# Best World war two warships?



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 28, 2006)

1.) Battleship
2.) Battlecruiser
3.) Heavy cruiser/Armored cruiser
4.) Light cruiser
5.) Destroyer
6.) Submarine
7.) Patrol Boat or MBT
8.) Aircraft Carrier

For the battleships i would have to go with the Yamato class. Protection wise, it withstood much more punishment than any Iowa class battleship could of. Barring the fact that Iowas radar controlled gunfire was better than Yamatos optical sighting, i would still go with Yamato. It had a tight turning radius, very tight. While its 18.1 inch guns could slightly outrange Iowas 16 inch guns, they were about eqaul in armor penetration (yes im aware that japanese shells werent of the best quality). Atlantic battleship would be the Bismarck for me, but this is best overall. 

Battlecruisers is a hard topic for me, having an affinity for them as i do. I always have liked Scharnhorts, they were fast, pretty well armored, and (would have been) well armed. They had 11 inch gun mounts, but the german 15 inch gun mount was identical, therefore after the war started, they were supposed to be changed out. They lacked somewhat in anti-aircraft guns, but this could have been remedied. 

Heavy cruisers, i have always loved the Hipper class and the Mogamis. Prinz eugen survived the war and two damn A-bomb tests, so we can assume they werent easy to sink. Mogamis were fast, well armed and armored, but were top heavy like most japanese ships. Overall i like Mogami, mostly because they had better torpedoes. Baltimores, the US heavy cruisers were the best allied, and could easily contend for the best, but as they lacked torpedo tubes, i wouldnt give them my vote. 

Light cruisers, well i never had a favorite. I always liked british light cruisers, because they were well thought out. They had decent everything, making them really good, because they needed alot of them to defend their overseas interests. I liked the AJAX class. 

Destroyers. Everyone needs alot of them, theyre small, fast and can pack a damn big punch, especially with torperdoes. Theyre excellent for ASW work, and fleet defence or convoy escort. I like the US Fletcher class and the Japense Shimakaze (spelled wrong maybe). I couldnt choose between the two. Americans had better guns, but the japanese more and better torpedoes. 

Motor torpedo boats. Well ive always liked Italian designs. The US had some damn good PT boats, they did a number on some japanese ships. For an account of this, look up the story "we were expendable". 

Aircraft carriers, well i always loved Lexington, Akagi and shinano. Shinano had the brilliant idea of being moved from one yard to another, before completion, with US submarines patrolling everywhere....brilliant right? I like lexington, because she was fast, could carry many aircraft (ninety?) and had some decent damage control. The decks were too thin though, and made out of wood if i remember correctly. Akagi is a close contender, but im gonna go american on this one. 

what do you all think? (i know, i know, most people will say iowa would mop the floor with yamato)


----------



## Glider (Mar 28, 2006)

Battleship - Iowa
Battlecruiser - Alaska
Carrier - Essex
Heavy Cruiser - Baltimore
Light Cruiser (under 9,000 tons standard) - Fiji
Destroyer - Allen N Summers
MTB - Fairmile D
Submarine - T Class

Definition of Light Cruiser will cause a debate. I considered size in my reply. If you go with 6in Gun then it would be the Cleveland with the same main armament as the Fiji, but as she was 25% bigger was able to carry considerably larger and numerous secondary and AA weapons

Generally the late USA ships carry the day as they were bigger and carried more and heavier AA guns, as well as being well protected and carrying the latest radars and directors.

It should be remembered that the British, German, Italian and Japenese fleets fought the war with essentially pre war designs, or modifications to pre war designs. All the American vessels above were designed from scratch after the war began and included the lessons of the war and can be considered a generation ahead of the rest.
In addition the USA were building ships in what was almost a peacetime environment with little if any economic or resource problems. With these two factors in mind it isn't suprising that on average their vessels are ahead of the rest. 

By the way this isn't sour grapes. In war you use every advantage you have, it isn't a game and the USA would have been mad not make the best of what they had.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 29, 2006)

I always liked the American Alaska class battlecruise/Large cruisers. I think they named them that, because after what had happened to the german pocket battleships/battlecruisers, and the hood and repulse, the word battlecruiser and new wouldnt go together too well. 

Also, i did some reading, and some sources consider the scharnhorst class to be fast battleships, and some consider them to be battlecruisers. Now i have always thought of them as battlecruisers, but ill let you draw your own conclusions with that. If you consider them fast battleships, then i would either have chosen the Hood, Alaska or Graf Spee class. Graf Spee as a commerce raider, because in essence, isnt that what battlecruisers were partly designed for anyhow? They werent overgunned, had decent speed and very good range. If you want a battlecruiser meant for fleet work, like task force pickets and bombardment/escort, then alaska class would get my vote. If you want the good firepower with acceptable (in my opinion for battlecruisers) armor, speed and range, then go with the hood. Hood seems to me overgunned for a battlecruiser. I wouldnt put 15 inch guns on something not meant to fight battleships, cause thats teasing yourself into throwing it into the line of fire (jutland and the hoods case) its a matter of opinion and statistics.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 29, 2006)

1.) Battleship

Iowa Class

2.) Battlecruiser

Alaska Class

3.) Heavy cruiser/Armored cruiser

Baltimore Class

4.) Light cruiser

Cleveland class

5.) Destroyer

hmmmm.... have to think about that

6.) Submarine

hmmmm.... have to think about that

7.) Patrol Boat or MBT

hmmmm.... have to think about that

8.) Aircraft Carrier

Essex class, although the Midway class came in just as the war was over.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 29, 2006)

I would agree with that Glider that the American ships are generally the best. I would pick mostly the American versions on each class, although I would say that the British and American carriers were close at the end of the war despite the American's size advantage.


----------



## Glider (Mar 29, 2006)

Somebody tell me why I put T Class as the submarine, when the Type XXI was such a massive improvement.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 29, 2006)

Haha i completely missed the submarine section...cause im just that quick. 
I love the type XXI. It had good range and speed, and was armed very well. I like the I-400 class, because its innovative. Come on, floatplane bombers on a submarine, thats just a cool idea. Fortunatly for us, the war ended before they could do too much damage. They were designed to destroy the Panama canal, or that was their original mission anyhow. They could have been useful before 1943, when the allies came up with some great ASW systems, and if the japanese had better tactics with submarines, much like german wolfpacks against convoys, instead of lone submarines attacking warships.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 29, 2006)

..rather strange how this discussion is placed in a ww1 mainlevel topic.
Ok-my two cents on:
1.) BB: umm, Yamato for me. (unmatched protection and firepower (Iowas super heavy AP MK 8 shells were equal only for armor penetration at very long ranges, at medium to close range nothing could match an 18.1" AP round as nothing could match the japanese 18.1" shells in pure terms of destructiveness)-key factors for battleships)
2.) BC: Hood (handsome ship, decent speed, decent firepower, prestigeous)
3.) CV: This should belong to the Essex class, no doubt
4.) CA: Prinz Eugen (best firecontroll of all ww2 cruisers, excellent AA, balanced design)
5.) CL: The Fiji´s were impressive on papers, only. I would go for RN Jamaica!
6.) DD: Fletcher for me.
7.) MTB/EB: E-boats (for personal reasons, my grandfather served on them)
8.) subs: Type XXI, unmatched.

-tow points on Iowa vs Yamato: 1.) compare armor protection (and I underline that you cannot simply degrade japanese armor qualities. One sample tested by the US represented the best ever tested face hardened plate in history, another was crap): Iowa is very, very vulnarable to Yamato while vice versa Yamato is well protected against Iowa. -keep in mind that it´s decapping plate is myth only, IT WOULD NEVER DECAP ANY BB used APC ROUND! 2.) Firecontroll: The US Radar advantage is valid for 1944 and later (by 1945 Yamato had sophisticated Radar as well) with MK 8 firecontroll. During Gudacanal Wahsington still depended on visual tracking for elevating the guns. Yamato had the most sophisticated optical firecontroll device ever. The advantage would be for the US in night engagements and up to 32.000 yrds while any engagements under clear weather would give Yamato an advantage. The speed advantage of Iowa is doubtful for sustained periods under battle damage: completely unprotected bow and worser metacentric height.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2006)

Carrier: Essex
Battleship: Iowa and then the Bismark (I had to throw that in there)
Battle Cruiser: Alaska
Heavy Cruiser: Prinz Eugen
Light Cruiser: ClevelandDestroyers: Fletcher (I am not too knowledgable on Destroyers though)
Submarines: Type XXI U-Boot
MTB/Patrol: E-Boots


----------



## Glider (Mar 29, 2006)

Iowa over Yamato was down to the better AA defence as airpower was the major threat.
Hood, I will give you that, the Alaska was a better AA vessel but lacked the lines and the firepower. Had she been modified as planned then the Hood would have had a good AA defence but the Bosmark got there first.
Baltimore over Prinz Eugan as she had better firepower, armour, AA guns and 5in secondary armament. 
Fiji over Jamaica, Jamacia is a Fiji Class vessel, could you be thinking of the Swiftsure?
Allen M Sumner was a slightly wider Fletcher with three twin guns, 12 x 40 (2x4, 2x2) and 11 20mm plus 10 x TT. There was a HA/LA director for the 5in but each quad 40mm also had its own director. They were unmatched as AA destroyers and were an excellent balance being well equipped for taking on other ships as well.


----------



## Henk (Mar 29, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Carrier: Essex
> Battleship: Iowa and then the Bismark (I had to throw that in there)
> Battle Cruiser: Alaska
> Heavy Cruiser: Prinz Eugen
> ...



Yes, I agree with you there. I would also say the Prinz Eugen. The Yamoto were a waste of time and thus would not be even be in my top three. It looked great and had great armour and guns but it lacked for such a large ship.

Iowa were a great ship and I just do not like to but I will give that to the US Navy there and the Bismarck would also be my second choice. What a great ship. 

Henk


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 29, 2006)

Wow, Yamato class not even in the top three battleships ever? What would your top three be? cause mine would certainly go

1.) Yamato
2.) Iowa (very close second)
3.) I like bismarck, good fire control, adequate guns, decent range and speed and good protection, though lacking severely in AA armament. (come on, the attacking swordfish that put her rudder in a jam escaped, after attacking, without loss to themselves!)


----------



## Henk (Mar 29, 2006)

No, do not get me wrong the Yamoto was a nice ship, but not when it came to the Iowa or the Bismarck.

Mine would be the:

1.) Iowa
2.) Bismarck
3.) Richelieu

Look at this link and you would see what I mean.

http://http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

Henk


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2006)

The only reason I did not rate the Yamato is because we never got to see how it really would be, if I recall the Yamato and the Musashi never fired there main guns in anger.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 29, 2006)

I think they did, at some jeep carriers and some "tin cans" destroyers, but were turned back, though i could be wrong about that one. I would be hesitant with the Bismarck because of the horrible AAA protection.

Henk: after showing me that table, how could Bismarck be number two on your list if it didnt win anything on the table? They really didnt give the Bismarck enough credit. It survived one hell of a pouding, and was still afloat. Some sailors claim it was scuttled, and others say RN torpedoes, but either way it was shortchanged that way. However it had glaring faults, such as inadequate AA, vulnerable rudders, and the radars and communications were open to enemy fire with little protecting them. 

Rechlieu: now i dont know how that got such a damn good ranking. Two quadruple turrets, both forward like some Nelson look-a-like. One hit can disable 50% of its offensive capability, and it has a huge blind spot aft. Yes, you can put more armor around the guns, and fit more onto a smaller displacement, but it just was a bad idea. Anything that could outturn the Rechlieu would be at an enormous advantage, not to mention it could only attack two targets at once with only two turrets. And wouldnt it also have a huge secondary (AA) armament blind spot in the bow section?


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 29, 2006)

my nautical knowledge is limited but how come the corvette isn't on any list it was the mainstay of the North Atlantic convoys and probably did more valuable service then all the battleships combined the depth charge caused more havoc against the biggest threat posed by the axis the U boat then all the big guns


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 29, 2006)

Fine, lets include the corvette. They did do alot of good work, something more expensive ships couldnt have done as economically. For the sake of it, throw in escort carriers too.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 29, 2006)

Ah, the corvette. Not a bad go for a hastily converted whaler, eh?


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 29, 2006)

Not at all. They could really dish it out to those U-boats. Some guns and depth charges, and alot of corverttes equals one damn fine escort. A real nice innovation haha, alot like those CAM merchant men, an innovative idea to solve a problem. Then againt he british werent short on innovation, ever hear of Habbakuk?


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 29, 2006)

wasn't HABBABUKUK that the ice sawdust aircraft carrier and in reference to to the yamatos radar it was pretty cheesy it could detecT a large warship at 35 kms and had no PPI(radar screen most of us can relate to)


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 29, 2006)

Yes, Habbakukk was the giant sawdust carrier, designed for multiengined aircraft really. The Yamatos did have the radar though. While it wasnt as advanced as American radar, by any stretch, the optical sights on a clear day (which was often the case in the pacific) would give the Yamato a damn fine chance.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 29, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Ah, the corvette. Not a bad go for a hastily converted whaler, eh?


 the weapon of choice for the RCN those guys were pretty tough sailors everyone I ever met that served on one of them was unique and as side note how come every little town or y river gets a ship named after it in Canada with one of the worlds most powerful river alls we get a 4 stack destoyer


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 29, 2006)

Scharnhorst V.S the Hood, who would you take?
for me, i like the hood, only, and only because she had the 15in. guns while the Scharnhorst had 11in. guns, suitable for commerce raiding, but not gunfights i would think. If Scharnhorst was able to trade out the 11in. guns for 15in. guns as intended, then my vote would be Scharnhorst all the way.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 29, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> ...and as side note how come every little town or y river gets a ship named after it in Canada with one of the worlds most powerful river alls we get a 4 stack destoyer


Ah, I wouldn't feel too bad. Our last aircraft carrier (HMCS Bonaventure) was named after a bird sanctuary in Québec.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 29, 2006)

Wow, what a prestigous name lol. After a bird sanctuary. Not to be a bother, but do you have any links to the information about the modern canadian navy?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 29, 2006)

Unfortunately, Canada's modern Navy isn't much of a navy. We went from the third largest navy (some sources will say fourth. Wrong.) in the world during WWII to...this:

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_home/index_e.asp


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 29, 2006)

Wow, seems like a somewhat modern, (by that i mean not completely outclassed) but very small naval force. Can you tell canada is confident its allies will always come to the rescue?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 29, 2006)

Cheap government coupled with an ignorant, complacent public. A bad combination indeed.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 30, 2006)

Yeah, but I mean, without an enormous military budget, canada can better apply that money. Canada is a country with alot of allies, and few direct enemies. They dont need an enormous navy, but it wouldnt hurt to add some more defensive, and maybe a little blue water capability to their credit.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 30, 2006)

I agree completely.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 30, 2006)

The Canadian Navy could take some hints from the US, learn the ways of building some decent destroyers, with some anti-ship capabilities. Im sure the US would be more than willing to help them out with construction methods and technology. The canadians wouldnt even need many, just some, more in the pacific i would think. But what do i know lol.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 30, 2006)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> The Canadian Navy could take some hints from the US, learn the ways of building some decent destroyers, with some anti-ship capabilities. Im sure the US would be more than willing to help them out with construction methods and technology.


