It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Best Battleship of WW2

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Did I miss something? What do you mean?

Clearly, the Bismarck was scuttled. If you are saying otherwise then instead of making jokes why don't you show a little evidence.

www.bismarck-class.dk...


With the Bismarck still defiantly flying her ensign, the British had no alternative but to continue to fire on the ship until the Germans capitulated or the Bismarck was sunk, Both British battleships were running critically low on fuel and would soon have to break off the action. Seeing that gunnery would not be able to deliver the knockout blow that would send the Bismarck to the bottom, Tovey ordered the battleships (Rodney and King George V) to cease fire and return to base. The destroyers Mashona and Tartar had already turned back due to their being low on fuel. Captain Vian's destroyers were not only low on fuel but also out of torpedoes, so there was no point in their remaining. The Norfolk had just fired its last remaining torpedoes at the Bismarck and turned to depart, leaving only the Dorsetshire on the scene with any torpedoes. The Dorsetshire was therefore ordered to finish off the Bismarck.

As soon as all the weapons were silenced, Bismarck's commander, Captain Ernst Lindemann, gave the order to open the valves to the sea and to set scuttling charges to sink the ship. Once the charges had been set, the order was given to abandon ship.


[edit on 1-7-2007 by TheComte]

[edit on 1-7-2007 by TheComte]




posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Well yes. If you're quoting Popeye, he got a heap of facts wrong.

The Home front was decimated with the Hood engagement. King George V and Rodney were called off escort duties.

Force H was called up from Gibraltar.

The RN was quite stretched and had Bismark and her sister Tirpitz broken out together escorted by German Cruisers Rinz Eugen, Sharnhorst and Gneisenau the result would have been entirely different.

The Bismark was not inferior to King George or Rodney. In fact Rodney could not flee from an engagement because all her big guns were forward and her top speed was pathetic. In an engagement with Tirpitiz and Bismark, the RN would have lost.

The problems was that Hitler knew less about warships than he did about land warfare (and he knew very little about that either)!

It was how they were used which defeated Bismark and Tirpitz. Not any inherent weakness. The only weakness in my view was the gunlaying of their anti aircraft cannon.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 06:02 AM
link   
I agree that Bismark was scuttled. Bismark survivors have attested to that, but Popeye is a bad choice to quote from.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Everyone drools over these bismark class warships...lol

Many people think that the Japanese navy went crazy with the Super Yamato class but in secret they planned another class called the super-DUPER yamato class:

To have
-A displacement of 100,000 tons
-8 20" guns
-4,000lb shells


Its true.

[edit on 1-7-2007 by BlackWidow23]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Wouldn't like the facts to get in the way would we ?




Originally posted by Heil Hitler,Eh?
I Should Mention (Je Repet) Again Almost Every RN Ship That Took Part In The Sinking Of The Bismarck Were Called From Desperately Needed Convoy Duty & Other Vital Missions.



I doubt that. Why oh why would you have your best heavy cruisers, battlecruisers and battleships on convoy duty? Only the older warships were put doing that, such as HMS Ramilles or Malaya, both of which were obsolete WW1 ships. The ships that sunk the Bismark were up until that point chilling out in Scapa Flow.



Apart from Batleships Hood and Prince of Wales the screening cruisers Suffolk, Dorsetshire and Norfolk.... the other capital ships which cornered Bismark had to be hauled from all over the place. Prince of Wales had to retire from the action in which Hood was lost after itself sustaining seven serious hits.

After Bismark's action with Hood and Prince of Wales, all British hopes fell on
Force H based on Gibraltar. This was not the Home Fleet which cornered Bismark. Force H dispatched the Battlecruiser Renown, cruiser Sheffield and the aircraft carrier Ark Royal.

HMS Rodney was in the western Atlantic escorting the RMS Britanic evacuating children to Canada. King George V was also on escort duties to my knowledge. This was the sum total of capital ships sent to engage Bismark. This was a scrap fleet put together in haste from a very thinly spread navy.

Bismark and Tirpitz been used in unison with Prinz Eugen, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, then they would have been formidable and probably have closed off the North Atlantic.







