Longbow: Your view of history is a long shot. King Edward the Third did in fact defeat Scotland. He was also rumored NOT to be the son of Edward the Second, but of his queen. She purportedly escaped England while she was pregnant with someone else's son.

Now then, which do you think would have won, the Yamato or the Iowa? Granted, they wouldn't have been alone, but we will never know how the chips would have fallen. Halsey might have gotten the notion to leave that task force behind where it belonged, but lets assume all else being equal. A lucky hit from the Yamato might have sunk the Iowa, but it would have been a lucky shot indeed. The improved aiming technology of the Iowa class provides that the Iowa would likely have scored first.

With improved ballistics of the 16/50 caliber guns, the first hits from the Americans might well have disabled the Japanese ships targeting system. It then would have been a matter of time before the 16 inch guns were able to finish her off. Still the reality is that the Iowa class was more of a heavy cruiser than a fully armored battleship: historians agree that up until the Montana Class, American battleships were not armored to defend against their own caliber. One lucky hit from the Yamato's 18/45 caliber guns could have conceivably taken out the Iowa entirely.

It's either a three way tie between the American Iowa-class, the Yamato-class, or the Nazi Bismark. The Iowas had little time to prove their worth but had a speed advantage. The Bismark had an overall balance of power and the Yamato was a behemoth.

Battleships with railguns are what we need.

The Bismarck was great. It is possibly THE best Battleship of the Second World War. I say this because she had the greatest influence in the shortest amount of time of any battleship in that War. At one point the Bismarck had most of the British Navy looking for her. Even the Canadians and the US Navy had helped search for her, even though we were still over a year from getting into that conflict. For longevity, though, I would have to say that the USS Missouri was the greatest battleship of the Second World War.

Hotel Yamato!

If only they had surrendered sooner we'd have an amazing piece of history; a piece of insane engineering. Too bad those damned Japanese dictators had to uphold their honor and send all those good men to slaughter, and the Yamato to the bottom on a suicide run. She put up a hell of a fight and went in a flash of glory, so I guess she went out with a bang!

Looking at it from an academic standpoint.

How about the best battleship built by 1942? It's down to the yamato, bismark, or KG 5th class. I'd put them in that order, but not as much difference as you might think. All had their merits.

America doesn't count, it could have taken on the entire world for a good while if it wanted, we were starting to peak as an empire. Not so much anymore. a bankrupt country can't maintain expensive weapons systems very long.

[edit on 25-12-2008 by CapsFan8]

Wasn't the Yamato, like the biggest one ever made? Too bad for Japan it wasn't used most effectively. Good for us, though, I guess.

Hey, I stumbled across this forum and figured I'd add my two cents.

First of all, There was NO ultimate warship. They all had limitations.

My worst list. R-class and Scharnhorsts. R-classes were a backwards step from the QE's and were considered expendable in WWII. Next up, Scharnhorst and her sister were doomed from the they day they were launched. Over weight and under gunned, their armour decks were actually below the waterline. The armour scheme was a reversion to WWI designs. Their fickle machinery was unable to fit below the armoured decks and lay exposed behind only 3" of plating. They had short legs and water splashing over the decks would often interrupt function of both forward turrets.

Now to look at the rest.

Nelson and Rodney: Dangerous and well protected, but slow and poorly laid out. In fact, Rodneys own blasts damaged her greatly while dueling with Bismarck. Her 6" guns with high angle were an AA failure, and her 4.7" didn't live up to expectations.

KGV: Undergunned for new design. Notoriously wet forward and their Quad turrets jammed in battle. They gave up 2 main guns for more armour(hence the dual turret), even though they had questionable watertighness.

Bismarck: Her armour was built for short range gun duels. Hard to sink with great internal subdivision, but with almost everything above the waterline unprotected they were easy to silence in battle. Their achilles heel was the triple screw, they could not steer without her rudder. AA fit was adequate when designed, obsolete by the the time they commisioned.

Yamato: What can be said. The biggest, thickest everything couldn't prevent the her crew from dubbing her "Hotel Yamato" The overly thick armour actually hindered their underwater protection. A torpedo hit in 1943 allowed 3,000 tons of water in, three times as much as a torpedo hit on the North Carolina. They had masses of AA, but unguided and proved ineffective.

Richeleu: superb ship, with a great amount of protection with a very deep belt and antitorpedo system. On paper, especially after "Americanization", she was a fine warship. Her main drawback being all her main guns forward in two turrets.

Litorio: A fine class of seaboats, if hampered by poor craftsmanship and the Pugilese torpedo defense system. No more glaring faults than any of the other treaty BB's

N. Carolina: Designed to fit 12-14" on 35,000tons. An escalation clause allowed for the adoption of 9-16" and some extra tonnage. The 16" was a real performer. Low muzzle velocity and heavy shell weight combined for great long range accuracy and the best deck penetration of WWII. They had a unsolved vibration at high speeds and armour offered NO immunity to their own 2700lb shells.

S. Dakota: Designed for 16" with better protection than N. Carolina on the same tonnage. They too had a weakness with their internal armour belt and anti torpedo system. This was very apparent when Washington rammed Indiana. Although she steamed into port under her own power, the story could have been much different had one more bulkhead failed. Tthey had a marginal immunity to the 2700lb super heavy.

Iowa: They too were imperfect. The long narrow bow accounted for a very wet ship forward and a large unprotected volume. The same armour scheme as S.Dakota with more angle to the belt to increase resistance to heavy shells. They were the best AA ships afloat. The 16"/50 was longer ranged than the 16"/45 and had better side armour penetration.

The best WWII BB is very debatable. I have to say Washington. While not perfect, she prowled the Atlantic for Tirpitz, sank Kirishima and Ayanami in night action, and never was hit or lost a man to enemy fire while earning 13 battlestars. She sank more combat tonnage than any other US BB in WWII. For 5 weeks she patroled Japanese waters alone, being the only US BB in the Pacific.