Actually, we've been down this road many times in the past. The US has offered ships to Canada on several different occasions over the years. We'd either build our own (good designs in their own right, for the most part), or buy them from Britain because of our traditional ties to the British crown.

The main problem with our hardware comes from the fact that we don't upgrade or update often enough. We leave vessels in service way too long without significant upgrades. Eventually they just wear out. We could also stand to have a much larger fleet, and that's another argument that's been going on for many years.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2006)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> They really didnt give the Bismarck enough credit. It survived one hell of a pouding, and was still afloat. Some sailors claim it was scuttled, and others say RN torpedoes,



No torpedos rubtured her hull. The torpedos effectivly sealed her fate because they jammed her rudder so that she could only go in circles. The surviving sailors of the Bismark say that she was scuttled to keep the British from saying that they sunk the Bismark (even though at that point she was not able to fight back anymore because her armament was all destroyed but no shells penetrated her vital areas). Robert Ballard actually proved (if you read his book and watch his movie about it he explains it and shows it in pictures and video) that it was scuttled because all the holes that would have allowed water to come into the ship and sink it were blown out by explosions set from the inside. You can actually see in the pics how the torpedos and the shells were deflected off the armour of the ship.


----------



## Twitch (Mar 30, 2006)

1.) Battleship- Iowa Class
2.) Battlecruiser- don't care
3.) Heavy cruiser/Armored cruiser- don't care
4.) Light cruiser-don't care
5.) Destroyer- Fletcher Class
6.) Submarine- Type VII U-boat
7.) Patrol Boat or MBT- PT boat
8.) Aircraft Carrier- Essex Class


----------



## delcyros (Mar 30, 2006)

Bismarck had no horrible AA, at least for its time (1941, compare contemporary layouts and you will find that it is more than competetive to other BB).
Prinz Eugen had a decent AA as well (it repeatedly shot down soviet anti shipping planes in 1945), however AA is limited as in all warships. Do do not exaggerate the US 5"/38 DP AA gun. As a gun it is way worser than PE´s 4.1"/65 in terms of muzzle velocity, platform, range, effective ceiling and trajectory. The VT-fuze was what made the 5" effective, not the gun itself.
The Baltimore class, unlike Prinz Eugen, has grave shortcomings in underwater protection.
For Bismarck please shift to ww2general, there is a thread covering a good deal of discussion.
The question is -what is important for a BB?
1.) It has to stay in the battleline and keep it´s vitals safe for some degree
2.) It has to deliver a good deal of damage 
Yamato gets all of it. (The sheer number of planes involved in sinking Yamato&Musashi would sink any Iowa-class BB as well and certain points of it´s design (metacentric and byuoncy-reserve, unprotected sides, shortcomings in TDS) makes me think that Iowa would sink pretty soon under these circumstances. AA capability is neglectable. I found out that NOT EVEN IOWAS REPUTATED AA HAS ANY CHANCE TO PREVENT AN INCOMING FLIGHT (12 planes) FROM REACHING BOMB DROPPING DISTANCE ON IT´S OWN!
And BC?
1.) Speed in order to dictate the terms of engagement
2.) Range
3.) a decent firepower
4.) a good protection
As far as I see, Hood covers most of this (at least in the proposed refit), Alaska suffers in protection (and I mean it suffers a lot) and Scharnhorst suffers in firepower (at least sufficiant for a raider but useless against enemy BB)


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 30, 2006)

In regards to the Iowa class AAA, the kamikazi's introduced a new element in how you defined air defense. The airplanes had to be blown apart in mid-air to prevent them from following a ballistic path onto its intended target. Only the 5" guns had a good chance of doing that. The 40mm needed direct hits to do it which was hard to do. The 20mm was essentially useless. This was one of the reasons that the USN removed the 40mm and 20mm and switched to the 3" AA guns as soon as possible (although it was post war when it happened).

The US battleships overall had the best chance of inflicting any type of damage to an airplane.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Mar 30, 2006)

In regards to the scharnhorst lacking the firepower to fight battleships....Battlecruisers werent meant to fight a battleship. You didnt need 15in. guns on a Battlecruiser. Scharnhorst was plenty fine as a commerce raider, which is what the germans wanted from their battlecruisers, and even the Bismarck, the best BB in the atlantic. 

I am also aware the swordfish torperdoes did not rupture the Bismarcks hull, they dentonated near enought he rudder to make her lose steering control. The Like you said, she was left a floating hulk after the RN fired at her, couldnt even fight back. They ordered torpedoes fired at her, and the RN CLAIMS they sank her. But as you said she was scuttled. I beleive a destroyer or CL fired the torpedoes that they reputed claimed her.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 31, 2006)

The last torpedos fired on Bismarck seems to have hit the weatherdeck rather than the belt. This is not certain in all respects, but proofs from the wreckage point to this. Other torpedoes hit the hull, there cannot be a doubt. It was the TDS, which prevented considerable damage but the hull was holed.
I do not disagree that US BB had better AA capabilities than their contenders but I underline that this wouldn´t play a role in this timeframe. Any BB hunt would involve planes in numbers, which couldn´t be handled by the BB itself (except maybe those Do-217 with Fritz X bombs, but they´re dropped at comparably high altitude, way out of effective AA range) any later than 1943. So the argument with ...this BB has a little worser AA than this one and therefore cannot be the best BB... shouldn´t be used to exclude Yamato here. Luck plays a major role and I cannot see why the Iowas -despite beeing excellent designs- would do better against hundreds of enemy planes than Yamato or Musashi. I do not doubt that they could kill few more planes but the outcome would be the same. I even cannot see how Iowa could prevent those Stringbags from a lucky torpedo hit in her steering compartment...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 31, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Ah, I wouldn't feel too bad. Our last aircraft carrier (HMCS Bonaventure) was named after a bird sanctuary in Québec.


It was named after the island of the same name which happened to have a bird sancturary on it. A carrier is an island, so an appropriate name.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 31, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> It was named after the island of the same name which happened to have a bird sancturary on it. A carrier is an island, so an appropriate name.


Yeah ok. So what's the big diff exactly?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 31, 2006)

You don't know the difference between an island and a bird sanctuary/nationial park(Bonaventure Island and Percé Rock National Park)?

There is also a historical reference to the name of the RCN carrier as Gaspe (which nearby) was the major base for the Battle of the St Lawrence. 

This is how these myths get started.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 31, 2006)

KK, I know all that. The reference to the bird sanctuary was more of a joke, because anyone who knows anything about the history of the Bonnie (the ship) knows of the sanctuary on Bonaventure Island, and it's always come to be synonamous with the name of the carrier in Navy circles. Sort of an inside joke. The idea being that other navies had carriers with names like HMS Invincible, USS Ranger, etc. You know, powerful sounding names, while we have one named for a bird sanctuary. The entire island was a bird sanctuary. If you _really_ want to be a smart ass about it, Percé Rock National Park didn't exist until the mid-eighties. The ship was named in the late fifties. It was just kind of a running gag for many years.

Man, you really know how to suck the fun right out of a thread, don't ya?


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 31, 2006)

well its better then Vikrant


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 31, 2006)

Heh. Good point.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 1, 2006)

Yes I figured you were making a joke, but as I said you have started a new www myth. Canada and its military is the butt end of enough jokes without your 'joke' adding more ammo. 

As to #7 Partol Boat, nothing compares to the German Schnellboots. They were better armed, faster in all kinds of weather and were diesel powered.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 1, 2006)

KraziKanuK said:


> Yes I figured you were making a joke, but as I said you have started a new www myth. Canada and its military is the butt end of enough jokes without your 'joke' adding more ammo.


Ummm...I think you sorta missed the point. It wasn't merely a joke or a myth. It was usually brought up in a joking manner, but it was actually true. Yes, the ship was named for Bonaventure Island...which was a bird sanctuary. Get it? It needs no fuel really, it makes a fine joke all on it's own. 

Sure the Canadian Forces are the butt of jokes. There's good reason for that y'know. It's 'cuz we _are_ a joke. We've been a joke for years, and a pretty sad one to boot. In fact, it's always been my experience that the ones who joke about it the most are the members themselves, because for the most part the general public is too ignorant to know any better. Hell, until the Chicoutimi fire a lot of folks in Ontario and Manitoba didn't even know we had a Navy.

And yes, the German Schnellboots were without a doubt the best of their class.


----------



## Henk (Apr 1, 2006)

The Bismarck were never sunk by a torpedo and the Hood is not a battleship but a battlecruiser. Look at her armour and then you would see what I mean. Yes she had 15 inch guns but her armour were to bad.

If you look at the wreck of the Bismarck you would see she did not sink from any torpedo's, she was scuttled.

Henk


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 1, 2006)

I'd say the best WW2 ship was the "victory" ship and the T-2 tanker (ship).

Without them, the allied victories would have been near impossible.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 1, 2006)

Very wisely choosen, Syscom. (Still I believe there never was any possibility for the axis to win ww2. I wouldn´t like a szenario with winning axis anyway...)

I am going to compare Yamato and Iowa in detail, will submit an article as pdf file in within a week or so if all goes well. Emphasis is put on armourlayout and capabilities to penetrate vice versa. Hope this will add some points to discuss.


----------



## Henk (Apr 2, 2006)

Can not wait to see it.

Henk


----------



## Twitch (Apr 3, 2006)

Re: AAA defense. Regardless of caliber it was the proximity fuse that turned the tide there.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 3, 2006)

I second this. But the improvements in US firecontroll contributed also a lot (especcially with the worse ballistics of the 5"/38 in mind).


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 4, 2006)

I agree with the statements that hood was a battelcruiser, because from the outset thats what she was...when world war two, or even two or three years before, she was in serious, and i re-state serious need of refit. She was losing some speed that is essential to a battlecruiser, she needed more armor, on decks especially, and more AA armament.

As for the comparison of Yamato and Iowa, i wrote one as well, turned out really long too, but as luck would have it, the computer crashed...Long stpry short, if the Iowa could keep the range very distant, about the max of its range, it could stand a damn good chance, but if it closed range with yamato, which would seem likely, yamatos 18in guns would have more penetration power, the optical sights, the most advanced ever, hands down, would come into play as much as radar, and the heavier armor and tighter turning radius would give yamato an advantage..and if range closed more, yamato had good secondary armament as well. I seriously, seriously doubt Iowa could stand up to the aircraft Yamato or Musashi were swamped by, hell half of them. Iowa lacked underwater protection, and one must remember how many torpedoes hit yamato and musashi 
http://www.chuckhawks.com/yamato.jpg

yamato just looks mean doesnt she?


----------



## Henk (Apr 4, 2006)

Yes, the Yamato were a mean sun of a gun, but how many Battleships did the US not have and how many had Japan have in WW2? Remember the fact that you have large guns does not make or break a situation when you are in battle. The crew makes or break the battle and the speed of your ship. If you can maneuver your ship right and your crew fight and handle your equipment right you have a big chance. Look at the profile of the Yamato you will see the bridge and controle station of the ship stand out like a tree in the desert and if you take out that, you are screwed, dead in the water and you would not be able to fire your guns correctly.

The US ships like the Iowa has a low profile and thus not such a big chance of getting hit like the Yamato and everything of the Yamato is bundled up together, that is not good.

Yes, the Yamato has large guns and great secondary, but her design is not for me when it comes to one on one battleship action.

So I would say that I would rather have smaller guns, but if the enemy have a problem hitting me I would take that chance with the guns.

Henk


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 4, 2006)

I would imagine Yamatos crew would be relatively well trained in their ship, because they would have been on it for some time, getting to know the ship. I would have to agree about everything being to cluttered on the decks of her though, she is vulnerable in that respect. Alot of one on one combat would come down to luck, and a ton of variables that could tip the balance in the favor of eitehr competitor. For example, Iowas are thought to be wet ships in high seas, where as yamato would be a dryer, steadier platform. Thats just one of a million examples. Heres another, the battle starts when one ship runs from the other ( i would say yamato might run, even though it seems so against the bushido code and honor system) because she might fear the ever present reinforcements advantaged to the allies, through air and sea power. Therefore you would have two triple turrets on iowa firing at yamato, while yamatos single triple turret woudl return fire. sure after she was caught and knew running wouldnt cut it because she's already in range she would turn and fight, but that just gave iowa the advatage, cause now she is in control of the fight, fired more salvos, they seem like they would hit from distance, on a big target, only firing back with one turret in return...reverse the situation and its the same thing. variable are a big factor


----------



## Henk (Apr 4, 2006)

That sounds great, I would love to see a battle like that. You do have a great sense of battleships. I design them and I am still a appie when it comes to designing them.

Yes that would probaly be the suttuation and the US Navy would always have renforcemts to help them and a aircraft carrier nearby.

The Jap Navy should have had more brains. 

Henk


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 4, 2006)

Thanks for the compliment, not really used to those...I would like to think i know something about battleships, because i am amazed by them, the size, the firepower, the weight...truly astonishing things. You design them?

Just starting a model of the bismarck right now, some cheap, 20$ lindberg model i saw sitting around, in 1/350 scale. Nice sized ship, but the molding was really poor and on the box it says tirpitz, but it seems more like bismarck to me. Being only my second model ship ever, it wont be too good, mostly because i have no idea how to paint models v.v oh well


----------



## Hop (Apr 5, 2006)

> No torpedos rubtured her hull. The torpedos effectivly sealed her fate because they jammed her rudder so that she could only go in circles. The surviving sailors of the Bismark say that she was scuttled to keep the British from saying that they sunk the Bismark (even though at that point she was not able to fight back anymore because her armament was all destroyed but no shells penetrated her vital areas). Robert Ballard actually proved (if you read his book and watch his movie about it he explains it and shows it in pictures and video) that it was scuttled because all the holes that would have allowed water to come into the ship and sink it were blown out by explosions set from the inside.



AFAIK both Ballard and Cameron agree that whilst Bismarck was scuttled, she was already sinking before the scuttling charges were fired, and they merely hastened her end.

She was already badly ablaze, with shells having penetrated at least two of the boiler rooms, causing oil fires, her magazines had been flooded to prevent explosion, and all her main turrets had been knocked out. Survivors reported that in some cases they were unable to enter machinery compartments to place scuttling charges because the compartments were already flooded.

BTW, I don't think Ballard claimed the holes were blown from the inside, scuttling charges are small devices placed on pipes and sea cocks, not large charges that blow through the hull.