[edit on 30-6-2007 by sy.gunson]


HAH! I Rest My Case! Friend It Looks Like You And I Are The Only Ones Here With More Than Partial Historical Or "Google" Knowledge.
I Did Book Reports In Grade School On These Engagements, Starting With "Sink The Bismarck" In Grade 3 . Grade 4 Was The Battle Of Midway.
You Learn A Lot More From The Library Than You Do On Google. They Usually Have Far More Extensive Information Leading Up To Or Connected To The Engagements Than You Can EVER Find On Google.
It Was A LOOONG Time Since I Read Sink The Bismarck & I Have Forgotten Exactly Where Each RN Ship Came From. I Was About To "Google" That Myself & Post It, But Thanks For Clearing That Up For Mr. "Destroyer of Ignorance Hunter of the Stupid"

[edit on 8-7-2007 by Heil Hitler,Eh?]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Well yes. If you're quoting Popeye, he got a heap of facts wrong.

The Home front was decimated with the Hood engagement. King George V and Rodney were called off escort duties.

Force H was called up from Gibraltar.

The RN was quite stretched and had Bismark and her sister Tirpitz broken out together escorted by German Cruisers Rinz Eugen, Sharnhorst and Gneisenau the result would have been entirely different.

The Bismark was not inferior to King George or Rodney. In fact Rodney could not flee from an engagement because all her big guns were forward and her top speed was pathetic. In an engagement with Tirpitiz and Bismark, the RN would have lost.

The problems was that Hitler knew less about warships than he did about land warfare (and he knew very little about that either)!

It was how they were used which defeated Bismark and Tirpitz. Not any inherent weakness. The only weakness in my view was the gunlaying of their anti aircraft cannon.


Yes The Capital Ships were Definitely Incorrectly Used. They Often Operated In Pairs Or Alone.
The Idea Was To Send These Ships Out Of European Waters In To The Open Atlantic, Where They Would Have Been Able To Operate As A Single Unit Successfully & Virtually Uncontested. They Had The Speed & Power To Out Race An Overwhelming RN Force & Again The Speed & Power To Wipe Out EVERY Ship In ANY Convoy Not Escorted By At Least 2 Capital Ships. (They Were To Stay At Sea Up To A Year, Supplied By "Miclh Kews" Large U Boats.)
Unfortunately For Germany, None Ever Reached The High Seas.

Had The Bismarck & Prinz Eugen Been Escorted By Either Scharnhorts Or Gnienenau & At Least 4 Screening Destroyers This Would Have Been A Force To Contend With.

Here's Another Important Factor You May Or May Not Find On Google As To The Real Reson To Her Demise.
Bismarck Was An ADVANCED Warship, With Technology Such As Radar,
Automated Timed AA Guns, Heavy Armour & High Speed.

It Was The Timed AA Guns That Permitted Ark Royal's Swordfish To Get Close Enough To Torpedo Bismarck In The First Place.
They Were Designed To Time Perfectly To Fire At Fast Moving Fighters & Bombers That Flew At 200 MPH Plus, But The Fairey Swordfish (Top Speed 138MPH) Barely Made Over A 120 MPH With A Torpedo & Full Fuel Load (But Had To Drop To 100MPH Attack Speed). According To The Surviving Gunnery Crews From Bismarck, Their Guns Fired At The Planes Continuously To The Point Thier Guns Glowed, But Missed Every One Because They Were Too Slow To Hit & There Was No Adjusment Or Manual Over Ride For The Automated Guns That Fired At A Specific Rate.
Had The RN Upgraded Thier Carrier Based Planes To Barracudas Or The American TBF Avenger (A Grumman TBM, But Made By Ford), They May Not Have Struck Bismarck At All, Or At Least Possibly Not Damage The Steering.
Afterall It Was The Continuing Encircling That Allowed The Slower RN To Eventually Catch Up To Her.


[edit on 8-7-2007 by Heil Hitler,Eh?]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte
Did I miss something? What do you mean?

Clearly, the Bismarck was scuttled. If you are saying otherwise then instead of making jokes why don't you show a little evidence.

www.bismarck-class.dk...


With the Bismarck still defiantly flying her ensign, the British had no alternative but to continue to fire on the ship until the Germans capitulated or the Bismarck was sunk, Both British battleships were running critically low on fuel and would soon have to break off the action. Seeing that gunnery would not be able to deliver the knockout blow that would send the Bismarck to the bottom, Tovey ordered the battleships (Rodney and King George V) to cease fire and return to base. The destroyers Mashona and Tartar had already turned back due to their being low on fuel. Captain Vian's destroyers were not only low on fuel but also out of torpedoes, so there was no point in their remaining. The Norfolk had just fired its last remaining torpedoes at the Bismarck and turned to depart, leaving only the Dorsetshire on the scene with any torpedoes. The Dorsetshire was therefore ordered to finish off the Bismarck.

