Best Battleship of WW2

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.

reply to post by Warspite


Scoring the longest hit between two moving targets and being accurate at those ranges are two different things all together.

The 16" MK VII guns were the most accurate ever placed aboard a ship. Not to mention some of the heaviest (in terms of kinetic energy and penetration). Combined with their fire control radars (which were superior to RN models) and completely automated systems, the Iowa class could put more than 18 16" superheavy rounds out to about 20 nautical miles within a 40-foot radius.

The Iowas were never really in a good old-fashioned exchange of naval batteries. Thus they didn't have a whole lot of opportunity to set such records. Though, undoubtedly, their greatest advantage came in their computer control systems which could track the tendencies of each gun, compensate for them, and take into account the movement of the ship (certainly a consideration in a ship like the Iowa class ships) - far more effectively than a team of mathematicians with nerves of steel could.

You also have to take into account the differences in armor protection. The Iowas were designed with internal armor belts that were face-hardened and backed (inboard section) with softer metals and alloys (layered) to reduce splintering and prevent shrapnel from being able to penetrate the bulkheads. The armor was also mostly devoted to proofing against ranged shots (which fall on a steeper trajectory).

The radar was also a combination of a couple systems - one was a more standard tracking radar (tracking the individual rounds - there was a separate search system), the other was a surface-following tracking radar, which was essential to tracking the rounds to impact beyond visual range - which is what gave the Iowas ridiculous accuracy at extreme ranges.

Though the RN were not far behind the US in radar technology, the U.S. had the upper hand on both radars and computers, not to mention those relative industries (which were not being hampered by the Luftwaffe).

This is not at all unexpected, as the Iowas were the pentacle of Battleship design - incorporating all of the experience of anti-aircraft design, anti-ship design, anti-torpedo design, active and passive detection, active and passive defense, robust and reliable propulsion mechanisms, hydrodynamic hull structuring, etc. They were the result of over 50 years of theory and experience.

And as the last battleship class ever constructed on Earth by one of the most industrially and technologically advanced nations on the planet, it would not be surprising that it be considered one of the most lethal and capable Battleship designs of all time.

reply to post by Aim64C


What I said was that is if the contenders were using their own native technology would mean that the only RN ships would have centimetric radar
The hart of all the effective RDF or as became rebranded Radar was the Cavity Magnetron and that was developed and paid for by the RN and I did say native technology.
So take away the Magnetron and from what ever ship and it would be like a boxer a with detached retina banned from combat.
I was on a technology site when the subject was WW2 radar and an American made various claims about the origin of the radars used by the US armed forces.
It was settled by a Canadian radar expert who published a list of all the radars use by the US and they overwhelming they where copies of UK designs many already in production in Canada.
More bells and whistles
Fire control computer Warspite had them since First World War called a ranging table.
Extra heavy i.e. 16” 2400pd shell been there done it 15” nearly 2000pd Vicars had worked out how handle the gun pressures about 1899.
Bismarck and zones of immunity as far know the Germans had not discovered them which is why it was silenced so easily by Rodney.
I seem to remember from the test of the old high seas fleet that shells that hit the armoured trunking that the funnels sat on.
Because this armour at about 45o low or the deadly high trajectory was deflected up or to the horizontal zones of immunity was known in the 1920s .
Something useful from the States flash less powder probable other thing else but I can’t think of it for the moment
The latest thinking on why the Bismarck staid afloat for so long it was the RNs cruiser that did it counter flooded it when it started to capsize by torpedoing it other side.
The Bismarck and the Swordfish first the Swordfish it was not old just built in an old style
The Swordfish sank more ships than any other allied aircraft I think may be the top score all comers Tactics to fly at altitude then remembering it was also a dive bomber dive to wave top height and start it torpedo run.
The Bismarck and the means it to protect its self against torpedo bombers first the 15” to raise water spouts to destroy or spoil the torpedo runs of the attacking aircraft.
Next the 6” not dual purpose unlike the 6” guns in the Rodney so it just waterspouts 105mm pre VT fuse very little chance of a hit.
All the above guns effort would have negated by the Swordfish high low tactics.
This leaves the swordfish skimming along at wave top next 37mm early model semi automatic not a very effective weapon and only a few provided.
Lastly along the deck rail manually operated 20mm guns the effective range was less than where the torpedoes were dropped.
Thus the Bismarck was doomed by bad provision of AA guns and smart tactics.