----------



## Henk (Apr 5, 2006)

Well mate look what happend to the Admiral Graff Spee. Have you read the book of Ballard The Discovery of the Bismarck? 

Yes carpenoctem1689 I design Battleships myself and I design my own systems to make my ships totally a floating fortress and can fire from all sides. I must still learn a lot and are just doing it as a hobby and it makes me relax and takes my mind of everything around me. Well maybe my designs will not stand up to modern naval combat, but I still love to design them.

I understand what you mean when you say that Battleships are truly astonishing things. I love battleships.

Henk


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 5, 2006)

Wow, thats awesome that you design your own. Ive come up with ideas, and made some rough sketches, but never took it ant further than that. are any of your designs posted on the web?


----------



## Henk (Apr 5, 2006)

Thanks mate. You must try it it is great, at first it was crap and then I started to get use to it and got good at it. I do not want to be a designer, I were not good at maths and science. No, I draw them by hand and it is on large papers to big to scan. I wish I could get them on my PC, but to draw them on PC is not my stile i love drawing them on paper it is more fun. I will try to take a picture to post.

Henk


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 5, 2006)

Awesome, that sounds really cool. Do you do it on large graph paper and such to keep dimensions and everything, are they to any particular scale, or just whatever it turns out as? I have free handed some real battleships and some designs ive come up with but nothing on anything bigger than a notebook page. I have a note book i just scetch in, though your idea sounds much more fun, might have to steal it <.< >.> 

nice to find someone with an affinity for battleships once and a while, keep up the designs, you can only get better


----------



## Henk (Apr 5, 2006)

No, it is a large white blank page and I use a scale like 4mm is one meter, because I do not have a large enough page to have a larger scale.

Thanks mate and try it and great to find someone who love battleships.

Henk


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 5, 2006)

If you want to get into the nitty-gritty of tha Yamato, get the _Anatomy of the Ship_ on the Yamato by Janusz Skulski, ISBN0-87021-019-X. Over 600 perspective and scale 3 view drawings on 159 pages.


----------



## Henk (Apr 5, 2006)

Oh yes that sounds good thanks mate. The only thing that got my attention from the Yamato is the range finders, guns, secondary and the aft hull the rest is a faillure for me and thus will only make it bad in combat situation. Look where the AA guns are, all together in one place just waiting for a bomb. 

Henk


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 5, 2006)

Henk, one on the Bismarck ISBN 0851779824 (did not know about this one)

A list of the books in the series:

The Flower Class Corvette Agassiz 
The Cutter Alert, 1777 
The Submarine Alliance 
The Cruiser Bartolomeo Colleoni 
HMS Beagle Survey Ship Extraordinary, 1820–1870 
The Cruiser Belfast 
The 74-Gun Ship Bellona 
The Schooner Bertha L. Downs 
The 20-Gun Ship Blandford 
The Armed Transport Bounty 
The Destroyer Campbeltown 
The Royal Yacht Caroline, 1749 
The Ships of Christopher Columbus (Niña, Pinta, Santa Maria) 
The Frigate Diana 
The Battleship Dreadnought 
Captain Cook's Endeavour 
The Destroyer Escort England 
The 32-Gun Frigate Essex 
The Fairmile "D" Motor Torpedo Boat 
The Battleship Fuso 
The Escort Carrier Gambier Bay 
The Bomb Vessel Granado, 1742 
The Battlecruiser Hood 
The Aircraft Carrier Intrepid 
The Four Masted Barque Lawhill 
The 24-Gun Frigate Pandora, 1779 
The Liner Queen Mary 
The Destroyer The Sullivans 
The Susan Constant, 1607 
The Heavy Cruiser Takao 
The Type VII U-boat 
The Type XXI U-boat 
The Aircraft Carrier Victorious 
The 100-Gun Ship Victory 
The Battleship Warspite 
The Battleship Yamato


----------



## Henk (Apr 5, 2006)

Oh yes those look great I wish I could get my hands on some of them. Thanks mate. Do you have some of them?

Henk


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 5, 2006)

I wish i had them, never can know too much about them. My only paper reference that i own only provides one overhead and horizontal of battleships, carriers and various other warships, the general statistics and only a brief summary


----------



## Henk (Apr 5, 2006)

I learned a lot when I got Janes Fighting Ships of WW2. I want some more books on Battleships, but the book shops here are crap when it comes to battleships and WW2 and expensive.

Henk


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 5, 2006)

I know what you mean. the borders and all the other book stores have never even heard of janes fighting warships, and wouldnt order them for me..bastards. i mean i really wanted that book.


----------



## Henk (Apr 5, 2006)

Assholes, it does have some problems here and there, but it is great to find out if a shit were actualy a great gun platform. I also have Jane's fighting ships of WW1 and Jane's fighting aircraft of WW2.

Henk


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 6, 2006)

both those books would serve me pretty damn well, i need to do some online shopping, but first i need some funds for this shopping, i have too many projects running as it is, warship models, aircraft models, learning how to paint, a girlfreind, and gas, and guess whats next, no job.

hypothetical battle. Richleu *butchered spelling but thats allright, ill just refer to it as R) against Bismarck. According to this website R was better than the Bismarck http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm but come on, the comparison must seriously not consider the combat effectiveness of these vessels. The R has all guns concentrated forward, like the nelsons, making them easy to knock out all main battery fire power with one shell hit. She had good underwater protection, and decent armor, but i doubt the crew would be well trained, considering the french navy had languished somewhat in training, building speeds and such. Bismarck now, amazing ship, my opinion best BB of the atlantic. Fast, well armed and can certainly, as was proven, take a pounding and a half. If she could get behind R (its french, come on it was pracitally made to run) then it would easily win. if R were to trun, it would be the same as the yamato vs iowa scenario, the pursuer would have a manouvering and firepower advantage, and could close range quickly and fire more rounds. i would easily take bismarck


----------



## Henk (Apr 6, 2006)

Yep, the R is not in the same class as the Bismarck and the crew of the Bismarck were ready for combat and they were well trained. The French were made to run from war and they would not have stood a chanse. 

Now then the Nelson is a other stupid battleship and the only thing is, crap.

The same problems here mate, girls, gas and no car only my moms car and she just wants gas.

Oh, by the way you have a PM mate.

Henk


----------



## delcyros (Apr 6, 2006)

This webpage has grave shortcomings. I put forward a lot of arguments in another thread (was it battleship raiders?). All indicates a very unbalanced view, giving US - ships a generally higher credit for unproven aspects (just to name one: the underwater protection, which was considered even by the USN in 1943 as weak, since Washingtons somehow similar TDS was defeated by a japanese standart submarine torpedo - not even a long lance), while all benefittal aspects of Yamato and Bismarck in special are neglected or greatly reduced (take rate of fire: they almost halved Bismarcks rpm, while they reduced Iowas by 18% only or the belt protection: vitals of Bismarck cannot be reached by side hits. The sloped deck behind was simply not taken into consideration, or range: simply false numbers) Some aspects with disadvantage (metacentric height protected buoyancy reserve, compartimentation) for US ships are completely neglected. All this seems to indicate that the author puts a good deal of patriotism (which is ok) and all-or-nothing pathetics.
Last but not least he failed to acknowledge that Iowa and South Dakota´s so called "decapping plates" would never ever decap a 15" round. Nathan Okun proves this in his revised dacapping analysis (after he wrote in his otherwise excellent Bismarck armour scheme protection that the plate barely decaps). The webpage also neglects that Littorios decapping plate ALWAYS decaps projectiles before they reach the belt, mistakes and mistakes. Other than this , I like the way of analyzing there.


----------



## Henk (Apr 6, 2006)

Yes, I only use it to show the battleships that were some of the strongest, yes I agree they do have great shortcomings. The Bismarck does not get the credit it need and the fact that some think the Rodney and Nelson were such great battleships is bullshit. I think they were worse than the Richelieu. 

Ag you know the thing is that I still say the Iowa is my best, but the Bismarck is in the same frame and the Iowa also has here shortcomings and so does the Bismarck.

Henk


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 6, 2006)

Iowas underwater protection was not great, and thats being generous. she was said to be wet in heavy seas, her beam should have been wider, but need for the panama canal caused that. 

Richeleu was in opinion not so good a battleship. First of all, its like a faster nelson, with better armor protection, especially against torperdoes. However all guns forward in two turrets made the damn thing defenseless as it ran (from a distance). I wouldnt imagine AA would be so good, since most of its on the aft deck, restricting forward fire with the secondary guns. hit she ship in the bow around the waterline, and the bow would sink, imagine steaming forward with a gaping hole in the armor and alot of the armor weight, and the main battery weight further forcing the bow down into the water and bring water into the ship. Would sink quite quickly i imagine. 

Yanato as stated earlier had a cluttered deck, with alot of its vitals standing tall amidhsips, asking for a nice shell hole. It did however have the airacraft launchers on the fan tail, looks familiar on modern ships too doesnt it? I dont have much else to badmouth yamato.

Bismarck, awesome ship. Needed the rudder to be fixed. Ive heard from a bismarck special on the history channel, and read somewhere that bismarcks rudder inadequacy was made known, but didnt have time to be fixed. Other than that, nothing against it.


----------



## Henk (Apr 6, 2006)

100% correct. I must say you took the words out of my mouth.8) 

Henk


----------



## Glider (Apr 6, 2006)

Sorry but I must disagree with some of your assumptions. Having all the guns at the front is a risk in that one shot could knock out all the guns, however ths was unlikely. The turrets were spread as far apart as possible to reduce the risk. The turrets themselves were split into two with thick armour between each pair of guns within the turret. The Dunquirk had a similar arrangement and was hit in the turret but only two guns were knocked out the other two kept firing. So the theory worked.

Saying that having the guns at the front was a disadvantage when running away, works on the basis that the battle had already been fought and lost.

Having all the guns at the front does give the French ship tactical advantages as it will always fire full broadsides. For instance it could reverse its direction and cut behind the opposing ship, or it could decide to close the range rapidly. Whereas the Bismark is stuck in one general direction and to close the range would involve losing half its firepower putting it at a significant disadvantage.

The battle would be close and luck would play a major part.

As for AA guns the heavy AA was not effective until the proximity fuse was developed and the light AA was more important. ON this basis the positioning of the light AA guns was more important and that was pretty well spread out.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 6, 2006)

Yes, the theory about the guns not being knocked out worked the one time it did happen, buy why take the risk? I mean spreading the guns would eliminate the possiblity of that happening altogether. 

Yes she could fire a full broadside at all times ill give her that, but paying the price listed above, and the fact that when running away you couldnt use the main battery. Yes the battle may have been lost due to hits, the wish to disengage, or the thought of enemy reinforcements on the way. BUT, why risk the ships total loss if only the battle is lost? Live to fight again another day, or at least cover your ass as best you can on your way out. Any engagement between battleships depends on many variables, as i said before, however i dont feel bismack and richeleu is really an even match. Granted the Richeleu wasnt horrible, but i would NEVER put all main battery forward.

Richeleus inability to have as suffecient amount of heavy AA forward would become a major hinderance as aircraft became more widely used in attacking battleships. Yes it had adequate Light AA forward, but with that theory, you couldnt shoot at the possible swarms of enemy aircraft (in the atlantic, many ships found themseleves in range of land based attack aircraft or bombers, especially since Richeleu being a french BB, would operate in the mediterranean theater quite possibly). Now that you cant shoot long range Heavy AA to at least brake up the attackers formations, your hit by waves of enemy aircraft and you cant shoot them until you yourself are in range of guns, soon to be bombs and torpedoes.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 7, 2006)

I am going to finish my paper on Iowa vs Yamato armour scheme comparison. Only minor things left, all computations finished by now. From what I analyzed, Iowa is no one on one equal contender. You will read soon why but I can tell you now that the only chance would be to use it´s superior speed to either disengage on it´s own initiative or to close into less than 16.000 yrds range and hope that it will be still in fighting condition afterwards (what follows is a direct pounding where both can defeat each others protection). To stay in medium - long range (fighting doctrine of USN and IJN, and therefore the most plausible scenario) would be suicide for Iowa, it´s vitals are totally exposed while Yamato´s vitals on the other side are 16" - proof. Only a fluke hit on a small area behind turret B may blew up Yamato (unlike Iowa) at distance...


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 7, 2006)

Funny youre talking about the Yamato today.

April 7th 2006 is the 61st anniversary of the Yamato sinking.

The combined fleet webpage has a great hour by hour account of the final day of this great ship

http://www.combinedfleet.com/yamato.htm


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 7, 2006)

Henk said:


> Oh yes those look great I wish I could get my hands on some of them. Thanks mate. Do you have some of them?
> 
> Henk



All but the Bismarck which I did not know about.


----------



## Glider (Apr 7, 2006)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> Yes, the theory about the guns not being knocked out worked the one time it did happen, buy why take the risk? I mean spreading the guns would eliminate the possiblity of that happening altogether.
> 
> Yes she could fire a full broadside at all times ill give her that, but paying the price listed above, and the fact that when running away you couldnt use the main battery. Yes the battle may have been lost due to hits, the wish to disengage, or the thought of enemy reinforcements on the way. BUT, why risk the ships total loss if only the battle is lost? Live to fight again another day, or at least cover your ass as best you can on your way out. Any engagement between battleships depends on many variables, as i said before, however i dont feel bismack and richeleu is really an even match. Granted the Richeleu wasnt horrible, but i would NEVER put all main battery forward.
> 
> Richeleus inability to have as suffecient amount of heavy AA forward would become a major hinderance as aircraft became more widely used in attacking battleships. Yes it had adequate Light AA forward, but with that theory, you couldnt shoot at the possible swarms of enemy aircraft (in the atlantic, many ships found themseleves in range of land based attack aircraft or bombers, especially since Richeleu being a french BB, would operate in the mediterranean theater quite possibly). Now that you cant shoot long range Heavy AA to at least brake up the attackers formations, your hit by waves of enemy aircraft and you cant shoot them until you yourself are in range of guns, soon to be bombs and torpedoes.



I think that you missed the point about having tactical options by having your guns at the front. The Bismark would have much fewer options and that is a disadvantage itself.


----------



## Henk (Apr 7, 2006)

Ok, now you all have good points, but let me give you a little whiff of how I designed my battleships. I have two classes and they both look quite the same. The First class has three triple 16" gun turrets as main armament that is in the center line of the ship. My secondary armament is 8 11" guns 2 in each turret and two turrets on both sides of the ships hull. Now what you are thinking is that sounds totally insane and the hull would not be able to sustain the weight of the guns, I already solved that problem and look at WW1 designs of Battleships and you would see it is not so stupid or impossible. 

Then for the smaller secondary guns there is one triple 5" ins at the back just above the aft turret. There is also missiles that can be fired at ships and land base targets. The AA are so spread that it could cover the whole ship and AA missiles also put down a hail of AA on a attacking aircraft. 