As soon as all the weapons were silenced, Bismarck's commander, Captain Ernst Lindemann, gave the order to open the valves to the sea and to set scuttling charges to sink the ship. Once the charges had been set, the order was given to abandon ship.




This Is Interesting.
My Guess Is Somehere This Was Twisted In British Written History As Tovey Leaving The Scene With Confidence The've Sunk Her (Or Will Sink)
I Never KNEW It Literally Took EVERYTHING The British Had, Not Only The Large Number Of Ships, But Almost ALL Thier Magazines From Virtually EVERY Ship & Almost All Thier Fuel.

To Quote Gowron:
"History Is Written By the Victors"

To Qoute An Unknown Canadian
"It Takes Only A Little Research By Unbiased Investigators To To Discover The True History. Afterall The First Casualty Of War Is The Truth"



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
At the beginning of the war, it was a very much ignored part of the Fleet. By the end of the War, the eastern fleet was considerable, with several battleships, Battlecrusiers, other cruisers and at least a dozen Escort Carriers and a couple of larger carriers.

But It's The Beginning Of The War We Are Talking About.

Originally posted by Heil Hitler,Eh?
I Should Mention Again Almost Every RN Ship That Took Part In The Sinking Of The Bismarck Were Called From Vital Missions.


Originally posted by stumason
I doubt that. Why oh why would you have your best heavy cruisers, and battleships on convoy duty?

Doubt What You Want, But Read Other Postings. You Can See Exactly Where These Ships Came From.

Originally posted by Heil Hitler,Eh?
Furthermore Part Of The Lend Lease At The Outset Of The War The British Acquired 50 EARLY WW1 Destroyers That Weren't Fit For Garbage Scows


Originally posted by stumason
Indeed and originally, the USA wanted our Caribbean possesions in exchange! Those destroyers were purely so we could free up our more modern destroyers from convoy duty and put them to good use elsewhere.

See Here You Are ONLY Proving My Point. Regardless Of What The 50 US Destryers Were Used For, It Only Goes To Show The RN Was Very Thinly Spread. As A Matter Of Fact, Even WITH The 50 American Destroyers, It Wasn't Enough. Britain Wanted 200 Destroyers & A Host Of Capital Ships.
But 50 Old Destroyers Is All That Roosevelt Would Offer.

Originally posted by Heil Hitler,Eh?
If The RN Was That Huge & Illustrious They Would Not Have Need For The US Destroyers, No Need For The Canadian Navy, The Prince Of Wales & Repulse Would Still Be Afloat With Perhaps Even A FEW More Capital Ships In The Force.


Originally posted by stumason
The Royal Navy, though large, was not well suited to the situation that it found itself in. It was geared for large scale fleet on fleet action, but was a victim of it's own success in that almost anyone else with a fleet didn't want to scrap them. With this in mind, Germany pumped out U-boats and the Italians sat in port. The Japanese, whilst building Battleships, very much favoured carrier warfare.

You Are Only Partly Correct About The Italian Fleet In Port. First, They Were NEVER Desinged To Oppose Another Navy. They Were NEVER Designed To Operate in Any Ocean. They Were ONLY Suited To Operate In The Mediterreanean As A Defensive Force.
Yes They Sat In Port, But As A Cost Saving Measure I Suppose. They Never Expected An Air Attack At Taranto.

Originally posted by stumason
It's all very well having hundreds of capital ships, but when your up against U-boats and carriers in a changing world, the fleet was ill-suited, especially at the beginning. Hence why I stated that the Kriegsmarine would have been pummeled by the Home Fleet. The Germans knew this, which is why they built their battleships to be fast commerce raiders and pumped out U-boats by the dozen. They did not build their fleet to contend directly with the RN because they didn't have the time or money to build so many huge ships that would be required and knew that decades of building capacity and money could be wiped out in 24 hours.