Actually, the super-heavy 16" round was a 2,700 lb projectile, not 2,400. Check Friedman's "U.S. Battleships".

While I'm here...if radar was such an exclusive province of the U.K., how did the Germans, Japanese, and Italians all manage to have functional radar systems? The cavity magnetron made things much more efficient, but radar itself was a fairly wide-spread development, so I don't think your assumption of a U.K. monopoly on effective radar fire control is a valid one.

I'd also like to see some documentation for your claim that the Swordfish may have sunk more ships than any other aircraft. Given the RN's general opinion of the type (less than positive, to say the least), and the limited number of available targets, I find it a rather difficult claim to accept without some backup. Even if it's legitimate, it doesn't really enter into the topic of this thread, since (again, as far as I know) the Swordfish wasn't standard kit on any battleships.

American sailers were crap, [ww2] look what they did to the prinz Eugan?
only crewed it for a couple of weeks and buggered the engines, I would love to know who the twat was who gave prinzEugan to the Americans to start with, idiot.

Originally posted by pikestaff
American sailers were crap, [ww2] look what they did to the prinz Eugan?
only crewed it for a couple of weeks and buggered the engines, I would love to know who the twat was who gave prinzEugan to the Americans to start with, idiot.

You might do a bit of research before slinging insults and generalizations (would they be "admrializations", since we're talking about ships?) around with such abandon.

Right out of the gate, you might at least take some care to get the name of the ship correct. "prinz Eugan" isn't a spelling I've ever seen before (and believe me, I've seen, and been responsible for, some real winners in a few years of writing naval essays). "Prinz Eugen" is the way it's normally rendered by German and English sources. Normally, I'm not a real 'spelling nazi', but in the case of a ship, it's a matter of respect to the men who built him and served on him to get it right.

Spelling rant aside, your post shows a remarkable lack of research. The Prinz Eugen was under American command (with a mixed German / American crew) for about half a year (5 Jan 46 - June 46), not two weeks. As for buggering the engines, the American sailors didn't have to do that...Blohm & Voss beat them to the punch by several years. The entire Admiral Hipper class had engine problems from day one. German excellence in engineering doesn't seem to have extended to the field of steam turbines.

I would love to know who the twat was who gave prinzEugan to the Americans to start with, idiot.

The "twat" in question would be one Karl Donitz, Oberbefehlshaber der Kriegsmarine and Oberkommando der Marine from 30 Jan 1943 - 23 May 1945, and Reichsprasident from 1 May 1945 - 23 May 1945. Donitz was a lot of things, but "idiot" wasn't one of them.

It's always strange how the winners of a war are always brilliant and the losers always complete idiots. Should we assume that people with such opinions have never done any competitive sport or gaming or are they just in fact complete idiots?

Since i have enjoyed your reading your ideas in this thread I wouldn't mind links if some of your work is available online

Thanks

Stellar

[edit on 13-7-2008 by StellarX]

reply to post by Warspite


Lol, that's a negative on your radar data, there.

Over-The-Horizon radar was unique to America. Cavity resonators were well known in America at that time, as well... and under our native production.

I won't argue the point about where the resonator originated. Things like that typically are developed in many different locations by communities and colleagues that are haphazardly linked (friend of a friend's roomate's brother's dog who had this idea about doing this with that one thing to make the doomaflitchit work).

However, America was more than capable of manufacturing their own, and had the corner market on radar fire controls.

And it's kind of silly to say "native technology...." The SA-10 Grumble sure as hell ain't native to China... but it can shoot me down just the same. I'm not going to say "Hey, you all bought that from the Russians! Therefor, that doesn't count!"

Stellar; the winners are not always geniuses and the losers aren't always idiots. Germany was a damned brilliant nation (still kind of are... but they're still in shell-shock from WWII or something). I'm actually rather proud of my German heritage. The Japanese were rather clever as well.

It's only the immature, ill-informed rants from dillusional minds that say "yeah we kicked ur but an now ur an eedee ot noob!1!!!1"

Though it is pretty funny to read up on the German version of the CIA.... Between the U.S. and the U.K. ... we had them so full of disinformation, double-agents, and meaningless babble that the Germans didn't know what the hell was going on. Of course... they also made it too easy.... they had a bad habit of giving their projects code-names that actually related to the goal of the project........

My family is known for being very good at engineering-related concepts.... not poker.... so I guess it all fits.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Stellar; the winners are not always geniuses and the losers aren't always idiots.

Which was the point i attempted to make there.

