# Best Pre-war Battleship/Battlecruiser



## parsifal (May 11, 2008)

OKay, a few of us have thought it might be a good idea to have a second look at the Battleship debate, but without the wartime superdreadoughts included.


----------



## timshatz (May 12, 2008)

Tough poll, a lot to pick there. Firepower, speed, armor, all have different sets. 

Before I kick out a pick, I have a couple of questions for the board.
1. Is the Scharnhorst the fastest or is it one of the French BBs?
2. 16" guns on the Nagato and the California?
3. Who's got the thickest deck armor (not side, deck only)?

After figuring which one leads in those three departments, would look at fire control next.


----------



## parsifal (May 12, 2008)

Hi tim

Effective Sea Speeds are the way to go, Here are the effective speeds and armament of all the ships listed . For the armour, i have listed the max turret, side and deck armour (total, all decks). Please note, I have only researched the ship characteristics very quickly 

Warspite Class 24.5 Kts, 8 x 15", 11/13/8.5 
Hood 29 kts (1941), 8 x 15", 15/12/8 
Renown/Repulse 29 kts (1941), 6 x 15", 11/9/6 
Nelson Class 23 kts, 9 x 16", 16/12/14 
West Virginia Class 21.5 kts, 8 x 16", 18/16/5 (approx)
California Class 20.5 kts, 12 x 14", 18/14/6.5
New Mex Class 21.5 kts, 12 x 14", 18/14/6 (approx)
Pennsylvania Class 21 kts, 12 x 14", 18/14/6
Fuso/Ise Class 24.9 kts 12x14, 12/12/7
Nagato Class 25.3 kts 8 x 16", 14/12/11
Kongo Class 29.5 kts+ (after 1940 refits), 8 x 14", 9/8/7.5 (approx) 
Scharnhorst Class 32 kts 9 x 11", 14/13.75/6.75
Deutschland Class 27 kts 6 x 11", 5.5/3/1.5
Paris/Courbet Class 20.5 kts (approx), 8 x 13.4", 17/10.75/3.5 
Dunkerque Class 29.5 kts, 8 x 13", 13.25/9.75/5 
Cavour/Doria 28.25 kts, 10 x 12.6", 11/9.75/5 (approx)
Marat Class 23 kts (design speed), 12 x 12 ", 12/8.75/3.75 (approx)
Sverige Class 23.5 kts, 4 x 11", 8/8/2 (approx)


These figures are approximate, but reasonably close nevertheless. They represent "max total protection", and do not reflect thje overall extent of armour protection. There are also many other factors that affected Battleship design efficiency....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2008)

I honestly do not know eneogh about ships to make an honest opinion here. So I am hoping to learn something here. I am leaning toward the Hood or the Scharnhorst class though.


----------



## Freebird (May 12, 2008)

I think you should have a separate poll for the Battleships Battlecruisers. Or else allow multiple choice to pick one of each.

*When you say "pre war" do you mean Sept 1939?* We already did a BB poll for May of 41 {time of Bismarck sinking}

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww...attleship-straight-duel-may-1941-a-11878.html



timshatz said:


> Tough poll, a lot to pick there. Firepower, speed, armor, all have different sets.
> 
> Before I kick out a pick, I have a couple of questions for the board.
> 1. Is the Scharnhorst the fastest or is it one of the French BBs?
> ...




Tim, of the 5 BC types, the Scharnhorst is the fastest at 32 knots, but only has 9 x 11" guns. The Renown Hood can do 31 knots, the Renown's with 6 x 15", the Hood had 8 x 15". The French Dunquerque's could do about 30 knots and had 8 x 13" guns. Kongo's could also do 30 knots and had 8 x 14" guns.

Only Nelson, Nagato Colorado class have 16" guns. California's had only 14" guns. The 3 Colorado's had 16" guns. {CO, MD, WV}

All of the BB's were 23.5 knots or slower, except for Italian Cavour's {27 knts}, and Nagato's {26 knts}



freebird said:


> Stats:
> 
> Scharnhorst 9 x 11" guns, 6.7" - 13.8" armour belt, 2" deck armour
> 
> ...