Lifeboats are also put in places where they could be lowered quickly and has a smaller chance of getting hit by enemy fire. I have 3 controle spots or bridges with their own radar and everything that is in the main forward bridge. This is to make it so that the ship can carry on when the forward one is knocked out and the ship and still carry on with the battle. 

The ship has water tight compartments and fire fighting equipment that will stop a fire dead in its tracks. Pumps make sure that flooding does not take over the ship and it is in the floor of each water tight compartment and pumps the water out of the ship or water can be pumped from the hull to fight fire on the deck. 

So why so many largeguns, well my ship has all round protection and will be able to fight of a enemy from all sides. 

Everything fits perfectly and the guns on the side is protected from above and can fire in 180 degrees. 

That is just a rough sketch of how my battleships look like, but I modify them regularly and still finds flaws and correct them so yes there are flaws but they are not so great and can be corrected.

That is my Perfect BB.

Henk


----------



## Glider (Apr 8, 2006)

Any idea how much this beasty is supposed to weigh? Make the Yamato look like a lightweight and look what happened to that!!


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 8, 2006)

It, with an armor scheme on par with Yamato would easily weigh upwards of 145,000 tons. With so many large guns, the pumping schemeatics, the numerous AA, the large amounts of wiring and technical equipment, storage for the many different types of ammunition needed (rockets, light and heavy AA, 5in shells, 11in shells, 16in shells.) Not to mention the massive propulsion systems needed to move such a creature through the water. How long was it, how wide was it at the beam?


Yes i am aware there are tactical advantages to having the guns all forward, but personally i feel as though the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. Im curious though as how everyone else feels about this? anyone new want to shed some light on opinions...Is all main battery forward a good decision or no?


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 8, 2006)

My proposed battleship, if i could choose anything on it i wanted would have the basic layout of the bismarck, with two forward turrets, the foremost one having four barrels, and the uppermost having two, and the same in the rear. It would have Iowas propulsion system and fire control, with Yamatos optical back up in a seperate location (added castle or tower in the rear.) Those main battery turrets would be of 16in calibre. Firing the same rounds as the Iowa class. Armor would be the same as on the bismarck class, but the rudder problem would be fixed. AA armament would consit of two triple 5in turrets on the starboard side, and two triple turrets on the port side, and one dual all the way on the end of the deck at the stern. Five dual 40mm guns on port, and five on starboard sides, and evenly spread 20mm AA guns, 125 of them.


----------



## Henk (Apr 8, 2006)

Glider I know what you mean    

Wiring is not a problem since you can use the new bluetooth to cut out your wiring and the equipment are made of light weight metals. The thing is that I am stupid when it comes to working out the weight of the ship. Like I said I am not yet so good with this allthough I have been doing it for years now. 

Well my main bridge or forward bridge is like the New Jersey bridge. The turret layout is like the Iowa class and is very low and thus can not bee seen from a disstance. The hull I designed my self and made a rudder that would be able to steer this monster. The fact that I made most of the other equipment light weight is to be able to carry so much equipment on such a large ship. 

My armour would be like the Italians armour. 

The powerplants would be 6 huge V16 Diesel engines that can generate a speed of 30 knots and up.

I do not like all my guns in front and like to spread them so that my ship can fire towards the enemy at all times.

Great idea for a battleship carpenoctem1689 you should get it on paper and also build a model of it. I want to be able to build mine into a model.

I did use things from other Battleships, but only because the fit in with the design and thus I will always give credit to the Battleships that gave me ideas on to use their things for my ship.

Henk


----------



## delcyros (Apr 8, 2006)

Ammo feed problems are expectable with 11" wingturrets. WW1-ships always suffered from ammo-feed problems for them. Either you put the main armour deck on deck 2 or you loose underwater protection because of a very, very narrow TDS at the wingturrets (11" magazines may blew up your ship). This leads to the main obstacle:Stability. With that much weight placed so high in the ship you will almost turn over the metacentric height. Alternatively you would need to protect the bottom of the ship with a considerable amount of armour (5"+) and this will increase the draught and displacement of the ship. SO I would rather expect either a very unstable ship or a very vulnarable or something in the 140-000-180.000 t. class....Very heavy for 16" equipment, isn´t it?
I acknowledge the layout of Richelieu as limitation. While it is correct that it allows more firepower forward (and less secondary), it was recognized by the french as tactical disadvantage (the weight of a raised quadrupel 15" turret is considerable), so that the Gascogne was designed with two quadrupel turrets on the same level, one facing forward, one facing rearward. There are several tactical advantages for this even layout (weight savings, the recognicability of the ships heading is more difficult). From a point of protection, the quadrupel turrets prooved to be good protected except for the use of face hardened armour for the turret roofs (and the scaling effects of them), which isn´t a wise decision at all in view of non penetrating damage. Nethertheless the layout barely plays a major role, most combats -once the contender decided to fight- were broadside vs broadside.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 8, 2006)

Henk,

do you have these books by RA Burt?

*British Battleships 1889-1904*
*British Battleships of WW1*

Do you visit this forum?
http://p069.ezboard.com/falltheworldsbattlecruisersfrm1


----------



## Henk (Apr 8, 2006)

delcyros I see what you mean. Do you think I should increase the 16' guns to something higher? The 11" comes in that I were crazy in the beginning of my design process and made them 15", but that is to high. It is not so stupid to have 11" as wing turrets and they are not on the second deck that is above the 11" wing turrets and if you look from far you would not be able to see them. the ammo problem I must still solve. Why do you think the 11" ammo would blow up my ship?

Remember I am not a expert at this so do not think so I am still learning.

KraziKanuK I do not have those books and no I have not visited that site before. I will go into it more. Thanks.

Henk


----------



## Glider (Apr 8, 2006)

Can I sugest one small addition to your design that would make a huge difference in combat. With 11in and 16in guns all firing at the same target you are going to get huge fire control problems. The French solved this by putting dye into their shells which coloured the water splash. As a result if your ship was firing Green and the next Blue, you knew which were your shots and could control the fall of shot.
In your case the 16in could fire yellow and the 11in blue.

This was copied by the British for their 15in guns but as far as I know wasn't actually used in combat. The French did use this approach and it worked well.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 8, 2006)

That would be a nice addition to that design. your theoretical battleship would be able to dominate mine, but i went for a design that was a tad more feasible an d easier to construct, though still probably considered a super battleship with weight near that of the Yamato and speed between 27knots and 30knots. Not exactly a task force ship. Would, if it ended up fighting in world war two, porobably end up being used mostly for bombardment (like most US battleships) or being sunk by swarms of enemy aircraft (like many japanese ships and german ships). still fun to play around with what ifs though. Ive been toying with trying to design the perfect *treaty compliant* BB. Not so easy to do. Its plain to see why, when doing this, ideas like the nelson and the Richeu came to fruition.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 8, 2006)

*Henk*, there is a person who uses the nick _Tiornu _ on the net. I don't remember his real name but he has written many books that might be of help for you in your BB designing. A Google search turned up many posts by him.

I would try to get the RA Burt books for they go into why the ships were designed the way they were. Also there are tech specs and section drawings for the ships.


----------



## Henk (Apr 8, 2006)

Thanks you guys you gave me something new.

KraziKanuK I will try to get hold of him or some of his books which is quite difficult where I am for book shops are f***ed up here and I do not have a credit card 

The thing is I do this as a hobby and I really love to do this, but to do it as work would just spoil it for me.

Thanks again for everything I will do so.

You guys know so much about Battleships why don't you design your own Battleships? It is great fun to it.

Henk


----------



## Erich (Apr 8, 2006)

Motor torpedo boat I would have to say with confidence the late war S-100 Schnellboote. Envy of all Allied navies

E


----------



## Henk (Apr 8, 2006)

What about the US torpedo boats? Are the Schnellboote better?

Henk


----------



## Erich (Apr 8, 2006)

S-booten were the largest and fastest, not necessairly the heaviest equipped for arms but quite a competent small craft in the hands of a capable shipmaster. Would have to check my KM files to see how many mines the S-boots could carry but they were a major sore in the Allied butts throughout the war........

E ~


----------



## Henk (Apr 9, 2006)

I did not know that they were so good. I always thought that the US ones were better.

Henk


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 9, 2006)

A book one should read on the origin of the American PT boats:

*Fast Boats and Flying Boats*
Adrian Rance
ISBN 1-85455-026-8

The 80' Elcos had their heritige in the 70' British Powerboat design.

The book is a bio of Hubert Scott-Paine.

Henk I don't know how having more data/info would make your 'hobby' more work?


----------



## Henk (Apr 9, 2006)

, ag you see I do it just for fun so I am not so serious about it.

Thanks for all the book names you gave me and info.

Henk


----------



## delcyros (Apr 9, 2006)

The problem with 11" ammo is the semi fixed ammunition. It needs steel braces AND powder bags (fore charge). These powder bags storages present a serious thread to the ships safety. Altough I believe german powder was not that sensible compared to british ones in terms of selfignition it remains a serious problem. Another problem in your design is that You have two different heavy calibres with a comparable rate of fire (2rpm 16" and 3rpm 11"), this makes firecontroll processes more difficult (two seperated sets are needed, one for ballistics of 16"ers and one for 11"ers) and the benefits are limited. 11"ers present a serious thread but the rate of fire is insufficiant to deal with destroyers at close range. In many ways it will be kind of an overkill. Plus you still haven´t factored the stability issues with them.
Try to define exterior parameters (what docking and construction abilities are avaiable, which harbour facilities will accomodate the ship, what´s the purpose of the shipolitical, raider, patrol, bombardement, hunter) first and then ask for needs of range and speed. This will define at least the machinery and total displacement. Now you can play with variables such as armour, armement and general layout.


----------



## Glider (Apr 9, 2006)

The dyes mentioned in the shells would help with this


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 10, 2006)

two different heavy calibres would be a little bit of an overkill in my opinion. My ideal Battleship, the one i listed above, i would have some serious revisions to do on. But i have come up with a battleship that i really like. It would be more of a fleey support/task force ships (to operate with cruisers, but have heavier guns) It would be much like a Scharnhorst class BC. It would have the same basic Hull, though lengthened somewhat from 753 feet, to 795ft to make it more streamlined. Instead of nine eleven inch guns, it would have 8 15in. guns. Forward would be one triple turret with 14in or 15in guns, a second dual raised above it, and one triple at the rear of the ship, retaining the turret placement taht scharnhorst has. Keep the secondary armaments turrets in the same place, and calibre at 5in (the US 5in DP guns), but add two more just forwrad (towards the bridge) of the aft turret of the main battery.Reduce aircraft stowage to a two aircraft (down from four) and keep parts for a third one below deck (eliminating need for a hangar to accomodate four). Increase the beam from 98ft 5in to around 108ft 2in to stablize the ship some. Replace the orginal powerplant with that of the Iowa class. (eight babcock wilcox boilers driving four-shaft GE turbines, developing 212,000 HP, up from scharnhorsts original 165,000hp.) add two more inches of armor to the turrets, on top of the 14in to 6in armor already on the original scharnhorts class, and increase the belt from 13.75in to 6.75in. to 14in to 9in. All around deck armor of 3 in. Between 45 and 90 20mm AA cannon, and 30 dual 40mm AA cannons. 14 port, 14 starboard and two on the stern. In additon to the firecontol that Iowa had, i would want Yamatos Opticals as a back up in a seperate location, just in case (remeber what happened to bismarcks radar! though it wasnt the same as iowas, still).estimated tonnage would be 42,000 ton standard and and 48,000 ton deep load, and a speed of around 32-35 knots. It was as wide as iowa, exactly as wide, shorter, weight 6000 tons less (so that high of speed is feasible). It would have an estiamted crew of around 1750 (scharnhorsts real was 1669).estimated draught would be around 29 feet. 

Yes i know only having two aircraft would be a hinderance, but seeing as though it was meant to work with a task force, i dont see this as much of a problem at all. This ship would be very capable of working on its own, but would be at a huge advatage supporting lighter ships, like heavy cruisers. Example of how i see this ship working : hunting commerce raiders or protecting convoys or carrier groups with three Prinz eguen class CA. That would be a fast, hard hitting group, with 15in, 8in, 5in guns, strong AA and torpedo capability. A group to be feared. any thoughts on it?


----------



## delcyros (Apr 10, 2006)

Back to the topic. The single best warship of ww2... If I had to name one it would be one of the US fast aircraft carriers. They provided offensive and defensive options, a decent range and speed, a great toughness and in company with a task force a factor of close to strategical importance. Just my mind.


----------



## Glider (Apr 10, 2006)

Not the best vessel but I think one with possibly the most remarkable record of combat, the IJN Yukikaze, a Kegero Class Destroyer. She served in nearly all the major battles of the Pacific war including Midway, Guadalcanal, Eastern Solomons, Battle of the Bismark Sea, Battle of the Philippine Sea, Leyte Gulf and an escort to the Yamato on her last voyage. Despite all this action, with the exception of hitting a mine that did little damage, she was never hit. Not surprisingly, she was seen as a lucky ship.

A most remarkable record.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 10, 2006)

I was just reading about those ships. They were fast, well armed and amroured and were great destroyers. In company with the japanese torpedoes of the ear, they were good ships, and lucky for us more werent built. I believe them to be of the best destroyers built during the second world war. 

I also like though the Hipper class cruisers of the kreigsmarine. The Prinz eugen escorted the bismarck on her maiden/final voyage, participated in the channel dash, and finsihed the war AND survived both a-bomb tests. Now thats one lucky ship. She also slugged it out with two british BB along with bismarck on her voyage, and lived!


----------



## Henk (Apr 10, 2006)

I promise this is the last thing about this but I would just like to thank you guys for helping me even more with my hobby.

Now lets get on with the topic. I love the Hipper class too. Great ships and it is a shame the Prinz Eugen are now a wreck, I would have love to see her intact and to see how she functions. The fact that she survived the A bomb tests just show you how great she were build. German engineering. 

Henk


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 10, 2006)

Glider said:


> ...... the IJN Yukikaze, a Kegero Class Destroyer. She served in nearly all the major battles of the Pacific war including Midway, Guadalcanal, Eastern Solomons, Battle of the Bismark Sea, Battle of the Philippine Sea, Leyte Gulf and an escort to the Yamato on her last voyage. Despite all this action, with the exception of hitting a mine that did little damage, she was never hit. Not surprisingly, she was seen as a lucky ship.
> 
> A most remarkable record.



Heres the TROM for this ship. Its an interesting war record.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/yukika_t.htm


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 10, 2006)

Damn that ship does have one interesting service record. It lasted all the way until 1970! WOW. Though the chinese level of quality was somewhat dpwn compared to western nations, and one can assume it wasnt modernized too much, but thats just an assumption. Based mostly on that the chinese navy, until very recently, wasnt a blue water navy at all, and had no aspirations to be. 