Yes But No Navy Was Aware Of The Power Of A Carrier, So That Did Not Affect Uotput Of Capital Ships Up To That Time. However Every Nave Was Experienced With U-Boats From The Previous War. It Inly Makes Sense A Navy Unable To Math The RN Would Find Another Way To Counter It.
But I Don't Think It Was Time & Money That Stopped Hitler From Having A Surface Fleet, He Was Trying To Avoid Suspicion Fearing Repercussions From The Treaty Of Versailles Before He Was Able To Build His Entire Army.
Hitler Would Never Allow Money Constraints To Hinder Anything. He Just Took It From The Jews. Time Is A Different Issue.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Another wrongly titled tread, should not the title of been battleships that have been in action against other battleships as against those such as the Iowa class that did not. Just for the record all Japanese major naval units were sunk by airpower alone, there were no battleship/battleship contests.

The Iowa class were untried, how they would perform against any other ship is mere speculation and has no merit here.


Sorry, But I Think You Need To Read Some More History.
Battleship Hiei & Krishima Lay At Iron Bottom Sound Off Savo Island From The Guns Of BB Wasshington, Assisted By US Cruisers, But The Fatal Blows Against Kirishima Were From Washington.

Samuel Elliot Morrison's The Struggle For Guadalcanal Is A Good Read On The Subject Including The Pivotal Battles Between Washington & Kirishima, And Earlier Engagement With Portland, Sanfransisco & Hiei.

Later In The Battle Of Leyte Gulf, Victims Of Pearl Harbour, Maryland Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Tennessee and California, Along With Mississippi (Fired First Salvo) Took Out BB Yamashiro & Heavy Criuser Mogami.


Another Good Read Is Eric Hammel's GUADALCANAL: The Carrier Battles Explains In Great Detail That This Was The True Turning Point Of The Pacific War In That The Japanese Up Until The End Of Guadalcanal Still Had The Offensive Goal Of Annhialaiting US The Pacific Fleet With Eyes On Port Moreseby, Australia & New Zealand. After Guadalcanal, The Japanese Changed Thier Stance To A Defensive Role.
Midway May Have Been A Turning Point From A Morale Point Of View But Guadalcanal Was The Battle That Was The True Turning Point.

Read These Two Books & Then You Might Know A Ting Or 2 About A Thing Or 2.

[edit on 8-7-2007 by Heil Hitler,Eh?]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Best? Most effective? None. Thier day had come and gone. The carrier reigned surpreme in WWII.

battleships became for lack of a better work, giant shore bombardment and Flak wagons.

With this in mind I have to give the nod to the Iowa. Why? Speed, armour, radar and superior fire control. Yamato, impressive as it was, never made a differnece anywhere and I don't care how big the guns are if you never get to use them. The follow on to the Iowa had the war dragged on was to be the BB-67 class 82000 tons, 12 16" main guns, and a top speed of 33 knots (would have been to big for the panama canal.

The Bismark was really set up for commerce raiding and while it did score a lucky hit on the Hood, It was fast, accurate, but ultimetly fell prey to decades old biplanes dropping torpedos.



I'll Disagree With A Few Things. First No Battleship Can Make A Difference If They Are Sunk By Air Power. That Includes The Iowa. Look At The Pacific Fleet At Pearl For Instance. Did THEY Make A Difference? Not Until They Were Refloated & Refitted With Ugraded Guns, Armour & Towers.
Even Then They Were Merely Shore Bombarnment & AA Platforms As You Said. (Except They Got Thier Revenge Against Yamashiro & Mogami In The Battle Of Leyte Gulf)

The Bismarck Did Not Have A Lucky Shot At The Hood By Any Means.
She Had Radar Too (Likely As Advanced If Not More Advanced Than Iowas) The Germans Also Had The Most Accurate Rangefinders (Fire Control) Vastly Superior To Both The RN & USN.

However One Thing Is For Sure. The Iowa Class Were Not Tested In Ship To Ship Combat.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Clansman

So it only 'sunk' one ship but it badly dammaged HMS Prince of Wales and there was overwhelming force used against it.
There arent and will continue to be very few ships who can 'take on' and survive against 3 ships of similar size for the ammount of time the Bismark did


I really hate to derail a fine example of Germanophilia with facts, but in this case, I really have to.

Let's start with names. "Bismark" is a city in North Dakota. "Bismarck" was a mediocre battleship designed by the German navy.