Perhaps delcyros can answer more detailed info on deck armour, as stats don't tell the whole story about angles and compatmenting etc.


----------



## Juha (May 12, 2008)

Parsifal
very difficult to decise. I need still more time to choose between Nelson-class, West Wirginia-class, Nagato-class, Renown, Scharnhorst-class and Dunkerque-class.

BTW there is a typo in Warspite specs it had 8 not 5 15" guns. It was bad that Valiant, more extensive modernized Queen Elizabeth-class BB than Warspite, missed the dead-line by mere 2 months, its refit ended Nov 39.

Very good and difficult poll!

Juha


----------



## Freebird (May 12, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I honestly do not know eneogh about ships to make an honest opinion here. So I am hoping to learn something here. I am leaning toward the Hood or the Scharnhorst class though.



I think the Hood was clearly the best of the Battlecruisers.

*However*, if the Scharnhorst's had completed their planned upgrades {would have had 3 x twin 15" guns} and improved deck armour it would have made a much closer match


----------



## timshatz (May 12, 2008)

Freebird, I'm with you on seperating the polls. It would work better. BCs really aren't capital ships in the idea that they are designed to slug it out in the battle line. Too many admirals made that mistake and they went to the bottom. Although by looking at the numbers, it seems the Scharnohorst and the Hood had as good (if not better) defenses compared to some of the BBs. I guess the question comes up about the extensiveness of the armor. 

Got my US BBs a little mixed up with the barrel size. Knew there were 16"s out there but couldn't remember which ones.


----------



## delcyros (May 12, 2008)

The most reasonable candidate for this poll should be HMS HOOD. It features a balanced combination of speed, firepower and protection at the expense of excessive size. 
Do not make the mistake in judging HOOD according to her rapid sinking in the battle of Denmark street, it was THE battleship of the interwar period. 
Others might have been harder to sink (Scharnhorst, Colorado) or more powerfully armed (Nelson) but as a balanced warship, she was not superceded before the advent of the Bismarck class many years later.


----------



## parsifal (May 12, 2008)

Even then, her sudden demise was probably the result of a lucky hit. if the British had spent even a little time and money upgrading her, she might have had a chance. as it was, she just pulled the number 13 on the day she was sunk.

IMO Bismarck is one of the most overrated designs as well, but I dont want to hijack the debate at this point


----------



## parsifal (May 12, 2008)

_All of the BB's were 23.5 knots or slower, except for Italian Cavour's {27 knts}, and Nagato's {26 knts}_



Basically true, except for Warspite and QE , which after their last refits were closer to 24.5 kts. The pocket battleships were rated at somewhere between 27 and 28 kts (depending on who you believe). Finally the Ises and Fusos were rated at between 24.7 and 25.3 kts, depending on the time after refit. In addition, all of the US BBs could not exceed 21 kts max sea speed, and then only for relatively short periods. In a long stern cahase, their effective speed was much slower than that, because of the generally low freeboard. Finally, the Nagatos after refit were rated at 26.5 kts (every bit counts), but this may well have fallen away as the war progressed.

None of the Japanese BBs or BCs were protected to anything like the US standard. Indeed all of the US BBs in this poll are armoured to the "all or nothing" principal, which was the correct way to distribute armour. There is little point to distributing armour a bit here, a bit there, if the vitals are not covered properly. The Japanese designs relied on speed and firepower to win battles, with armour distribution being rather poor, and thin at that....

Deck armouring in these BBs was poor. Those that were modernised all had additional deck armour added, as it was realized that at range plunging fire through the deck was the biggest threat to a ship, even in a surface engagement. I believe that Hood was destroyed by a deck penetration that happened to reach a magazine. But i am not a dedicated Hood student.


----------



## Freebird (May 12, 2008)

delcyros said:


> The most reasonable candidate for this poll should be HMS HOOD. It features a balanced combination of speed, firepower and protection at the expense of excessive size.
> Do not make the mistake in judging HOOD according to her rapid sinking in the battle of Denmark street, it was THE battleship of the interwar period.
> Others might have been harder to sink (Scharnhorst, Colorado) or more powerfully armed (Nelson) but as a balanced warship, she was not superceded before the advent of the Bismarck class many years later.



