed with moderate waves, which interfered with the normal operation of anti-aircraft crews and as a result of which the radar's performance was sometimes disrupted. The Iowa's maneuverability for a battleship of this size is slightly more than that of its brethren: by 30 knots. circulation diameter 744 m, less than three lengths of the ship's hull. For comparison: the "Yamato" at a speed of 26 knots. 640 m, or 2.5 body lengths. But overall, the maneuverability was quite acceptable.
Regarding weapons, too, not everything is so simple as the Americans say, who are habitually echoed by the whole world that the best battleships had the best weapons. The main caliber artillery of the Iowa-class battleships consists of nine 406-mm Mk-7 guns in three three-gun turrets. The new Mk-7 cannons were significantly more powerful than their predecessors, the 406-mm 45-caliber Mk-6 installed on the South Dakota. And from the 406-mm Mk-2 and Mk-3 guns developed in 1918 with the same barrel length (50 calibers), the Mk-7 favorably differed in its lower weight (108.5 tons versus 130.2 tons) and a more modern design. The main difference between the American gun was one of the heaviest shells among modern battleships, equal to 1225 kg. And the lowest initial speed, equal to 762 m / s. As a comparison, the 406-mm projectile used on the English battleship Nelson weighed only 929 kg, muzzle velocity 823 m / s, although there were 1029 kg projectiles with a full charge velocity of 929 m / s. The Soviet system for the battleships "Soviet Union" - 1108 kg and 830 m / s. Smaller caliber: 380-mm shells "Bismarck" - 800 kg and 820 m / s, "Vittorio Veneto" - 800 kg and 940 m / s, as well as 885 kg and 870 m / s, "Richelieu" - 884 kg and 830 m / s. It is worth noting that the American system had the smallest firing range at the same elevation angle. I repeat - with the same elevation angle. On the whole, the Iowa's main caliber was the least adapted for flat shooting, and the most in comparison with classmates for mounted shooting.
Is it good or bad? When firing hinged fire, there is a great opportunity to hit an enemy ship not through the side protected by thick armor, but through less protected decks. But at the same time, the chance of hitting is significantly reduced. It is the flat trajectory of the projectile that provides a deeper affected area, which ultimately makes it possible to compensate for errors in the operation of the SUAO. In other words, in order to hit from such a weapon at a long distance, you must either have a stationary target, or very accurately measure the distance to the enemy. If the target is a fast and actively maneuvering battleship, then it is not a fact that there will be hits at all.
Thus, Iowa has noticeable flatness issues. So noticeable that it is possible to shoot at a fast-moving target at a long distance, but it is unlikely to hit. In general, this is proved by two facts. The first is the combat result: four Iowa-class battleships take part in the sinking of three ships - an armed trawler, a destroyer and a training ship. In at least one case out of three, participation was only moral, since other ships of the formation were directly firing and sinking. None of the drowned were a fast ship. The second fact is that for long distances there was a reduced charge, which gave an initial velocity and ALL ballistics of the Mk.6 model (a 406-mm gun on the previous series of battleships) with its effect on horizontal protection … Moreover, this option was specially worked out as one of the main modes of fire. Of course, the force of the Iow's heavy projectile against deck armor is very good, the Iowa's SUAO is also decent … But this is not enough. Therefore, in order to successfully combat enemy ships, it is necessary to use a light projectile and a reduced charge, further reducing the firing range and making it generally pointless to develop a new complex and expensive weapon and ammunition for it. The presence of part of the ammunition inside the main battery barbets and the absence of reloading compartments is also not a reasonable enough solution. At the same time, it cannot be denied that the Iowa's guns are best suited for firing at coastal targets. Fortunately for "Iowa", in the Pacific Ocean there were enough islands captured by the Japanese - large and very sedentary. Although, in my opinion, threshing the coast is not the primary task of the steel monsters.
Another myth is the genius of the universal caliber of American battleships. While in the overwhelming majority of the world's fleets, battleships had an anti-mine caliber of 152 mm and separately anti-aircraft guns of a caliber of 100-114 mm, on American battleships were universal 127-mm guns, and on British ones - 134-mm. This is due to the presence of significant light forces in their fleets. In addition, the British 134-mm gun is much closer to the six-inch gun than the American 127-mm.
Secondly, there are a lot of examples when six-inches were barely enough. We won't go far, see the sinking of the Glories. Two destroyers, "Ardent" and "Akasta", tried to thwart the attack of the Germans, both were sunk, but the Scharnhorst still received a torpedo (very unpleasant; shaft destroyed, damage to the central turbine). I don't think the Germans considered their 6-inches to be an extra weight.
Thirdly, no rate of fire compensates for the low weight of the projectile and the shorter firing range (remember: for 127-mm guns, the firing range is 100 cab.).
Fourthly, for example, the Bismarck had 12 150-mm turrets plus 16 105-mm anti-aircraft guns. Which is better for repelling the attack of destroyers - the indicated 28 barrels or 20 127-mm, I think, is understandable. The Japanese, suffering enough from air attacks, by the end of the war, on the Yamato, removed six-inches, but only half! (Although the number of universal five-inch aircraft has already reached 24 pieces.) Everything is logical - the chances of meeting an American destroyer during this period are much less than the chance of meeting an American plane.
So in a hypothetical battle of an American Iowa-class battleship against, say, 4-6 destroyers at once, the probability of getting several torpedoes is more than high. In addition, the captain of the British Navy D. McIntyre, who became famous in the fight against submarines in the Atlantic and was well acquainted with the American destroyers "Fletcher", on which similar guns were stationed, said that in the pursuit of universality, the Americans made weapons too weak to deal with the enemy (meaning enemy destroyers) on equal to an artillery duel, not having received a good anti-aircraft gun, since it was really possible to fight the planes only by defensive fire (and Soviet destroyers fired such fire from the main battery with remote grenades, but no one calls them universal). In addition, it was at large angles that these guns gave the greatest number of delays.
In view of the above, it seems that it can be argued that the presence of an equal number of full-fledged anti-aircraft guns of 105 mm caliber did not make European battleships less protected from air attacks, and the presence of six-inch anti-mine caliber reduced the risk of getting a torpedo in case of attacks by light forces of the enemy fleet.
What do we end up with? Only that surpassing their European counterparts on average by a quarter in displacement, the American battleships "Iowa" did not have any significant advantages.
Therefore, it is highly doubtful whether their titles are "the best", "the crown of the era of battleships", "outstanding", etc.