Now that we've got the names correct, let's take a look at the Bismarck's 'incredible victory' over the Hood and the Prince of Wales. It's true that the Hood exploded and sank, but before you take too much pride in that victory, look at a few numbers:
Bismarck was laid down in 1936, the Hood, in 1916.

Bismarck's full-load displacement: 50,954 tons. Hood's: 48,360.

The loss of Hood given those two numbers alone should come as no surprise...a ship 20 years newer, and 2,000 tons heavier should have a substantial tactical advantage. What *is* surprising about the engagement is the amount of damage the Prince of Wales managed to inflict on Bismarck, given the relatively small size of her main battery (14"), and the fact that substantial fractions of said battery were out of action for most or all of the fight. Despite being literally fresh from the dockyard, the Prince of Wales managed to rupture Bismarck's fuel bunkers (effectively ending his commerce-raiding mission), and do enough damage to his bow to produce a significant bow trim. To make a long and technical story fairly short, Bismarck didn't 'stand up' to a pair of battleships very well. He sank one thanks to what even the Germans considered a lucky hit, and took enough damage from a ship still in shakedown to force a return to port. Not a very good showing, all things considered.

Sources for the above, just so you won't think I'm pulling facts from my stern vent, as it were:

Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II by William H. Garzke Jr. and Robert O. Dulin Jr.

b]Allied Battleships in World War II by William H. Garzke Jr. and Robert O. Dulin Jr.

Anatomy of the Ship: The Battlecruiser Hood by John Roberts.

It was also a German tradition to refer to battleships as masculine, thus my references to "his fuel bunkers" etc.

The Bismarck's final engagement doesn't speak well of his 'super ship' status, either. The fact that his hull was still floating when King George V and Rodney stopped shooting doesn't in any way change the fact that a single shot from Rodney's main guns silenced both turrets Anton and Bruno (the two forward mounts on Bismarck). It also doesn't change the fact that Bismarck didn't have a single working gun, had lost steering control, power, and communications...in short, *all* he was doing was floating and burning.

Perhaps another sort of comparison will drive home the point about Bismark's mediocre design...

As noted above, Bismarck's maximum displacement was ~ 51,000 tons.
The USS Iowa's was 55,700. So, on 10% more tonnage, the Iowas carried 1 extra gun (9 vs 8), larger guns (16" vs 15"), heavier armor (12.1" sloped to equal 17" belt vs 12-13" belt), longer range (18,500nm vs 9,500) and higher speed (32kts vs 30).

In fact, a quick look around reliable sources will show that Bismarck's turret faces and belt armor were the thinnest of any of the 'modern' battleships that served in WW II.

In short, Bismarck was a pretty ship (I should know, I've scratch built him in scales from 1/700 to 1/200), but he wasn't a particularly good ship.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson

The Bismark was not inferior to King George or Rodney. In fact Rodney could not flee from an engagement because all her big guns were forward and her top speed was pathetic. In an engagement with Tirpitiz and Bismark, the RN would have lost.


I have to speak up in defense of HMS Rodney at this point. She wasn't a racehorse by any means, but in 1922, 24 knots wasn't bad speed. Just because she could be outrun by the Fleet supply train doesn't make her speed 'pathetic'


On a more serious note, I'm not so sure that the RN would have lost a Jutland-style gun battle against Bismarck and Tirpitz. The Germans would have 16 x 15" guns on 2 hulls. Even minus Hood, the RN could bring HMS King George V, Prince of Wales, and Duke of York (with 30 x 14" guns), HMS Valiant, Warspite, and Queen Elizabeth (with 24 x 15" guns), and HMS Rodney and Nelson (with 18 x 16" guns). Even if you add Scharnhorst and Gneisenau to the German side, that's a tall order.

[edit on 8-7-2007 by Brother Stormhammer]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Well that's the thing, huh ? Rodney & Nelson were slow because the British designers were struggling with treaty obligations to fit a quart into a pint pot. The Germans had no such inhibitions ... they just totally ignored treaty obligations & the 35,000 tonne limit and built whatever they could get away with.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heil Hitler,Eh?


Yes They Were Poorly Managed, Not By The Commanders, But Hitler Himself.
The "Avenge The Hood" Might Have Been The Battle Cry But The Resolve Of The British Is Because Of What Hitler Planned To Do With Bismarck In The Open Sea. Sink Unarmed Merchantships In HUGE Numbers.
That Goes For Scarnhorst, Gniesenau & Any other Ship That Hounded
The Convoys.
Perhaps The British Would Not Have Risked So Much If Bismacrk
Engaged With Men o War Instead Of Civilian Ships Full Of VITAL Supplies.
She Would Have Been Deadlier That 3 Wolfpacks On A Single Convoy.