Agreed. Perhaps a poll should be for BB's only pre-1939, not BC's.

Do you think the Scharnhorst was harder to sink than the Hood? 



parsifal said:


> _All of the BB's were 23.5 knots or slower, except for Italian Cavour's {27 knts}, and Nagato's {26 knts}_
> 
> 
> 
> Basically true, except for Warspite and QE , which after their last refits were closer to 24.5 kts.



Was the Warspite finished before Sept 1939?


----------



## parsifal (May 12, 2008)

Hi Freebird

According to Conways, Warspite's refit was from March 1934 to March 1937.

Valiant and QE were completed in November 1939, and December 1940 (respectively), to more or less the same specs.

British refits were less extensive than those of other nations, but were highly cost effective, and took full advantage of the british naval architecture advantages that come with building the most battleships of any nation


----------



## slaterat (May 13, 2008)

The Renown and the Repulse recieved quite different rebuilds. The Repulse was quite limited, while the Renown was extensively rebuilt.

I picked the Renown as it was the best of the RN rebuilds. Its deck armour was increased to a 6 inch main deck topped by another deck of 2-4 inches.AFAIK the deck totaled 10 inches over the magazines. She was still capable of 29 knots and had an excellant secondary arament of 20 4.5 inch guns. Originally built with an internal anti torpedoe bulge she had another external one added. Therefore at the start of WW II the Renown was the best RN capital ship, being the fastest with the heaviest deck armour as well as the best protected against air attack. Her biggest weakness would be the narrow 9 inch main belt, but overall the most useful of the RN rebuilds. The Renown was a better ship than the Hood ,whose deck armour was spread over three decks. The poor Hood was to have been modernized similar to the Renown, but the war started and the rest is history.

Slaterat


----------



## Kurfürst (May 13, 2008)

Its a though choice for me between the Dunkerque, the Hood and the Scharnhorst. The others I eliminate from the decision because of their low speed or insufficient armor. But I am probably have to agree with delcyros about the Hood having the best balance of qualities of these.


----------



## Freebird (May 17, 2008)

slaterat said:


> The Renown and the Repulse recieved quite different rebuilds. The Repulse was quite limited, while the Renown was extensively rebuilt.
> 
> I picked the Renown as it was the best of the RN rebuilds. Its deck armour was increased to a 6 inch main deck topped by another deck of 2-4 inches.AFAIK the deck totaled 10 inches over the magazines. She was still capable of 29 knots and had an excellant secondary arament of 20 4.5 inch guns. Originally built with an internal anti torpedoe bulge she had another external one added. Therefore at the start of WW II the Renown was the best RN capital ship, being the fastest with the heaviest deck armour as well as the best protected against air attack. Her biggest weakness would be the narrow 9 inch main belt, but overall the most useful of the RN rebuilds. The Renown was a better ship than the Hood ,whose deck armour was spread over three decks. The poor Hood was to have been modernized similar to the Renown, but the war started and the rest is history.
> 
> Slaterat



Good reasoning. But what source do you use for the deck armour stats? 10" sounds a little high, but if it was thats incredible protection.

Also it isn't mentioned in the poll, but does "best ship" include ships crew? The Renown/Repulse had much more experience than some of the other BC's/BB's, the performance of Repulse in the South China Sea {avoiding 4 Torpedo/bomb attacks before the fatal one} is mainly a result of the skill of the Capitan/Helm. {and could have survived had the RAF Buffalos been called for as soon as the air attack began}


----------



## parsifal (May 17, 2008)

Highly doubtful that Fze Z could have survived, in my opinion. Japanese losses would have increased, but the japanese had quite a numbe of LR Torpedo Bombers uncommitted to the battle, as at the time of the sinking. Matsungaga, the Commander of the air corps with the brief to sink the the two British ships was boarding a G3M to personally lead the last wave, should they be needed. I believe there were at least 17 Nells not committed to the strike as at the last sinking.

From memory, Force Z was only ever promised 6 Buffaloes as aircover, with each only a relatively short time over the target.