Ive always liked japanese destroyers, but they didnt make enough of them, and they were squandered sometims in duties they shouldnt have been (moving troops and supplies in makeshift convoys at night). While they saw some success, they could have been better applied to trade protection against the ever lurking US submarines. 

Many people argue the baltimore class as the best CA of the second world war, but could it really be, lacking torpedoes? That seriously limited combat effectiveness in my opinion. I would go with Hipper or Mogami for sure. good combination of guns, speed, armor, range and torpedoes/AA armament all rolled up in one package. 

Favorite cruisers (CA) base on my opinion of best:
1.) Hipper class-has everything a CA should have.
2.) Baltimore class (very, very close second). Lacks torpedoes, otherwise superb.
3.) Mogami or chokai class (somewha distant thrid). Top heavy, but fast, well armed and has torpedoes...AA armament and armor of concern.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 11, 2006)

The Blatimore´s are good. As was the Hipper-class. But Prinz Eugen, the first ship of the second lot (Seydlitz beeing unfinished and Lutzow given to Stalin) had improvements in hull design and firecontroll (By 1945 PE had the most advanced german Radar/firecontroll set (FuM-Berlin-0), equal to the best allied sets). Nethertheless they weren´t intended to be CA. They should be CL in design stage (with 4 5.9"/60 triple turrets, 35kts), hence they had comparably light armour for a CA and low range for a german CA. This puts the Baltimore class more in advantage but these ships while being excellent protected were sensible to underwater hits. The Mogami-class with it´s centerline bulkhead seems to me the most reasonable choice. Probably better would be Lutzow/Scheer/Graf-Spee, but these ships -while being CA in nomenclature- are better known as pocket battleships. I believe they are BC in original sense (speed and firepower for protection).


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 11, 2006)

Do you have a site that has the specs. for Mogami class? I have some very basic references but am always wanting to expand my knowledge of heavy cruisers. 

Lutzow, sheer and Graf-spee were all awesome ships, but they were more suited to the Commerce raiding roles, and i wouldnt use them in CA roles, and with the 11in. guns, would also classify them as BC.

If the Hipper class had light armor (which it did) it was arranged in the correct spots to be econmical, a sturdy warship, strong enough to take some punishment, and fast as well.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 12, 2006)

Try www.world-war.co.uk
It´s a good source for basic cruiser specs. You may source the net as I do (Google is great if you check the groups) but the best is still the good old book.
Multilingual reading may help here ( I always recommend to read the french gazette naval histoire).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 13, 2006)

Cool have not been to that site before. I get most of my specs from the old Janes books from that time.


----------



## reddragon (Apr 22, 2006)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> 1.)
> 
> Aircraft carriers, well i always loved Lexington, Akagi and shinano. Shinano had the brilliant idea of being moved from one yard to another, before completion, with US submarines patrolling everywhere....brilliant right? I like lexington, because she was fast, could carry many aircraft (ninety?) and had some decent damage control. The decks were too thin though, and made out of wood if i remember correctly. Akagi is a close contender, but im gonna go american on this one.



Damage control was far better on the U. S. ships than the Japanese. 

I may be mistaken but I believe they had wooden decks because it was much easier to repair after battle damage had been incurred.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 22, 2006)

Ive heard the same thing too about the wooden decks of the aircraft carriers. Plus wood had a lower weight thus contributed to the stability of the ship.

In order to make a flight deck thick enough to stop a 500 lbs bomb from penetrating to the hanger, it would take quite some armour, all of which translates into more weight that either slows down the ship, or decreases its munitions and av-gas stores for the air groups.

Some naval historians have pointed out that the USS Enterprise was able to get its flight deck operational fairly quickly after taking some bomb hits in the battle of the Santa Cruz. If it was armoured deck, the bomb would have penetrated anyway and buckled the deck, making it imperative that it reach a large shipyard to repair the damage.


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2006)

I think its a question of balance. A wooden deck will not stop a bomb and any bomb that penetrates to the hanger below is guaranteed to cause significant damage. As a result almost any hit is going to put the ship out of action for some time. I don't see how having a wooden deck is going to help with repairs because of all the damage below deck and the amount of wood that woull be needed to repair such damage.

The armoured deck will reduce the potential for damage and in many cases stop the ship from receiving any damage at all. I think the Enterprise was hit by 2 x 500LB bombs from Vals and knocked out of action for the rest of the battle. It is quite possible that these would have caused little if any damage to an armoured deck.

This may seem an extravagant claim but in the Med the Illustrious was hit by 6-8 (depending on source) 1100 and 2200lb bombs which would have sunk any other carrier, in any other Navy. She was greviously hurt but sailed around 10 days later from Malta with a flightdeck capable of limited operations. 
In the Pacific in April/May all the RN carriers were hit by suicide planes. Illustrious was hit by two but continued to operate aircraft as did the Indomitable that was hit by one. The Formidable was out of action for four hours. The other three were all repaired within a month. An impressive record

However it isn't all good news. Armoured decks weigh a lot and the first three carriers only had one hanger deck as the hanger walls were also fully armoured with four and a half inches of armour. As a result they carried roughly half the aircraft of an American Fleet carrier.
The fourth carrier had one and a half hangers with the hanger walls reduced in armour to one and a half inches. The armoured deck remained.
The last two carriers were redesigned internally and had two full hanger decks and carried more aircraft. 
RN carriers also carried and operated more aircraft than their 'book' values indicate and this should be remembered when considering the value of these carriers. for example 
The Illustrious has a 'book' load of 36 aircraft but operated 52
The Implacable has a 'book' load of 54 but operated 81.

Hope this helps


----------



## delcyros (Apr 22, 2006)

Both design philosophys have advantages and disadvantages. I do believe that the armoured box of british carriers contributed a lot to their protection. A 500 lbs GP bomb can be stopped by around 2 " of homogenious deck armour. However, the extra weight that high in the ship made them quite very unstable once flooding occured. This isn´t a problem in the Med but in the Atlantic. US carriers could take some flooding and still kept on beeing afloat. Flooding was a thread but fire was the real problem, I think. 
In the end I think US carriers with "soft" decks would be very exposed had they deployed in the med (and faced significant opposition) to bomb hits. And in the Pac numbers counted more so maybe both nations adopted the best design for their specific thread scenario.


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2006)

I would go with that.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 23, 2006)

Im not real big on navy, but I will say those Corvettes earned a respectable reputation for Anti-sub warfare.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 23, 2006)

Considering how simple they were, they did the job well enough. They were also cheap and easy to build. Perfect for the RCN at the time. They were a misery to sail on the North Atlantic though. They tossed around like corks and always leaked. You were almost constantly wet, cold, and seasick. Those old-timers who manned them will forever have my respect.


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 23, 2006)

Yep, they did the job though, still not somewhere I would like to be...

LOL your sigs Hussars and NS!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 23, 2006)

Yeah, a little inside joke for NS.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 25, 2006)

This one just ekes in and probably doesn't qualify but should be noted. I saw a History Channel or Military Channel show on the USS Midway. This aircraft carrier was launched in March 1945, but really didn't make the war. This ship fought the cold war, Vietnam, and Persian Gulf war, where she was the command vessel! She was decomissioned in 1992. She had an armored deck and struggle with a certain level of instability her entire life. I guess it made landing in rough seas quite an experience. For a fighting vessel to be active for 47 years is simply outstanding.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 25, 2006)

USS Midway and USS Coral Sea both visited Halifax at different times when I was a kid. Coral Sea was paid off in 1986 or 87 I believe. I remember seeing her tied up down at old Pier 21, with some of her Phantoms parked on deck. Quite a sight for Halifax. They were the only remaining US carriers small enough to use our jettys. Modern carriers like the Nimitz class have to anchor out in the harbour.


----------



## Henk (Apr 25, 2006)

You lucky dog. I wish our navy had a aircraft carrier.

Henk


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 25, 2006)

Ours doesn't have any either.


----------



## Henk (Apr 25, 2006)

But dint you have one?

Henk


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 25, 2006)

Not in about thirty-six years.


----------



## Henk (Apr 25, 2006)

Dam, I did not know that.

Henk


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 1, 2006)

NS, the Kingston Class vessels, are they like cruisers or what?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 1, 2006)

6.) Submarine

I guess what they were best at was destroying other ships. They couldn''t bombard a seashore though.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 2, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> NS, the Kingston Class vessels, are they like cruisers or what?


Oh god no. Nothing of the kind. They're a small multi-role coastal patrol/surveillance vessel, manned by the Naval Reserves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_class_patrol_vessel


----------



## pgm1962a (Aug 12, 2006)

The IOWA class have to be considered the best of the best. Alot of attention here has been made to the YAMATO and her side belt of armor and her gun size....however several factors to consider. _gun size_: although the YAMATO had bigger guns (18.1" vs 16" for IOWA). IOWA had better ranging shells than YAMATO. _Protection_: One must remember that by WWII it was the plunging shells (hitting the decks of a ship), that caused most of the damage. The IOWA's kill box was smaller than YAMATO. However this meant that IOWA could get in closer and hit YAMATO with plunging shells on her decks. YAMATO's shells at that range would have hit the IOWA at more of an angle, thus reducing their effectivness. _speed_: IOWA was 4 knots faster than YAMATO and had a tight radius of her own. These are somethings to consider. Remember just because you had bigger armor and guns doesnt mean better all the time.

Also IOWA would have pulverized BIZMARK. And the 'Battlecruiser' concept by WWII was a dinosaur. No battlecruiser could hope to hold its own against virtually _any_ type of battleship.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 12, 2006)

Essex class carriers, Baltimore class heavy cruisers, cleveland class light cruisers and fletcher class destroyers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2006)

pgm1962a said:


> Also IOWA would have pulverized BIZMARK. And the 'Battlecruiser' concept by WWII was a dinosaur. No battlecruiser could hope to hold its own against virtually _any_ type of battleship.



Its spelled Bismark and she was a Battleship not a Battlecruiser. I really dont think the Iowa would have been able to deal with her so easily. Her hull was never penetrated by a shell from 5in to 16in. She was scuttled my friend.


----------



## trackend (Aug 13, 2006)

pgm1962a said:


> Also IOWA would have pulverized BIZMARK. And the 'Battlecruiser' concept by WWII was a dinosaur. No battlecruiser could hope to hold its own against virtually _any_ type of battleship.



mmmmm intresting thought I think you over estimate how good the Iowa class was compared to the Bismark. The Hood was not alone when it went against the Bismark but as you say pgm the battle cruiser was very much out of date by the out break of WW2 the Hood having been launched in 1918. At the end of the day the Bismark was scuttled and not directly sunk by gunfire and torpedo's (although having been rendered a flaming hulk by the time of it's demise). Although a very elegant vessel I don't think the Iowa class ship was particular any better or worse than many other classes of battleship built around that time all had become superseded by the aircraft carrier as the capital ship by the beginning of WW2 due to there vunerability from air attack and as such quickly became relegated to shore bombardment duties.


----------



## pgm1962a (Aug 13, 2006)

wether BISMARK was scuttled or not is of no importance (several of the Japanese carriers were scuttled at Midway...but no one doubts they were mortally wounded by US aircraft). When your superstructure is a flaming wreck...your main guns out of action...your steering crippled your speed reduced to 9knots (which it was before the engagement with KING GEORGE V and RODNEY)..and you are in the middle of the Atlantic, what does it matter. The Bismark was doomed either way.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2006)

Trackened I agree fully with what you said up there.

Yes pgm1962a was doomed however the point still remains her hull was not breached by shells fired from another warship and that has been proven by the many dives to the ship.

We had an interesting thread here for a while with excerts from an interview from a surviver from the Bismark and he described the last few hours of the ship and how she went down.

He was an intersting chap. I can not remember his name and died a few years ago. His grandson is an officer in the US Navy today serving as a Captain on a Cruiser I believe.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 13, 2006)

It's spelt Bismarck, actually, gentlemen. 

On the matter of Battlecruisers, I don't think they were out-dated. The BC was never supposed to stand up to the BB. The armour of any BC was well known to be too thin to combat a BB head-on. On the contrary, the BC was always supposed to flee the BB as naturally it would have been faster. The BC was a raider, it was designed from the outset to out-gun everything that it couldn't out-run and out-run everything it couldn't out-gun. 

As it happens, the HMS Hood was an out-dated design in itself. Not only that but it was put in a situation where it shouldn't have been, going head-on against a modern BB, the KMS _Bismarck_ and CA KMS _Prinz Eugen_.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 15, 2006)

OOps you are correct with the Bismarck.


----------



## redcoat (Aug 19, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Its spelled Bismark and she was a Battleship not a Battlecruiser.


Actually, it was spelled Bismarck, in honour of the famous 19th century German 




> Her hull was never penetrated by a shell from 5in to 16in.


You have stated that both British shells or torpedoes didn't penetrate her hull, then how do you explain that when the Prince of Wales hit her with 3 shells during the action against the POW and Hood, she shipped over 2000 tons of salt water into her hull, leaving her 3 degrees down at the hull and with a 9 degree list to port ( which was only corrected by counter flooding).
Also the torpedo which hit the rudder also caused extensive flooding in the steering and adjacent compartments which foiled attempts to repair them. 
So as we can see, even before the final battle the Bismarcks hull had suffered considerable damage.

The tale of the 'undamaged hull' is a myth

ps An excellent and highly detailed account of the Bismarcks final battle (with links to the same on the loss of HMS Hood )
Bismarck's Final Battle - Part 1

hope its of help


----------



## Henk (Aug 19, 2006)

Like redcoat said....

Ok the whole thing of the Bismarck is that she was penetrated on two places by both torpedo's and a shell. The first one was the shell of the battle with the Hood and Prince of Wales that penetrated the bow and went right through the bow and thus caused flooding and her speed thus reduced. If you look at the following picture you would see what I mean. The shell came from the Prince of Wales and it caused the shut down of the port boiler room due to flooding and the forward feul could not be used due to the flooding and also was the cause of the speed being reduced. 







and this is the hole in the hull.





The second one was the torpedo that caused the rudders to lock and made a hole near the stern below the steering gear rooms flooding these compartments and jamming the rudder mechanism. 

Like we all know who knows something about the German trained crew of battleships that they were famous for their well placed salvos and were great aimers. 

Now a battle between the Bismarck and the Iowa class battleship would be great to see but I must say that the crew makes the ship what it is and not the ship it self and also the commander of the ship. 

The Bismarck was scuttled and not torpedoed like said by the Royal Navy and I must say the crew of the Bismarck fought like real men against the enemy although everything was allready lost, they were brave men.

My sources is the book The Discovery of the Bismarck by Robert D Ballard that did interviews with the survivors of the Bismarck and I have the video of it as well. The pictures come from Bismarck Tirpitz.