You can make a fair case for Bismarck at least being very poorly managed by her commander, on at least two particulars.

1) Failure to top off his fuel tanks when he had the chance. It's true that this is a much easier thing to call a mistake with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, but if you're planning on doing the sort of commerce / convoy raiding he was ordered to do, fuel is one of the limiting factors, and Bismarck wasn't terribly long-legged to start with. The extra fuel wouldn't have saved Bismarck from having to return to port after engaging Hood and PoW, but might have given enough margin for a slightly more evasive route. This bit of less-than-optimal management can be forgiven though....particularly in light of the other bit of bad decision making, namely

2) the decision to ignore his orders (which were to engage / harass convoys, and avoid direct exchanges with the Royal Navy's capital units), and engage Hood and Prince of Wales. Given the (ahem) less than optimal spotting conditions, and the 2-3 knot speed advantage Bismarck and Prinz Eugen had,, it should have been possible to avoid the engagement altogether. Unfortunately for Bismarck and his crew, somebody lost sight of his strategic mission in pursuit of a tactical advantage. That's mismanagement of the first order.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I just noticed that I've neglected to post my own candidates for 'best battleship' so that everybody can tell me how wrong I am


Yes, I said 'candidates', simply because there are too many different limiting factors impacting different periods of the war. As an example, it's hardly fair to the ships involved to compare a (supposedly) 35,000 ton battleship with 14" guns (Treaty compliant) with a 60,000 ton battleship with 18" guns. It's also hard to fairly compare ships designed for the Med with the long-legged beasts needed for power projection in the Pacific.

That said, here are my personal "Best Beasts", along with any caveats, and my reasons for picking them.

Best "Unlimited Division" (no treaty-imposed restrictions):
Iowa, by just a hair over Yamato.
Iowa has a slight but tactically significant speed advantage (32knots vs 28),
a huge range advantage (15,000+ miles to about 9,000), better AA suite, and better fire control systems.

The guns are approximately equal, despite the 2" size difference. The Yamato's Type 94 46cm/45 gun had a marginal advantage in point-blank armor penetration, and about a 3,000 yard longer range than the Iowa's Mod 7 16/50, but both guns were capable of firing well beyond the range where hits were expected (past about 30k yards, any hit you got was a gift from Santa Barbara!).

Yamato has heavier armor, balanced by Iowa's better damage control. In a fight, both ships would have been mauled to scrap....but any time a ship can fight a ship that's 50% larger to a draw, I have to call the little one the better ship. Thus, Iowa gets the nod here.

Best "Treaty Compliant": HMS King George V and her sisters, with USS South Dakota as a close second. The KGVs had smaller guns (14" vs 15-16), but mounted 10 tubes, which brought their broadside weight up to a respectable tonnage. They weren't the fastest battleships out there, but they were fast enough to maintain fleet speed, and had arguably the best protective scheme of any ships of the era.

The South Dakotas were better than the KGVs in just about every respect...9x16" guns, solid armor, better range, formidable AA / Secondary suites...but had an extra 2" of gun caliber and an extra 10,000 tons to play with, thanks to the escalation clause in the treaty...so, once again, I have to give the nod to the smaller of the two 'best' ships. God save the Kings, as it were.

Best Bang for the Buck:
USS South Dakota. Not as fast as the Iowas, and not quite as hard hitting (their 16" were the Mod 6 16/45). 80% of an Iowa's performance for about half the financial cost, and 2/3 the manpower cost? I'll take five, please.

Best thing a Navy ever did for its Opposition (the ships your enemy wishes you'd built more of):
Yamato / Musashi, hands down. Massive investments of cash, materials, manpower, and yard space (none of which the Japanese had much of in the first place) that managed between the two of them to *possibly* sink a single US escort carrier (Gambier Bay). Bismarck and Tirpitz get an honorable mention here too, due to their huge impact on the course of the war....but I do give Bismarck credit for a definite sinking of an enemy ship, which is more than the Yamatos can claim.