Now, it would have been a different story if the Indefatigable had not hit a rock enroute with the two Capital ships, and had been available to provide local aircover


----------



## dysonsphere (May 17, 2008)

Hmmm Hood would have been top if her rebuild along the lines of then QE class had been carried out. Nelson and Rodney were good in theory but were too slow and suffered from main armanent problems for their whole life. Including restrictions on permissable arcs of fire. Also the 6" twin turrets were not much use AA was more important.


----------



## Glider (May 17, 2008)

I admit the Renown and Nelson make a good combination. Both had good deck armour and by 1939 standards, very good LAA guns. The Renown had an unmatched HAA defence which were useful as anti destroyer weapons and the Nelson had a good 6in secondary defence.


----------



## Freebird (May 17, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Highly doubtful that Fze Z could have survived, in my opinion. Japanese losses would have increased, but the japanese had quite a numbe of LR Torpedo Bombers uncommitted to the battle, as at the time of the sinking. Matsungaga, the Commander of the air corps with the brief to sink the the two British ships was boarding a G3M to personally lead the last wave, should they be needed. I believe there were at least 17 Nells not committed to the strike as at the last sinking.
> 
> From memory, Force Z was only ever promised 6 Buffaloes as aircover, with each only a relatively short time over the target.
> 
> Now, it would have been a different story if the *Indefatigable* had not hit a rock enroute with the two Capital ships, and had been available to provide local aircover



Actually the final wave {the Japanese launched from several directions at once, after the Repulse had already successfully "combed" 3 TB waves} was almost the LAST group of TB's on hand, and they were already low on fuel. The remaining Nell's had 250 500 lb bombs, Force Z had already evaded several bomb attacks with minimum damage. Even 6 buffalos would have been enough to disrupt unescorted bombers trying to launch torpedoes.

If the Buffaloes had showed up and prevented the Japanese from launching a multi-directional attack on the Repulse, and assuming that Capt. Tennant had retreated to Singapore, the Japanese would not have enough time to launch again {from Indo-China bases}

It was actually *HMS Indomitable* that was scraping rocks in the Caribbean. The other 2 "I" {Implacable} class would take a couple more years to complete. {Not to nit-pick or anything}


----------



## parsifal (May 17, 2008)

Yes you are correct about the ship names. For some reqson I always get the two mixed up..... very embarrassing


----------



## Freebird (May 17, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Yes you are correct about the ship names. For some reqson I always get the two mixed up..... very embarrassing



  not as embarassing as the G-L-A-C-I-A-L speed that the British built the Implacables *4.5* years to build a desparatly needed A/C! In wartime!  Lucky for the British that the Germans could hold out during 1944 or else those d**m carriers would have missed the war!

Anyways, back on topic....



dysonsphere said:


> Hmmm Hood would have been top if her rebuild along the lines of then QE class had been carried out. Nelson and Rodney were good in theory but were too slow and suffered from main armanent problems for their whole life. Including restrictions on permissable arcs of fire. Also the 6" twin turrets were not much use AA was more important.



The Nelson's were slow it is true, but every other foreign BB in 1939 was 22 knots or slower, except for the 2 Nagato class and the 2 re-built Italian "Cavours". The Italian ships with 10 x 13.5" guns would be at a distinct disatavntage against the heavily armoured Nelsons with 9 x 16" guns.

Are we taking into account fire control here?


----------



## parsifal (May 17, 2008)

*The Nelson's were slow it is true, but every other foreign BB in 1939 was 22 knots or slower, except for the 2 Nagato class and the 2 re-built Italian "Cavours". The Italian ships with 10 x 13.5" guns would be at a distinct disatavntage against the heavily armoured Nelsons with 9 x 16" guns.*

There were a few additional exceptions to that. The warspite was slightly faster at 24.5 knots, as was Malaya (I believe). The Ises and Fusos were even faster, at 24.9 knots. The russian Marat "class" was classified as 24 knot ships, but I have never been able to confirm that. There were actually 4 Italian BBs, the Dorias and the cavours, although it is true that Italy went to war with just two BBs ready (which makes a bit of a joke out of these armchair strategists that argue italy should have acted more agressively than she did at the start of the war).