----------



## Glider (Aug 19, 2006)

An excellent article and I thank you for posting it. I had not realised how much damage was done by he 18in torpedo's over and above the jamming of the rudders.
It also shows how well the POW did in what can only be described as the worst possible situation and the way she used Radar to assist the Gunnery.


----------



## Henk (Aug 19, 2006)

Yes, but the sad thing is that all her main guns ceased to work during the battle and thus retreated due to that. Still what the Germans had on their ships they could use it effectively.


----------



## pgm1962a (Aug 22, 2006)

The IOWA was superior to BISMARK in several key ways- 1) IOWA had 9 16in guns to BISMARKS 8 15in (IOWA had a superior fire control system. 2) IOWA was faster than BISMARK (32k to BISMARKS 29k). 3) IOWA had by far a superior turn radius. 4) IOWA's protection was based on the 'all or nothing' principal, which meant that all of the ships vitals and magazines were protected in an armoured box like structure with 2 large armoured bulkheads and a heavy armoured deck on top of the bulkheads. The BISMARK was not designed in such a way. Many of her command control stations were exposed to enemy fire. 5) IOWA had 20 rapid fire 5" secondary batteries. As for 'no damage from shell fire', one must remember that in the final engaement with BISMARK, the British battelships were to close. There shells tended to slam into the ships structures then actually plunge into the ships vitals. Also the outdated Battelcruiser concept is justified. Remember the British tended to regard them as capital ships. Many of the losses of Battecruisers in the Battle of Jutland in WWI were do to fire from other Battlecruisers.


----------



## Glider (Aug 22, 2006)

pgm1962a said:


> The IOWA was superior to BISMARK in several key ways- 1) IOWA had 9 16in guns to BISMARKS 8 15in (IOWA had a superior fire control system. 2) IOWA was faster than BISMARK (32k to BISMARKS 29k). 3) IOWA had by far a superior turn radius. 4) IOWA's protection was based on the 'all or nothing' principal, which meant that all of the ships vitals and magazines were protected in an armoured box like structure with 2 large armoured bulkheads and a heavy armoured deck on top of the bulkheads. The BISMARK was not designed in such a way. Many of her command control stations were exposed to enemy fire. 5) IOWA had 20 rapid fire 5" secondary batteries. As for 'no damage from shell fire', one must remember that in the final engaement with BISMARK, the British battelships were to close. There shells tended to slam into the ships structures then actually plunge into the ships vitals. Also the outdated Battelcruiser concept is justified. Remember the British tended to regard them as capital ships. Many of the losses of Battecruisers in the Battle of Jutland in WWI were do to fire from other Battlecruisers.



Can someone tell me why people always compare the Bismark to the Iowa. One was designed prewar when radar was in its infancy. The other built at the end of the war with all the lessons from the war built in, was 10-15% bigger.
Of course the Iowa was better, she damn well should have been.

If you going to compare like with like, then compare the Bismark with the N Carolina. They were designed, laid down and completed within 12 months of each other and are a true comparison.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 23, 2006)

It was called the Bismarck.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2006)

redcoat said:


> Actually, it was spelled Bismarck, in honour of the famous 19th century German



Yes several other people had allready corrected me on that mistake and I am well aware of who it was named after. See the flag under my name.  




redcoat said:


> You have stated that both British shells or torpedoes didn't penetrate her hull, then how do you explain that when the Prince of Wales hit her with 3 shells during the action against the POW and Hood, she shipped over 2000 tons of salt water into her hull, leaving her 3 degrees down at the hull and with a 9 degree list to port ( which was only corrected by counter flooding).
> Also the torpedo which hit the rudder also caused extensive flooding in the steering and adjacent compartments which foiled attempts to repair them.
> So as we can see, even before the final battle the Bismarcks hull had suffered considerable damage.



No I stated that no shells penetrated it. If I said torpedos that was typo mistake. Everyone knows that aprox. 2 torpedos penetrated her hull. 



redcoat said:


> The tale of the 'undamaged hull' is a myth



No it has been proven by Robert Ballard, Cameron and several other people who inspected the hull on there dives.


----------



## Henk (Aug 23, 2006)

Firstly are you blind or something cant you see how we said it is Bismarck and not Bismark? And no it was not 29 knots for the Bismarck it is 30.8 knots top speed.

The fact is that the Bismarck and Iowa were some of the best battleships of WW2 and that is why they compare them. 

The Bismarck will always stay a legend. 

The thing is that if your radar was destroyed by enemy fire that hit the mark most of the time and your crew can not get to hit the enemy what will it help you then? Like I have said what will the ship help you if its crew is not well trained? 

Remember for those of you who do not know it is BISMARCK and NOT BISMARK.


----------



## redcoat (Aug 23, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No I stated that no shells penetrated it. If I said torpedos that was typo mistake. Everyone knows that aprox. 2 torpedos penetrated her hull.
> 
> No it has been proven by Robert Ballard, Cameron and several other people who inspected the hull on there dives.


If the hull was not penetrated by a shell , how did over 2000 tons of sea water enter her hull, during the action with the POW and the Hood ????
Did a sailor accidentally leave a water tap running ??????


----------



## Henk (Aug 23, 2006)

The ship was not penetrated by two torpedo's but one and it was a shell from the Prince of Wales that went in and out of the bow. The dives done by Dr Robert D. Ballard proved that the British did not sink her with torpedo's but that she was scuttled. 

Look at the picture I posted of the bow with the hole in it with the fake bow wave still showing. If you guys want more pictures of the hull I would be glad to post some for you.

Read the THE DISCOVERY OF THE BISMARCK by Robert D. Ballard and you would get a new look into the story of the ship and what really happend.


----------



## Glider (Aug 23, 2006)

Henk said:


> Firstly are you blind or something cant you see how we said it is Bismarck and not Bismark? And no it was not 29 knots for the Bismarck it is 30.8 knots top speed.
> 
> The fact is that the Bismarck and Iowa were some of the best battleships of WW2 and that is why they compare them.
> 
> ...



Bismarck was 29 knots not 30.8 which seems like a trials speed not one that reflects operational loading.

Bismarch was and always will be a legend. However being a Legend doesn't make you the best which she clearly wasn't, not by a long shot. The Iowa was and always will be better than the Bismark.

You seem to be making a huge assumption that the Iowa (or any other battleship) without its Radar wouldn't be able to hit anything due to the lack of training of the crew. Anyone who served on the Iowa would I suggest not agree with that.
Pretty difficult to agree with that when you consider how well the POW did with huge difficulties and the very very limited number of shells she actually fired.

The Tirpitz/Bismarch class should be measured against equivalent ships, designed and built in the same period. That shows how advanced or otherwise the design was.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 24, 2006)

redcoat said:


> If the hull was not penetrated by a shell , how did over 2000 tons of sea water enter her hull, during the action with the POW and the Hood ????
> Did a sailor accidentally leave a water tap running ??????



Her hull was never penetrated by shells. Read some interviews from Bismarck survivors. Ill take there word over anyone elses anyday.


----------



## Hop (Aug 24, 2006)

Bismarck survivors reported shells exploding in at least one starboard boiler room and a port turbine room during the final battle. One of PoWs shells had earlier caused flooding in a boiler room and turbine room, which had to be abandoned.



> The dives done by Dr Robert D. Ballard proved that the British did not sink her with torpedo's but that she was scuttled.



According to Ballard (and the later British expedition) Bismarck is buried in silt up to her waterline for most of the length of the hull, so it's not possible to say how many underwater penetrations occured.


----------



## redcoat (Aug 24, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Her hull was never penetrated by shells. Read some interviews from Bismarck survivors. Ill take there word over anyone elses anyday.


Then explain to me, how the water ( over 2000 tons) got into the Bismarck during the action against the POW and the Hood ???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 24, 2006)

Hop said:


> Bismarck survivors reported shells exploding in at least one starboard boiler room and a port turbine room during the final battle. One of PoWs shells had earlier caused flooding in a boiler room and turbine room, which had to be abandoned.



According to the survivors in the interviews (The links to the interviews are posted in a thread here) shells penetrated the superstructure, turrets and so forth but no the hull. Torpedos yes but not shells.



Hop said:


> According to Ballard (and the later British expedition) Bismarck is buried in silt up to her waterline for most of the length of the hull, so it's not possible to say how many underwater penetrations occured.



That is true however...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 24, 2006)

redcoat said:


> Then explain to me, how the water ( over 2000 tons) got into the Bismarck during the action against the POW and the Hood ???



According to the same survivors that I am talking about above the Bismarck did not take water until she was struck by torpedos from the Swordfish and then later from the Destroyers in the final battle.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 24, 2006)

pgm1962a said:


> Also the outdated Battelcruiser concept is justified. Remember the British tended to regard them as capital ships. Many of the losses of Battecruisers in the Battle of Jutland in WWI were do to fire from other Battlecruisers.



Might as well jump in here about the Battlecruiser arguement.

Don't think it was a viable concept. It was essentially a Cruiser with Battleship armament. Made it very vunerable to Battleships. Unfortunately, many people (admirals in this case) see what looks like a Battleship and they treat it like a Battleship. 

The concept was flawed in much the same way the idea of the Tank Destroyer was flawed. Don't make Tank Killers, make Killer Tanks. Something that will survive in the give and take of a battle with vessels their own size. If it could not stand up to ships with the same guns, it was not much good.

However, to give the devil his due, when the concept came around it had some merit. This can be seen in the battle of the Falklands where two British BCs ran down and sank two German Armored Cruisers. 

But by the time WW2 came around, the concept was done. The Bismark V Hood, Duke of York V Scharnhorst and Washington V Kirishima proved the point. Even the cruisers of the time took one down (Hiei V Everybody). 

It was an interesting concept that might've had limited viability in the early part of the last century, but the combination of aircraft, weapons advancements, warship design advancements, all rendered it obsolete.


----------



## redcoat (Aug 24, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> According to the same survivors that I am talking about above the Bismarck did not take water until she was struck by torpedos from the Swordfish and then later from the Destroyers in the final battle.


If they are saying that, they are wrong !

KBismarck.com - Operation Rheinübung

"However, the Bismarck had been hit on the port side by three heavy shells probably from the Prince of Wales. The first shell hit Bismarck amidships below the waterline in section XIV, passed through the outer hull just below the main belt, and exploded against the 45-mm armoured torpedo bulkhead. This hit caused the flooding of the port electric plant No. 4. The adjacent No. 2 boiler room also took some water, but this was contained by the damage control parties through the use of hammocks. The second shell hit the bow in section XXI, just above the waterline. This projectile entered the port side, passed through the ship above the armoured deck without exploding, and exited the starboard side leaving a hole of 1.5 meters in diameter. Around 2,000 tons of salt water got into the forecastle, and as a consequence of this 1,000 tons of fuel oil were blocked there. The third shell simply passed through a boat without any appreciable damage at all. 
As a result of these hits, the top speed of the Bismarck was reduced to 28 knots. The battleship was 3º down by the bow and had a 9º list to port. Because of this, the blades tips of the starboard propeller were out of the water at times. Therefore the starboard void tanks in sections II and III were flooded to reduce the bow trim and list. "


Bismarck - The History - The Bismarck Escapes

"Bismarck had received three hits altogether. One had carried away the captain's motor-boat amidships, damaged the aircraft launching gear, landed in the sea beyond without exploding. The second had also struck amidships, penetrated the ship's side beneath the armored belt, destroyed one of the dynamoes, put No. 2 boiler-room and its two boilers out of action, wounded five men by scalding, caused some flooding. The third and most serious hit had struck the port bow about the level of the water-line, penetrated two oil tanks, come out the starboard side without exploding. This hit not only let sea-water into the oil tanks and quantities of oil into the sea, but knocked out the suction valves, and cut off from the engines a further thousand tons of oil.
Because of flooding the bow was down by two or three degrees, there was a list to port of nine degrees, the starboard propeller was coming out of the water. Captain Lindemann ordered counterflooding aft to restore the trim, and maximum speed was reduced to 28 knots. Collision mats were put down to cover the two holes in the bows, divers were sent to the flooded compartments. Presently the collision mats stopped any more water getting into the ship, though the oil continued to leak out of it. Some officers suggested a big reduction of speed and further counterflooding to bring the bows right out of the water, enable the holes to be repaired by welding; but Admiral Lütjens was not prepared to risk the dangers of delay. Schlüter (a technician from Blohm and Voss) suggested lightening the bows by cutting loose the anchors and cables, dumping them overboard, but this idea was also rejected. Despite the difficult working conditions the divers finaly managed to make temporary repairs, pump out some of the water so the bows began to rise."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2006)

redcoat said:


> If they are saying that, they are wrong !



Believe what you wish. I believe the people who were on the ship. They are the ones the witnessed and experienced it. If someone who was on it says it did not happen, then to me it did not happen.

Do me a favor as well. Calm down with the attitude...


----------



## redcoat (Aug 25, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Believe what you wish. I believe the people who were on the ship. They are the ones the witnessed and experienced it. If someone who was on it says it did not happen, then to me it did not happen.


Even though the facts I've given you are not in dispute with historians,
Every account be it British, German or Neutral, of the Bismarcks last mission gives the same story.



> Do me a favor as well. Calm down with the attitude...


I am calm


----------



## Henk (Aug 28, 2006)

Hi everyone long time no see, been working very hard 12 to 13 hours straight.

Ok, Adler mate I do not want to start a fight but in Ballard's book he also stated that the shell from the PoW went straight through and caused the flooding. This information were from the survivors of the Bismarck.

The whole thing is she still fought like a mean war machine and never stopped until she could not anymore.

A ship is nothing without its radar and range finders, you will fire blind and will only waste your shells and give the enemy the time to hit you where it will hurt. So what is a tank with poorly trained crew, worth nothing, the enemy will take advantage of it and destroy it, the same with a battleship.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 29, 2006)

I am going to have to look through my book on the Bismarck but I dont recall that. I am going from reading interviews and from watching documentaries.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 29, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am going to have to look through my book on the Bismarck but I dont recall that. I am going from reading interviews and from watching documentaries.



Adler, I think these guys are on it with this one. The Bismark did take at least one shot from the POW. Went through the forward part of the ship and caused an oil leak. Also shipped water because of it. Better question would be did that hit go through the armour or did it go through an unarmoured part. 

Pretty good shooting from the POW, considering she was brand new with an untested crew. Better shooting from the Bismark. Sank one Capital ship and wounded another. 

One question that always bothered me about the Battle of the Denmark Straights was why was the Hood's shooting so poor. I know that they started out shooting at the Prinz Eugen but switched to the Bismark. Still, none of the shots hit and she was shooting for a decent length of time. Was it the range finders? Gunnery Controls? What up with that one?


----------



## Soren (Aug 29, 2006)

Allot of the survivors of the Bismarck claim they sunk her themselves with explosives, and AFAIK this has been confirmed by underwater investigations. However lets face it, she was done for, and although it might have been the explosives which sank her, she was already put permanently out of action by the British warships long before that decision was ever made.