And finally:
Best Vertical: I had to create some category that would allow me to mention the Fuso! Tallest masts ever seen on a battleship....I think "Fuso" is Japanese for "Who dropped an office building on my deck?!"



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Ok, since my long post was cancelled, i will have to go with this, the Bismark was the best of it's time and it's theater(the theater of europe) since the other contestant was blown up by a 20000 pound bomb and was disabled by a midget sub. That was the Turpitz, and the winner For the BEST best was the Iowa, its 9x16" was as good as the Jap 18.1" shell, the fire control was better, it went faster, had almost as good of armour, and was used in the right way to be used in World War 2, to defend the new Top vessal, the mighty fleet carriers like the Enterprise.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Something that is often neglected is the two different theatres of engagement for these ships.

First, you have the Atlantic which tends to have far more fog and a number of scattered storms - everything is beyond visual range, and combat is more "flat-line" trajectory - armor is placed accordingly and intended to protect against rounds on that trajectory.

Second, you have the Pacific, where conditions are far more optimal for "over the horizon" and longer ranged shots. Rounds travel on a much more hyperbolic trajectory, and thus impact at a much more steep angle than their cousins in the Atlantic do. Thus, the configuration of many Pacific warships is different than that of Atlantic warships.

However, my money is on the Iowas as far as best battleship. "Restrictions" are academic. You can be in the "best pocket battleship ever constructed" - doesn't matter if the Iowa blasts you in half.

By that time, America's dominance in radar technology was further expressed by the fire control systems on the Iowa class battleships. Unlike other radar systems, which could not track the round all the way to impact, the U.S. had systems that could track the round to impact, calculate the difference in the course predicted and the course observed, make adjustments to the gun, and place the next round right on target with amazing accuracy.

America had unparalleled "Over-The-Horizon" capabilities that were much faster and far more accurate than systems that required visual spotting (which were used by Japan).

That, combined with her unparalleled speed for a ship her size, and relative maneuverability - the Iowas were undoubtedly the most sound battleships ever created.

On the defensive side of things, their armor was rather thin by comparison to the guns mounted on them - but the armor was still very competent, and many of the critical systems were redundant or designed to operate under less than desirable circumstances (the boilers and turbines, for example, operated at very low pressures, which made repair easier and also made operation with extensive damage and breeches possible).

That combination meant they would have been able to move&scoot like nothing else on the ocean (aside from, perhaps, a Fletcher Class....) - they would have simply overwhelmed the Japanese fire-control personnel and sent the ships to the bottom, likely before taking a single hit from a Yamato or Fuso class.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 


Really enjoyed reading your post. Very well stated and exampled.

You left out a category I would have added. What battleship can you visit today without using a scuba suit? This has to account for something about survivability in battle.

IMHO, the Bismarck seem really no more powerful than a biplane with a torpedo, given hindsight. Given history, now; a valid claim is just about any plane with a decent weapon, can take just about any ship out.

I've talked to British veterans about this engagement and the scuttle theory. I tend to believe them and it being German propaganda to show a German battleship could not be sunk by the RN.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
though technically not a ww2 battleship, she was launched in 1944.

en.wikipedia.org...(1944)



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 

Warspite to take all opponents any of the other UK ships doing the same

Reason
If you use the analogy of best modern tank take the M1 Abrams what makes so it formidable is its sensors and computer, bells and whistle if you like.
The amour and gun are shared by many other tanks its the bells and whistles that make the difference.
Now Warspite
She achieved the longest hit between two moving targets.
Noted for the calibration of the guns that is the spread between the shells in a salvo
Very high rate of fire
Survivability having saved the bridgehead at Salerno with her sister ship Valiant Warspite took three Fritz X AP guided missiles and survived with a bit of dock yard work to fight at D day.
The importance of getting the first hit it throes off the gunnery even with out doing vital damage
Don’t know the radar kit the Warspite had but on other QEs had the follows about 1939 to 1940

Type 273 effective range 26.6 miles search RDF (radar)
Type 284 shot-spotting and ranging blind fire capable RDF
So the fastest, longest, any weather, night or day shooting ship would be an old WW1 one.
That is if the contenders were using their own native technology would mean that the only RN ships would have centimetric radar.
The other contenders would not have been able to detect the RN radar the RN would have been able to detect theirs.
So it would a matter how many 15inch hits could laid down on the contender before they could open effective fire partially at night and bad weather.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join