All of the R class, and every US BB were agonizingly slow, particulalry in a heavy sea.

But I agree with your main point, the Nelsons were not as badly affected by speed, when you dont compare them with the later "super dreadnoughts". And i think they reprsented excellent value for money, as is the case for all the Brit BBs/BCs

*Are we taking into account fire control here*?

Absolutely, as well as all the other factors, like armour distibution, compartmentation, radar, etc etc[/QUOTE]


----------



## Freebird (May 17, 2008)

parsifal said:


> There were a few additional exceptions to that. The Warspite was slightly faster at 24.5 knots, as was Malaya (I believe). The Ises and Fusos were even faster, at 24.9 knots.



All of the QE's were originally supposed to make 25 knots, but time + wear tear take their toll. 

Were the Ise's Fuso's able to do 24.9 in 1940 or only at time of building? I had read that by 1940 these older ships were down to about 22 - 23. The Japanese were busy building new BB's, CA's CV's so did not have much space time to overhaul the old BB's



> The russian Marat "class" was classified as 24 knot ships, but I have never been able to confirm that. There were actually 4 Italian BBs, the Dorias and the cavours, although it is true that Italy went to war with just two BBs ready (which makes a bit of a joke out of these armchair strategists that argue italy should have acted more agressively than she did at the start of the war).
> 
> All of the R class, and every US BB were agonizingly slow, particulalry in a heavy sea.



Not to mention the Italian ships had smaller main guns, and without radar. {+ no CV's}


----------



## Juha (May 17, 2008)

The money put on the modernization of Renown was probably well spent. One main function of fast capital ships was the screening of carriers and in that work good heavy AA was essential. Of course Renown suffered from the fact that RN heavy AA fire control wasn't in par of that of the latest of USN, IJN and KM systems. But IIRC Scharnhorsts system, at least initially, had also its problems. And Renown's surface fire control was good as was shown during its duel with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau off Norwegian coast in 1940.

IMHO Scharnhorsts were too lightly armed and Dunkerques AA was too weak. So choice must be one of the older ships.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (May 18, 2008)

freebird said:


> *Were the Ise's Fuso's able to do 24.9 in 1940 or only at time of building? I had read that by 1940 these older ships were down to about 22 - 23. The Japanese were busy building new BB's, CA's CV's so did not have much space time to overhaul the old BB's*
> 
> As far as I know, this was the post refit speed of the Japanese BBs. I have never read in any source a material anything to suggest that the Jap BBs suffered from such a catastrophic loss of spped. Speed was the ace for the japanese BBs in relation to all other nationalities, particularly in relation to the Americans.
> 
> ...


----------



## Freebird (May 18, 2008)

parsifal said:


> As far as I know, this was the post refit speed of the Japanese BBs. I have never read in any source a material anything to suggest that the Jap BBs suffered from such a catastrophic loss of spped. Speed was the ace for the japanese BBs in relation to all other nationalities, particularly in relation to the Americans.
> 
> Are you sure that the Warspites were originally able to do 25 knots. My sources say they were designed to do 23.5 knots. The 1937 refit trumpets the fact that speed was incresed to 24.5 knots, which was considered by many to be a critical issue.



Sorry, my mistake I had the Japanese BB info backwards. The Fuso's Ise's ORIGINAL speed was 22.5 -23 knots, your quoted speed was AFTER the 1930's re-fit.

According to HazeGray the *original QE design *was for 25 knots, but were overweight at launch and then had bulges more armour added, so they could only make 23.5 knots or so until the late 30's re-fit

Haze Gray Underway World Battleship Lists


----------



## Patoruzu (May 19, 2008)

I mean speed can balance the other 2 parameters - and I guess the Scharnhorst and Dunkerque have the better hull from the list.
So I stand for Scharnhorst


----------



## Freebird (May 19, 2008)

Patoruzu said:


> I mean speed can balance the other 2 parameters - and I guess the Scharnhorst and Dunkerque have the better hull from the list.
> So I stand for Scharnhorst



If she had bigger guns than 11" I might agree with you. As it was they were at a disadvantage facing the Renown {or other British Battlecruiser}, which is partly why they retired from the engagement with the Renown in April of 1940, even though it was 2 German BC's against 1 British BC.