And about the hull of the Bismarck, although I'm not 100% sure about this, I seem to remember that the upper bow hull had been completely penetrated by a British 15" shell which even went out the other side without exploding. - The British throughout WW2 had problems with fuzes which later caused them to abandon the use of them completely in armor piercing rounds. The Germans on the other hand had great succes with fuzes in AP shells (As the HMS Hood testifies), and therefore stuck with it in their AP designs, improving them over the years.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 29, 2006)

timshatz said:


> Adler, I think these guys are on it with this one. The Bismark did take at least one shot from the POW. Went through the forward part of the ship and caused an oil leak. Also shipped water because of it. Better question would be did that hit go through the armour or did it go through an unarmoured part.



No where did I ever say that the Bismarck did not take any shells. She took many many shells. In fact her whole superstructure and turrets and everything above the waterline was complete destroyed by shells.

The oil leak that you are talking about was caused by the torpedos from the Swordfish which shipped water into the ship.


----------



## Soren (Aug 29, 2006)

Here we go..






_"Starboard side bow of the Bismarck. The false wave can be seen on the side of the hull. The hole that can be seen in the hull and false wave is where the shell from Prince of Wales went out after having entered the hull from the port side. The shell went right thought the ship. Some sediment can be seen on the main deck."_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 29, 2006)

Yes but that was above the waterline in an unarmoured section. No shells penetrated the Bismarcks armour belt.


----------



## redcoat (Aug 29, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes but that was above the waterline in an unarmoured section. No shells penetrated the Bismarcks armour belt.


Are you under the assumption that the Bismarcks hull was totally armoured ?


----------



## Henk (Aug 29, 2006)

The crew, the German crew hated the word Hood because it was used in their training and everytime they said what if you made that misstake while fighting the Hood, so when they went up against her they did their best.


----------



## Henk (Aug 29, 2006)

Look at the photo of the Bismarck after the battle and you will see how much her bow sinks away in the water. Let me show it again for you guys.






and a 3D drawing of the Bismarck.






and now the picture of the wreck.


----------



## Soren (Aug 29, 2006)

Adler has a good point, as looking at the armour layout of the Bismarck it is clear that the shell from Prince of Wales hit a section of just 60mm in thickness or less, and it was above the waterline.

Bismarck armour layout:


----------



## Henk (Aug 29, 2006)

Yes, but that is the exit point/hole of the shell that hit the Bismarck from the PoW.


----------



## Soren (Aug 29, 2006)

As explained earlier: _"Starboard side bow of the Bismarck. The false wave can be seen on the side of the hull. The hole that can be seen in the hull and false wave is where *the shell from Prince of Wales went out after having entered the hull from the port side. The shell went right through the ship*. Some sediment can be seen on the main deck."_


----------



## Henk (Aug 29, 2006)

Yup.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2006)

redcoat said:


> Are you under the assumption that the Bismarcks hull was totally armoured ?



Did I say that?

I said there the major parts that were vital to the ship were.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 30, 2006)

By the design spec further up the page, it is pretty evident the shell went through an unamored part.


----------



## Soren (Aug 30, 2006)

Something I forgot to post in relation to Bismarck's armour layout:




: See the figures on the drawing



: 320mm



: 170mm



: 145mm



: 80mm



: 60mm


----------



## timshatz (Aug 30, 2006)

Looks like the round landed outside the armored box. Somewhere in the range of 60MM plate. Wouldn't slow down a 14" plunging AP round.


----------



## Henk (Sep 2, 2006)

Something interesting I found.

The range finder of the Bismarck and the Admirals bridge.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2006)

Nice pics.


----------



## Henk (Sep 4, 2006)

Thanks Adler, the thing is that I never thought the Admiral bridge were still intact and to find a range finder is great. It looks like the foretop fire (gunnery) controle station which were knocked out by the 8-inch shell from Norfolk in which Commander Schneider was killed and the Bismarck then fought with one eye shot away.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Sep 4, 2006)

Someone might say the Battleship was the queen of the see, but it was planes from an aircraft carrier that paralyzed the Bizmark, so i have to say the Aircraft Carrier was the greatest


----------



## Henk (Sep 4, 2006)

You can have a great aircraft carrier, but without the aircraft or crew, it is just a floating tub, but I agree with you that it took over the role of the Battleship and now having the most carriers in your navy means you have a great navy just like the day of the battleship.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 4, 2006)

Henk said:


> You can have a great aircraft carrier, but without the aircraft or crew, it is just a floating tub



So would a battleship...


----------



## Henk (Sep 4, 2006)

Yes I agree. I was just thinking of the great aircraft carriers the Japanese had at the end of the war, except for the aircraft and crew to make them even greater, but I still love a Battleship or what. Those guns, you just can not love it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 4, 2006)

Here is my question.

What happened to the Yamato after it was sunk. Did they break it up or does she still lie at the bottom. If so has anyone found her?

What about the Hood? Has any pieces of her ever been found. Not sure what might be left because she exploded but maybe some parts were found.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 4, 2006)

The wreckage was surveyed in 1985 and 1999

"Yamato" Wreck Photo Gallery


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 4, 2006)

Cool thanks. She is really torn apart. How deep is she?


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 4, 2006)

Ive seen one depth said as to be 1000 ft.

I'm searching for additional confirmation to make sure it wasnt a typo for 10,000 ft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2006)

Cool, interesting though, thanks for the site.


----------



## timshatz (Sep 5, 2006)

They found the wreckage of the Hood as well. She came apart under the water. 

H.M.S. Hood Association-Battle Cruiser Hood: The Wreck of HMS Hood


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 6, 2006)

Cool that is stuff I have allways wanted to know. I wish they would hurry up and get the pics from the Graf Zeppelin now that she has been found.

Oh and syscom I did a search as well about the Yamato and as you said they were all varying depths from website to website. The most common though was 350m which is about 1000ft.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 6, 2006)

It looks like the Yamato sunk while still over the contiental shelf. Go eastward a bit and its gets very deep in hurry.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 6, 2006)

Yeap


----------



## Henk (Sep 6, 2006)

The Yamato is the one that looks the worst of the three, the Bismarck, Hood and Yamato. She got the worst of them all. It is a shame that she is in so many pieces and not like the Bismarck.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 6, 2006)

One of her magazines exploded.

It was a titanic explosion that was seen from dozens of miles away.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2006)

I am going to start a new thread on wrecks. That stuff really interests me.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 7, 2006)

Heres a couple of pictures of the Yamato blowing up.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 7, 2006)

You can see why it was in bits on the bottom of the sea. There were a couple of Battleships who went up like that in the war, the Hood being one, another being the Barham in the med.

Some pics of the Barham:


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 7, 2006)

I think there is a video of that BB blowing up.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 8, 2006)

Yep, here is 3:

HMS Barham - Rest In Peace - Google Video
1945 Newsreel shown after 4 years of secrecy - Google Video
HMS Barham 1914 - 1941 - Google Video

1st two are similar.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 8, 2006)

Cool thanks for the video and pics guys.


----------



## timshatz (Sep 9, 2006)

It's amazing anybody got out of those ships. The Barnham lost 800, Yamato I think was in the range of 2k and everybody but 3 (something like 1500) went down on the Hood.

Considering the violence of the explosions, especially the Yamato, survivial seems to be more a factor of happenstance.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2006)

I agree, it truely is amazing.


----------



## comiso90 (Dec 26, 2006)

it's difficult to decide on the best without considering relevant force multipliers.

Japanese night fighting techniques and long lance torpedos were far superior in the PTO. American patrol boats and destroyers were hamstrung by criminally inferior torpedos. The US Navy had unparelleled damage control. The Germans and Brits had some great long range eyes in the sky.

It doesnt matter how "good": a ship is if it is engaged at night and the crew is not trained in night fighting and has worthless torpedos.


----------



## Glider (Dec 26, 2006)

franklinj said:


> it's difficult to decide on the best without considering relevant force multipliers.
> 
> Japanese night fighting techniques and long lance torpedos were far superior in the PTO. American patrol boats and destroyers were hamstrung by criminally inferior torpedos. The US Navy had unparelleled damage control. The Germans and Brits had some great long range eyes in the sky.
> 
> It doesnt matter how "good": a ship is if it is engaged at night and the crew is not trained in night fighting and has worthless torpedos.



Franklin
Can I suggest that you think it through and make some choices. For instance the Long Lance was an exceptional torpedo and the Japs were very well trained in night fighting. No one will disagree with that. However, they had poor radar which to a degree makes up the difference and the allies had gained experience as the war went on. 
So make a selection and explain the assumptions you based it on then the debate can continue.


----------



## renrich (Jan 31, 2007)

The Musashi fired her main battery at aircraft before she was sunk. The Yamato fired her main battery at the Battle of Leyte Gulf. The Japanese gunnery left a lot to be desired at Leyte Gulf. The strong point of the IJN in WW2 was night fighting and torpedos. I believe the Iowa class would have been more than a match for for the Yamatos.


----------



## renrich (Jan 31, 2007)

Interestingly the Barham was not sunk by enemy ship or aircraft action but by Italian frogmen.


----------



## renrich (Jan 31, 2007)

The Bismark was a formidable ship but her protection was not up to modern standards.


----------



## renrich (Jan 31, 2007)

My vote for the best CA is the Salt Lake City. She fought in many of the actions in the Pacific and fought the last naval battle ever fought between major units where aircraft were not used except in spotting roles. Battle of the Kormondorskis.


----------



## renrich (Jan 31, 2007)

The Prinz Eugen and the Hipper were handsome ships and on paper were formidable but I believe they had unreliable engines.


----------



## Glider (Jan 31, 2007)

renrich said:


> Interestingly the Barham was not sunk by enemy ship or aircraft action but by Italian frogmen.



I think your getting confused with the Queen Elizabeth and the Valient which were holed by Italian human torpedo's in Gibraltar but were repaired.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 1, 2007)

And renrich why cant you put all these posts into into one post. You dont need to pad your post count.

I think you are mistaken by the Bismarcks protection though, she had a very formidable armoured belt. When she came out, she was extremely modern by standards.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 1, 2007)

renrich said:


> My vote for the best CA is the Salt Lake City. She fought in many of the actions in the Pacific and fought the last naval battle ever fought between major units where aircraft were not used except in spotting roles. Battle of the Kormondorskis.




The Baltimore class of heavy cruisers were far superior to the Pensacola class cruisers. You can even make a case that the Cleveland class light cruisers were even superior.

And the Battle of the Komodorski's was not the last surface battle where aircraft were not in the primary role.


----------



## Sharp (Feb 1, 2007)

Hi guys.


first, I would have to say the best all round battleship ever made. IMO was Vanguard, made by the country that made more battleships then anyone else.

She was fast at 31 knots, she had superior armour protection then the Iowa’s. She was the best “battleship sea boat” ever made, (During post-war NATO exercises, the Vanguard remained a stable and effective gun platform in seas so rough the Iowas could not fight.) Her fire control was comparable with iowa’s. 

Her downfall was her 15” guns. The guns Vanguard used were the same guns used on most Royal navy ships, the same guns that so many experts have commented, that they were the most accurate and reliable naval guns ever made.


But as she never took any part in WW2 I guess she cant be apart of this thread. So….


For me there is only one Ship that stands out beyond the rest. She may not have been the most heavily armoured ship ever made, she may not have had radar guided guns, she may not have been faster then 30 knots but she was with out a doubt the greatest warship ever made…….


When built she was ahead of her time. The class of ships when completed out done anything that had gone before. At Jutland They took on the whole of the German Fleet and survived (even causing heavy damage to the German ships.)

She was of course HMS Warspite. 

She is credited with 25 battle honours; she currently holds the longest ranged gunnery shot from a moving ship to a moving target. 

Warspite was hit many times from shells, mines, bombs and even a guided missile. Every time she came back fighting. 

She sunk many ships including the Italian Heavy cruiser’s Fiume, pola and Zara.
At the start of the war Warspite was one of the most beautiful ships you could ever see. She came home in 1945 war scared and batted.

So why is she the greatest ship of them all…

Simple: She went to hell and survived to bring her crew home safely.

Many people who served on her say she had a mind of her own, I find this true when you hear about her end.

On her way to the breakers, in 1947, she managed to break free of her anchor and run aground, she had to be broken up on the spot for the next 3 years.– a final act of defiance for such a great ship.



“Any community, whether its roots draw life from the ocean, or whether it only has a promenade facing the high water, would be honoured to lay claim to such a ship whose destiny was to be at the pivotal point of ideology clashes throughout the world, thereby being in action and an influence on world changing events, emerging with a singularly impressive history, aura and dogged determination to survive. Having engaged in deadly battle in many spheres of operation, suffering damage on several occasions, she ended her working life surviving seemingly against all odds, and despite her enemies' best endeavours to end her career early by any means at their disposal, would choose to lay up on the foreshore hauling down her colours for the last time, entrusting her spirit and those of her fallen crew and shipmates into safekeeping for all time. A true Icon for all time.”

RIP old lady.


HMS Warspite (1913 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


----------



## renrich (Feb 1, 2007)

What was the last surface battle w/o aircraft except as spotters? I quote from FIGHTING SHIPS OF WW2 by J.N Westwood, Follett Pub. Co. Re the Bismarck, "In several respects the armor distribution was old-fashioned. Horizontal protection was insufficent and moreover ( unlike the new British battleships) vital communication lines were placed above the armored belt. Also the secondary armament could hardly be used against aircraft with only a 35 degree elevation." I stand corrected on the Barham, she was sunk by 3 submarine torpedoes. I only chose CA 25 Salt Lake City because of her distinguished war record and because my uncle served on her from before Dec. 7 until sometime in 1943. He told many interesting stories about the Pacific war. One of his brothers was on the Chicago at the Battle of Savo Island. I would like to see the case for a WW2 CL being superior to the Pensacola class.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 1, 2007)

Hi Renrich, nice to have You here around.



renrich said:


> The Bismark was a formidable ship but her protection was not up to modern standards.



Considering it´s expected fighting environment, they did a heck of a job to put the best possible armour protection scheme into her. Her protection was different to other ships but not worse. She actually enjoied the largest immune zone for the vital engeneering and magazine spaces of all battleships ever made.



> The Prinz Eugen and the Hipper were handsome ships and on paper were formidable but I believe they had unreliable engines.



That´s not entirely the case. It is true, indeed, that Hipper had a by then new propulsion (super heated high pressure turbines) technology and suffered from shortages typical for new units. Altough neither on hers nor on Prinz Eugen´s Atlantic cruise did this had any effect. Effect was in harbour times, meaning that these powerplants required more meintenance and were less tolerable to overload or other out of order conditions (Prinz Eugen beeing the later ship had somehow more reliable engines than Hipper).