Germany was a damned brilliant nation (still kind of are... but they're still in shell-shock from WWII or something). I'm actually rather proud of my German heritage. The Japanese were rather clever as well.

I don't like to use such terms in respect to one nation or anything and i am fairly confident that socio-economic,political and history and other factors results to a majority of people in a given nation having certain predispositions at certain time. Since we know that Germans didn't elected Hitler and didn't want wars of any times we can easily say that they were brilliant but i hardly think that sets them apart from many nations of that era. I am fairly confident that Japanese didn't trudge off to war any happier about their fate than Germans but that societal regimentation just allowed them fewer means to express such disagreements with authority.

It's only the immature, ill-informed rants from dillusional minds that say "yeah we kicked ur but an now ur an eedee ot noob!1!!!1"

Absolutely and since the winners writers history they make it fairly easy trough schooling to hold such deluded and mostly ignorant views.

Though it is pretty funny to read up on the German version of the CIA.... Between the U.S. and the U.K. ... we had them so full of disinformation, double-agents, and meaningless babble that the Germans didn't know what the hell was going on.

As you know there was not CIA during the second world war and i am not entirely sure if you are trying to compare the OSS and the Abwehr?

Of course... they also made it too easy.... they had a bad habit of giving their projects code-names that actually related to the goal of the project........

As i remember that happened everywhere with tongues sometimes firmly in cheek. It's hard to explain why operational security should be compromised in this way and i suppose it's just too hard to resist....

My family is known for being very good at engineering-related concepts.... not poker.... so I guess it all fits.

Hmmm. I think language can play a very important part in engineering ( it took a good long time to develop Afrikaans sufficiently to use it as primary education tool in engineering higher learning) and maybe the fact English is Germanic language it explains why the English speaking world is doing ok if not as great as the Germans. That's one of my theories at least as i REALLY don't believe that this has anything to do with genes even if culture will obviously play a large role....

Stellar

everyone has an appinion but it would in my apinion a very tight tussel between the US, German and Japanese big guns, by the way the yamato class sported 18" big guns Iowa class16" and the Bismark class 15" i think main weponry, its not the size but how it was used and clearly wat ever is said about the U,S, they got it spot on.

High Pressure Steam Turbines
It was not just the Admiral Hipper, Scharnhorst class the destroyer and the torpedo boats.
The worst effected were the torpedo boat there was not sufficient engine room space to modify them.
Don’t know about the Bismarck and Tirpitz but in the Bismarck last hours they were doing test on the engines and radioing the results back home.
The Kriegsmarine had not done sufficient trials and research I wonder if any one told Hitler probably not and who could blame them.
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer

reply to post by Aim64C


Over-The-Horizon radar was unique to America
Do you mean the radar horizon as in optical horizon?
Or do you mean over the horizon radar as in Cobra Mist long range radar.
Dam I have started saying Radar instead RDF I will be using the S word for football next like that retch David Becham if I am not carful.
yep 2700 laps of memory

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer

Starting in 1940, squadrons of Swordfish stationed from Malta had sunk more than a million and a half tons of enemy shipping....a record never to be equalled (land based).
They were calming 50,000 tonnes a month the FAA Museum at Yeovilton is trying to collate the totals.
Not standard kit on battleships not on topic Stormhammer! Warspite second battle of Narvick spotted for the 15’’ guns spotted a sub bombed sunk it made handy floatplane.
Wiped out the backbone of the Kriegsmarine destroyers that day so then beloved Fuhrer order that the new destroyer be giver numbers Z# not a bad days work for one little biplane.

reply to post by The_Clansman


yeah, the limes sunk Bismark with they fist shot.
catch my sarcasm

I do not know about navies per se, but I remember being taught at school, that all of Nazi Germany's battleships were so-called 'Pocket Battleships'.

Germany built the Bismark, Prinz Eugen, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and the Tirpitz in an effort to get round the punitive Articles of the Treaty of Verseilles which she was forced to sign on capitulation in 1918.

When Hitler eventually because Reich Chancellor, one of the first things he did was to give Raeder and Donitz the beginnings of the navy they wanted.

But in order to do so without arousing suspicions of re-armament, the battleships built were just within the constraints of the treaty.

With regards to the topic of the thread [yet another 'what is best'] I would have to say - longevity wise and almost continual action, then my vote goes to the USS New Jersey.

True it did not see action in WWII, but it has served the USN well and its crew can boast action from Korea through to Gulf War One. An impressive record, second to none.