----------



## delcyros (May 19, 2008)

The QE´s were originally designed to make 25.0 Kts @ 72.000 SHP. This figure most likely does include the design overload estimate for the machinery and was a bit on the optimistic side as trials showed. The Barham was tried over a measured mile on 6.7.1916 with approx. 79% of her maximum fuel, drawing 32ft6" forward and 33ft aft on an displacement of 32.250 t. The average figure in four runs at "utmost power" were 23.9 Kts and 70.790 SHP with the best run at 23.97 Kts and 71.370 SHP respectively. The Valiant was known to be slower by this time due to problems with turbine nozzles. During the Run to the North, when working up to overload conditions, the Barham is believed to have achieved revolutions for 25 Kts, translating into a speed of 23.8 Kts.
After their refits /rebuilds, all units differed substantially. Malaya and Barham never changed from their original machinery and likely were limited for engine wear reasons to less than 23 Kts. Warpsite, Valiant and Queen Elizabeth are reported to have achieved speeds slightly above 24.0 Kts with top speed figures around 24.5 for the Queen Elizabeth. 
The "R"´s were much slower after their refits and there are credible sources suggesting that some have been limited to 19 Kts max.


----------



## parsifal (May 19, 2008)

I think the low freeboard of the "R" Class had a lot to do with their low sea speeds. Their theoretical maximum was in the order of 21-22 kts, but the effective maximums were less than that. Same applies to the US BBs mentioned


----------



## delcyros (May 19, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I think the low freeboard of the "R" Class had a lot to do with their low sea speeds. Their theoretical maximum was in the order of 21-22 kts, but the effective maximums were less than that. Same applies to the US BBs mentioned



That is what I am thinking of.
The Revenge class originally was designed for a top speed of 23.0 Kts (possibly including design overload) altough that appeared to have been optimistic and in trials these ships could only achieve a little more than 22 Kts at close to 75% full displacement. With bulges added, this speed dropped considerably.


----------



## drgondog (May 19, 2008)

I am wondering about the pre-war definition leading to a point.

The BB-56 the USS Washington was the second of the North Carolina class but design changes of significance were made an the keel was laid down in 1938 and sailed before we entered the WWII.

Excluding this is of course the prerogative of the Poll.

I would cite this beast which had 9 - 16" and 27kts speed as the best of the list, acknowledge the Hood to be my second choice with reservations for the top deck armor - designed before airpower would have forced more thought to this.

I like the speed of many of the lighter ships because they had more choice regarding engagement from a sea perspective... but if, when, they decideded to duke it out with other bigger capital ships they should be at more risk.


----------



## parsifal (May 19, 2008)

Hi DDG

It would be a no-contest if we were to include the North Carolinas/Sth Dakotas.

Your point about speed over protection is perhaps two of the three variables in BB design. the three main criteria are speed, protection, and fireppower. It is an equation that warship designers wrestled with from the first Dreadnought right through to the last. And IMO, there is no definitive right answer.....


----------



## Freebird (May 19, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I am wondering about the pre-war definition leading to a point.
> 
> The BB-56 the USS Washington was the second of the North Carolina class but design changes of significance were made an the keel was laid down in 1938 and sailed before we entered the WWII.
> 
> ...



North Carolina's were not available until mid-1941, even then with some vibration problems. The poll only includes pre-1940 ships, the class of 1940 {King G. V., Bismarck, Littorio, Richelieu} are not included

The KGV was laid down in 1937, and Bismarck was laid down in '37 or '38


----------



## delcyros (May 20, 2008)

> Do you think the Scharnhorst was harder to sink than the Hood?



I believe so. Hood was larger and sheer size helps absorbing damage and it really had a good armour protection but Scharnhorst had a higher degree of compartimentation, a significantly superior margin of metacentric height, more complete arrangements of the pumping equipment and last but not least no trouble with volatile propellants. However, Scharnhorst was also a much newer design, so this really shouldn´t surprise us.
Applying Your definition to our thread would mean that the Schanrhorst class could not have participated here. Basically, these BB´s were still in a process of refitting the new atlantic bowsection by outbreak of the hostilities.


----------



## renrich (May 20, 2008)

My choice is Hood with the Kongos in second place. Both classes had been up armored, still had good speed( enough to steam with the carriers) and formidable armament.


----------



## parsifal (May 20, 2008)

Whether one supports the battlecruiser concept, or the battleship concept is a difficut one, and the whole point of this thread. Does one emphasize the speed part of the three way equation, the protection part, or the firepower part. The ships included fall roughly into those completed before the outbreak of the war (Scharnhorst is a bit of a strech, but was sufficiently completed as to qualify IMO). The ships excluded are the super dreadnoughts, because they encompassed a much more complete solution to the gun/armour/speed equation and introduced certain new technologies like radar control etc (which were also fitted in these earlier ships as well, I know. 

The tricky bit about this thread is determining what is the right mix of the various ingredients.

With regard to Scharnhorst, she possessed two of the ingredients, speed and protection. She lacked firepower, in relation to her opponents. She is, incidentally my favourite german capital ship.


----------



## Kurfürst (May 22, 2008)

Mine as well, even though the Bismarcks are meaner, tougher in every possible way, the Scharnhorsts, with their display of the classic German-style Battlecruiser merits - regardless whatever they were called during their career - were always a lot more interesting, _and more tactical_ ships to me.


----------



## parsifal (May 22, 2008)

Its intersting to specualte if the germans had not built the Bismarcks, they could have built roughly 8 Pocket Battleships, or four more Scharhorsts (roughly) and not be in breach of the anglo-german naval treaty. They could not build additional U-Boats,without breaking the tonnage limits (which would have brought a swift reaction from the british). My opinion is that 8 Pocket Battleships (to a more modern design) instead of two Bismarcks would represent a far better investment. And this was the decision posed before the "Z" plan was finally adopted


----------



## renrich (May 22, 2008)

I don't believe Scharnhorst and her sister ship can be classified as battle cruisers. The original battle cruiser concept as codified by Jacky Fisher was a ship with very high speed, BB type armament but with cruiser type armor. The German BCs in WW1 had somewhat more armor than the British with slightly smaller guns and a knot or two less speed but still fit the formula. The Scharnhorst, to me, would have to be called a fast BB with puny armament. A WW2 classic BC would be the Alaska class with very high speed, 12 inch guns and rather light armor.


----------



## yellowtail3 (Nov 30, 2009)

I'd go with on the US standards, prob one of the New Mexicos. The Big Five were better subdivided, but the New Mexicos had very thorough upgrades in the 30s - better engines, more armor on deck, better FC equipment, better AA (5"/25). Much better armor than any Japanese BB, better than any Brit BB w/poss exception of Rodney/Nelson, and plenty of firepower. Trading a couple knots for a good punch and great armor is a very good trade. Scharnhorst or any Italian BB would be toast against a modernized standard.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 2, 2009)

The lists generally omits post Washington Treaty BB's, which is the meaningful cut off rather than 'pre war'. However Nelson/Rodney were built under an exception to the treaty with lessons learned from WWI and the definitive pre-treaty ships. Among British ships it seems strange to pick any but them, certainly not the fatally unbalanced designs of the British BC's. And again v the American and others ships Nelson was a half generation ahead. It seems a stinging rebuke of British design ability not to consider the British to have bettered those ships with Nelson and Rodney.

Other exceptions are Scharnhorst class built under Germany's peculiar situation as it bullied its way out of Versailles Treaty restrictions, never having been under Washington because it was supposed to have essentially no navy at all under Versailles. They reflected all advancements to the '30's so would have to be assumed more efficient ships than the pre-treaty ships, though as mentioned in somewhat a difference size class, which they shared basically with the Dunkerques, other post Washington Treaty limited size fast BB's. I don't see that the German ships were so much better, just better known. Also the Cavours were the most heavily modernized pre-treaty BB's, reconstruction beyond what most navies did.

Joe


----------



## parsifal (Dec 3, 2009)

Joe in terms of firepower, I dont think there is any argument with your summary. But the Nelsons suffered in that they were just too slow to fight the fast battle ships that followed them. The case in point is the Bismark. Without the timely intervention of the Ark Royal to immobilize the great German battlewagon, Rodney would never have caught her.