We Brits had the Hood and Prince of Wales - sunk by the Germans and Japanese respectively and the big lumbering King George V.

The Imperial Japanese Navy had the Yamato with its massive 18 inch guns, but still no match for the USN and her carriers.

[Japan also had quite a fleet of submarines but for some strange reason, did not deploy them in a war role as we Brits, the Germans and the American navy did]

reply to post by fritz


Not all German battleships were pocket battleships, only three of them. Quite a successful design too, as general commerce raiders. Caused the Royal Navy major problems in the early stages of the war.

But I doubt if any of the German battleships met treaty limits, tbh. The pocket battleships were reckoned to exceed the 10,000 tonne limit by a couple of thousand tonnes, the Bismarck & Tirpitz way exceeded the 35,000 tonne limit (although by the point they were launched the treaty had lapsed anyway). Probably only Gneisenau & Scharnhorst (just) met the tonnage limits, although I think most naval buffs would class them as battlecruisers rather than battleships anyway, both having less armour & smaller calibre main guns than their larger sisters. Impressive vessels, never the less.

Originally posted by fritz
Japan also had quite a fleet of submarines but for some strange reason, did not deploy them in a war role as we Brits, the Germans and the American navy did]

With respect to the Japanese Sub deployments they were for the most part ( especially the start of the war) directed to attack the USN itself which was in my opinion a very risky strategy mostly compromised by the fact that Pearl were not put out of action as a fleet base. While Japanese submarines scored some notable victories against the American big tops ( torpedoed three out of six and one twice) that two dozen Japanese submarines could have cause devastation on the American West coast thus isolating the USN in the Pacific and possibly forcing a withdrawal. Given the fragility of the Japanese Carrier arm these large scale fleet battle's were always going to be risky affairs and aiming for knock out blows while sending CARRIERS here there and everywhere should have logically led to the conclusion that you could just as well send the submarines to hunt their primary prey.

Either way much like the Japanese cruiser forces rarely managed to properly conclude their engagements so their submarines were misdirected leaving the destroyers and carriers to do a impossible job with battleships apparently too highly valued to risk until they were ultimately thrown away. To explain how the Japanese managed all that would probably require me to read very many more books than i have so i'll just leave the questioning hanging for now.

Stellar

Personally I would chose the two beauty sister ships, which usually sailed together, the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau. They had a relatively long career and they've fought great battles against superior enemies.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by devilwasp



There were plenty of friendly fire deaths in WW2. Dozens. This is the nature of war.

Dear All

The first pocket battleship to be lost (scuttled) was the Admiral Graff Spee and had marine diesels like the Deutschland and the Prince Eugen not steam turbines.
The first computer (mechanical) was called the Bombe and was used to crack the enigma code when a small segment of code was intercepted (mainly for convoy purposes) at Bletchly park.
The first electromechanical computer was called Collosus and was also at bletchly doing the same thing but without the message fragment.

The US was given the bombe which it then started to make in much greater numbers than could the UK (which annoyed the hell out of the british) and the british got nothing in return, much like the plans for the whittle jet engine etc etc etc.

The use of RADAR or RDF if you prefer was not unique to the UK what was unique was its use as part of an integrated air defence system (much as we all have today) but in 1940.

Many things were given over to the industrial strength of the US in time of war that would otherwise not have been given away. To deny this is simply not accurate nor valuable to the debate about the best Battleship that was undoubtedly the IOWA class of the USA.

One could say? that HMS Vanguard would have been better but it was launched in 1946 so too late. We don't know what would have happened if an IOWA had fought the Yammato or the Musashi or both, but the Japanese who knew what they were doing designed them to fight the IOWAS so presumably they had some idea.

IOWA was a great design with super guns but it was not unique in that the ideas used had been around for a while. The genius was putting it all together, that is what the USA does better than anyone else. Just look at the use of the TV, radio, neither of which it invented but hell they really went to town on it post war.

Before anyone jumps on me yes the US invented the transistor (1947- three of them actually working for Bell electronics), but the idea was an extrapolation of the valve which was invented by a brit (Fleming) on another extrapolation from Thomas Edison an american.

So who did what is really irrelevant it's what we do with it once it's out there and there is where the US as it historically has done is proven to be the masters, incuding battleship design. they werent the first ironclads or first dreadnoughts, both of which go tot the RN, but at the end of the day they (the US) had the last word with the IOWAS. (in my opinion)


Enjoy