I think a more lightly armed but faster ship was the way to go, similar to the Dunkerques, but bigger, armed with say 14 or 15 inch guns, and armoured to about the standard of the QE class. Dont know what thet might produce, but a ship with a speed of say 28 or 30 knots would have been a a much more balanced and useful ship


----------



## Glider (Dec 3, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I think a more lightly armed but faster ship was the way to go, similar to the Dunkerques, but bigger, armed with say 14 or 15 inch guns, and armoured to about the standard of the QE class. Dont know what thet might produce, but a ship with a speed of say 28 or 30 knots would have been a a much more balanced and useful ship



Sounds like a modernised Hood


----------



## parsifal (Dec 3, 2009)

Hopefully with the protection issues that the Hood suffered from solved, ie with better deck protection and improved protection around the magazines


----------



## Glider (Dec 3, 2009)

The best information I have is that the deck armour was going to be increased to approx

6in forward, 8in over the 15in magazines, 7in over the secondary magazines, 6.5 in over the boiler room and 6in over the engine rooms, 4.5in aft.

For a modernised 1920 Battlecruiser this was pretty respectable


----------



## red admiral (Dec 3, 2009)

> Dont know what thet might produce



Nelson and Rodney as built were the O3 design and the last of the battleship studies. At the same time were F2 and F3, the last of the battlecruiser studies. They had very similar armour to O3 (1" less belt thickness) but speeds of 30 and 29knts respectively, armed with 6 x 15"/50 and 9 x 15"/50 guns. In hindsight, probably a better investment, but challenging to see that from 1921. Alternative, simply ignore the treaty and build 48000ton G3 battlecruisers.


----------



## vinnye (Jan 1, 2010)

I go with the Hood - she was awesome!
She was built for speed and firepower and sacrificed some armour as the trade off. The RN were aware of this weakness - it had lost BC's at Jutland and deck armour was known to be an issue in these losses.
Had she had the re-fit she needed then she would maybe have acquited herself better against the Bismark.
Even so - the Hood tried to close the range to the Bismark as quick as possible to get past the "falling shot" range and more into a horizontal fire duel - which her armour would have been more effective during.
The Captain of the Hood has in some cases been castigated for making the crossing of the T "mistake" - allowing her enemy to use a full broadside against her - when she could only use her forward turrets. But - his plan was to get up close and personal - inside the "danger" zone for his ship. Therefore in my opinion he was carrying out the right course of action in order to make the most of his ships strengths and reduce its weaknesses. Unfortunatly - as has been said elsewhere a fortuitous shot "plunged" onto her deck - the rest is history!


----------



## delcyros (Jan 4, 2010)

It should be noted that HOODs demise is not neessarely be linked to her deck weakness. At the reported distance of the fatal hit, the trajectory of the german 15in APC was not steep enough to allow deck penetration into HOODS main magazines. Rather,it appears that a side belt penetration has much more probability as the cause altough the issue is not settled by now.

A rather interesting candidate in my eyes is NAGATO. After her 1936 refit, NAGATO was still good enough for 25 kts under service conditions, had very powerful guns and decent protection. A matchup against HOOD would be interesting.


----------



## renrich (Jan 10, 2010)

Del, what about the fire amidships on Hood of four inch ammo. Is that still being considered as a factor in the explosion?


----------



## Juha (Jan 11, 2010)

Hello Renrich
IIRC the fire was mostly amongst UP projectiles and the captain had ordered to leave it alone, he did not considered it very dangerous and IIRC also the Inquiry Boards thought that the fire didn't have effect on the destruction of Hood but again IIRC some others have thought that it might have had effect.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jan 11, 2010)

IMHO best were Nelsons, Renown, Nagatos and Scharnhorsts. Nelsons and Nagatos to slug it out, Renown as escort ship for carriers, also Kongos suited that but their AA was much weaker even if they might have better HA directors, I cannot remember did they had the latest type. Scharnhorsts were fastest with good protection but with light main guns.

Juha


----------