> My vote for the best CA is the Salt Lake City. She fought in many of the actions in the Pacific and fought the last naval battle ever fought between major units where aircraft were not used except in spotting roles. Battle of the Kormondorskis.


As pointed out above by Syscom3, the ww2 Baltimore was technically much better and the post ww2 Des Moines-class CA´s were the best ever CA´s.
Some japanese CA should also deserve beeing mentioned.



> I quote from FIGHTING SHIPS OF WW2 by J.N Westwood, Follett Pub. Co. Re the Bismarck, "In several respects the armor distribution was old-fashioned. Horizontal protection was insufficent and moreover ( unlike the new British battleships) vital communication lines were placed above the armored belt. Also the secondary armament could hardly be used against aircraft with only a 35 degree elevation." I stand corrected on the Barham, she was sunk by 3 submarine torpedoes.



I know that and many other articles and can assure You that things are presented very selective.
1.) Horizontal protection was insufficent:
Well, in comparison to other BB´s, Bismarck´s layared armoured decks get penetrated pretty soon. She is safe against her own guns until distance is larger than 29.000-32.000 yards (the latter beeing for magazines). However, note that the longest gunfire hit ever on a freely moving target was at 26.450 yards!!! (Scharnhorst vs Glorious)
The second largest was at around 26.200 yards (Warspite vs Giulio Cesare).
Typical battle distances (denmark street,Bismarck´s final battle, Renown vs Scharnhorst, North Cape, Guadacanal, Surigano Street) did not exceed 24.000 yards, a range at which only NC´s and SD´s 16"/45 with 2700 lbs super heavy Yamatos 18.1"ers have a reasonable chance to defeat Bismarck´s decks... No reason to speak of insufficiant deck protection, if You ask me.
2.) vital communication lines were placed above the armored belt. 
That´s wrong. vital communication lines were above the low placed main armour deck, not above the main belt. These lines were covered by 
A) the main belt B) the upper citadel belt C) the weather deck D) the longitudinal splinter bulkheads and E) the communication tube side walls
That´s as much protection as is possible. To lay down these lines BELOW the main armour deck would compromise the watertight integrity of the spaces below the main armour deck (the very reason why the Vanguard class also had communications lines from one space below armour deck going above the armour deck and then back to the level below again instead of penetrating and weakening the principal transverse bulkheads. Altough Vanguard had none of the additional protection mentioned above) 
3.) Also the secondary armament could hardly be used against aircraft with only a 35 degree elevation:
And despite this it was used against aircrafts on both, Bismarck (1941) Tirpitz (1942). Bismarck also did not depend on full effectiveness of her sec. as Dual purpose guns, they had the excellent 4.1"/65 AAA with 85 deg. elevation and triaxially stabilized mountings as tertiary gun. The problem with Dual purpose guns in ww2 is that neither worked properly in both areas. The british 5.25" DP gun was to slow in tracking and performed unstatisfactorly against airplanes, the US 5"/38 is the only DP gun of valuable use against aircrafts (with the help of VT-fuzes) but this gun particularely is weaker against ships than even was the 4.1"/65 tertiary of Bismarck in terms of range.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 2, 2007)

renrich said:


> What was the last surface battle w/o aircraft except as spotters? I quote from FIGHTING SHIPS OF WW2 by J.N Westwood, Follett Pub. Co. Re the Bismarck, "In several respects the armor distribution was old-fashioned. Horizontal protection was insufficent and moreover ( unlike the new British battleships) vital communication lines were placed above the armored belt. Also the secondary armament could hardly be used against aircraft with only a 35 degree elevation." I stand corrected on the Barham, she was sunk by 3 submarine torpedoes. I only chose CA 25 Salt Lake City because of her distinguished war record and because my uncle served on her from before Dec. 7 until sometime in 1943. He told many interesting stories about the Pacific war. One of his brothers was on the Chicago at the Battle of Savo Island. I would like to see the case for a WW2 CL being superior to the Pensacola class.



I could respond but delycros did it for me just fine. Besides from everything I have ever seen of him on this site, he seems way more knowledgable about ships than myself. 

Thanks delycros!


----------



## delcyros (Feb 2, 2007)

Hi sharp, welcome to this board!


Sharp said:


> Hi guys.
> 
> 
> first, I would have to say the best all round battleship ever made. IMO was Vanguard, made by the country that made more battleships then anyone else.
> ...



You already have adressed the benfits and shortcomings of the Vanguard class. You very much lean on Chuckhawks conclusion. 
However, she wasn´t the best sea boat. She had a very low bow to allow end on fire and regularely digged the bow in the waters (a typical british design figure, coming from the KGV) She actually was the first british warship AFTER the QE-class, which had a good metacentric stability. But the concepts of stability steady gunplatform are contradicting to each other. The more stability, the more violent the ship will roll (to a lesser degree, but the roll period get´s much shorter). That´s why from the Revenge class onwards, british ships were designed with low metacentric height (löow stability) but good steadiness. The difference between KGV Vangaurd in this area must have been felt significantly. A wide beam may offset the short roll period to some degree. 
Comparing the Iowa with the Vanguard in seakeeping capabilities is highly doubtful. Iowas sleek lines with small beam and long bow digged itself also deep in water in heavy seas, the Iowa class in particular is not the seaboat one might wisch. The Bismarck class had a wider beam the highest degree of metacentric stability (even better than Yamato), making it a better seaboat than both, Vanguard Iowa. However, the best seaboat undoubtly is Yamato, which deserves also the title for the most steady gunplatform. It had the largest beam and a very large margin of metacentric stability beside of a high freeboard.




> When built she was ahead of her time. The class of ships when completed out done anything that had gone before. At Jutland They took on the whole of the German Fleet and survived (even causing heavy damage to the German ships.)
> 
> She was of course HMS Warspite.


The Queen Elizabeth class was indeed a very innovative concept, the first approach towards the fast battleship idea. However, newer BB´s at that time were generally more powerful than existing ones, so this isn´t surprising. 
At Jutland, they spend a short time exposed to the german van and they paid for it (Warspite beeing driven out of the line, Barham and Malaya received significant damage). They did inflicted significant damage to german ships, altough they concentrated their fire on the much weaker Battlecruisers and not on the ships on the van: 4 hits on Lützow, 3 hits on Derfflinger, 6 hits on Seydlitz, while the german BB´s of the van received only 5 hits (1 each on König Grosser Kurfürst and 3 on Markgraf), none of which inflicted heavy damage. These hits were achieved with a significant visibility advantage. In respond, they received the following hits: Barham: 4 12" hits, Warspite: 2 11" hits, Malaya: 7 12" hits. [/quote]



> She is credited with 25 battle honours; she currently holds the longest ranged gunnery shot from a moving ship to a moving target.



No, this title belongs to the Scharnhorst, which achieved a hit on slightly longer distance on Glorious:
Longest Gunfire Hit on an Enemy Warship



> Warspite was hit many times from shells, mines, bombs and even a guided missile. Every time she came back fighting.


Yes, that indeed underlines the long term value of this individual ship.



> She sunk many ships including the Italian Heavy cruiser’s Fiume, pola and Zara.


No. These ships were sunk by short range night engagements from britisch cruisers. Warspite has nothing to do with the actual sinking.




> Simple: She went to hell and survived to bring her crew home safely.
> 
> Many people who served on her say she had a mind of her own, I find this true when you hear about her end.


wholeheartedly agreed.


----------



## merlin (Feb 2, 2007)

Everyone seems to be ignoring 'warships' on the other end of the scale!
That is I think as a Class the German S-Boat is the best of light Patrol Boats.
They were overwhelmed by later Royal Navy MTB's MGB's together with the Fairmile D's, yet they still maintained an aura of danger to be avoided e.g. Battle of Slapton Sands.


----------



## renrich (Feb 2, 2007)

Hello Sharp, Enjoyed your post on the Warspite. Being an old codger I revere some of the older ships. The Warspite's ordeal at "windy corner" during the Battle of Jutland makes fascinating reading. There is supposed to be a poem entitled THE CRIPPLE AND THE PARALYTIC by Kipling that memorialises the voyage back to England of the badly damaged Warspite and a crippled British DD after Jutland but I have not been able to find it. Thanks also to you delcyros. You sound as if you are better informed than my reference. PS The British certainly got their money's worth from the Queen Elizabeth class of BBs.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 3, 2007)

> You sound as if you are better informed than my reference. PS The British certainly got their money's worth from the Queen Elizabeth class of BBs.



I agree. The QE´s were probably the best invested money to any of the capital ships of the dreadnought era (together with the West Virginia´s) on a longer termed view. Warspite should be credited with halving the small german destroyer force in a single action in Norway 1940 by sinking (or contributing to) 10 DD´s. Incredible.

If You want to read about Jutland, I suggest to start with J. Campell, Jutland. An analysis of the fighting (New York 1998 ). It covers the whole issue in minutelike level of detail, an excellent work and freeminded approach.


----------



## renrich (Feb 3, 2007)

Thank you delcyros, I wii try to acquire the Campbell book as Jutland(or Skaggerak) is my favorite sea battle to read about. I already have CASTLES OF STEEL by Massie. There was a novel(fiction of course) published perhaps 20 years ago that had Dogger Bank, Heligoland Bight and Jutland in it that had both German and British characters in it. Do you recall it's name. I have misplaced my copy and can't remember the name. I was slated to go to Annapolis and failed the physical(color perception) but understand they analysed Jutland thoroughly in those days. Would have been interesting to have taken that class.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 4, 2007)

I am not that good in novels, sorry.
Campbells book is for the moment the prime source for Jutland issues. 
Sourcing the net can provide some worthy additional sources:
NavWeaps - Naval Weapons, Naval Technology and Naval Reunions - Navy Weapons 
-with decent discussions and thoroughly presented gun properties.
World War One - The Maritime War
-some additional sources covering ww1 naval topics

hope, this helps,
delc


----------



## renrich (Feb 5, 2007)

Thank you delcyros. Wish I could locate that novel as I would like to read it again. It was relatively accurate technically even going into how the High Seas Fleet recognised the flash problem in the turrets and handling rooms and solved it be fore Jutland.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 6, 2007)

> It was relatively accurate technically even going into how the High Seas Fleet recognised the flash problem in the turrets and handling rooms and solved it be fore Jutland.



Perhaps. But these points are going to be an urban myth. The HSF recognized flash precautious measure to a much lesser degree than the Grand Fleet- even before Jutland! Fact is that all british BC´s and BB´s at Jutland had flash proof magazine doors (altough by no means pressure proof), while on the HSF only the Markgraf and the Lützow had them. I tend to credit this to the fact the the RPC 60/95 propellant used by the germans was simply much more stable than the cordite used by the british, it tended to burn instead of conflagrating. The main propellant also was stored partly in metal brass cases (the main charge, a lighter fore charge was in silk bags), which very much helped in delaying the burning point. Seydlitz at Doggerbank suffered from a severe magazine fire and had it had cordite as the british, it would undoubtly have blown up that moment. The same is true for Seydlitz, Von der Tann and probably Derfflinger at Jutland. Malaya on the other hand, as well as Lion barely escaped from blowing up because of brave individuals, which flooded (Lion) the magazine or removed the smoldering shell debris from Cordite bags (Malaya).


----------



## renrich (Feb 6, 2007)

Correct me if I am wrong but did not the HSF after Dogger Bank and the heavy losses on the Seydlitz change some procedures so they were less susceptible to magazine explosions. Seems like I read the CO of Seydlitz said after Dogger Bank that they had followed procedures to the letter and one small shell fragment penetration had almost cost the ship and did cost 2 turrets and 150 men so the procedures must be wrong.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 7, 2007)

> Correct me if I am wrong but did not the HSF after Dogger Bank and the heavy losses on the Seydlitz change some procedures so they were less susceptible to magazine explosions. Seems like I read the CO of Seydlitz said after Dogger Bank that they had followed procedures to the letter and one small shell fragment penetration had almost cost the ship and did cost 2 turrets and 150 men so the procedures must be wrong.



You are correct but for a comprehensive analysis You will need to put these informations into context.
The procedure´s which were changed following the Seydlitz events at Doggerbank related to ammo storage handling but not on the "physical" measures like introducing flash tight magazine doors. There was a lot of ammo and charges stored in the Turrets before Doggerbank (in both, the GF and the HSF) to keep up a high rate of fire. The charges in Seydlitz aft turret were ignited and a flash reached 21 charges in the handling room and after igniting the charges there, the flash spread into the magazine and finally from there to the magazine next. That´s as worse as a magazine fire can be. All in all 57 charges caught fire. 
After these accidents, the number of charges stored in turret and handling rooms were limited in the HSF along with some handling precautious measures (such as leaving the charges in the sealed box until they reach the handling room) and thoughts of introducing flashtight doors (the latter was only executed in the new build ships, like Lutzow and Markgraf) as well as larger sea valves for a more rapid magazine flooding.
On the other side, Lion also was hit badly at Doggerbank and those turret fires ultimately lead to the upgrade of magazines with flash tight magazine doors in all british capital ships before Jutland. 
The number of ready charges was also reduced in the turrets, as was in the HSF. If You ask me, the british did better in upgrading their flash tightness than the germans but they also urgently needed to do. Cordite can ruin your day anytime...
The claim that the germans did much is correct, but You have to compare what the british did. It seems logical following the experience with Seydlitz at Doggerbank and with the loss of 5 large ships by magazine explosions in Jutland in mind but such a view is biased. The Royal Navy was more strict in introducing precautious anti-flash measures for the timeframe up to Jutland.


----------



## renrich (Feb 7, 2007)

Good information on HSF procedures after Dogger Bank. It was my understanding that the Crews in Indefatigable, Queen Mary and Invincible may not have been following the latest procedures regarding flash proof doors between the handling rooms and magazines. I don't know how anyone could know for sure under the circumstances.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 8, 2007)

Dear Renrich,

I suggest to continue discussion about Jutland on another topic, since we already left ww2 issues.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/world-war-i/90th-anniversary-jutland-4127.html

best regards,
delc


----------



## renrich (Feb 9, 2007)

Thank you delcyros, will do!


----------



## T4.H (Apr 13, 2007)

1.) Battleship
2.) Battlecruiser
3.) Heavy cruiser/Armored cruiser
4.) Light cruiser
5.) Destroyer
6.) Submarine
7.) Patrol Boat or MBT
8.) Aircraft Carrier

1.) The Iowa-class were the best Battleships in WWII. But it was useless under bad weather conditions. In principle the Iowa is a oversized Destroyer, to small and to long. This is OK for the pacific ocean but it would be deadly under the rough and awful weather conditions in the north polar sea. Under this conditions you need a BB, not an oversized DD.  
The South Dakota is a real good BB, perhaps the second best (after Iowa class).
The germans are a little bit stupid. They never build two identical capital ships. Just remember, that we startet the war against Russia with 10.000 different types and subtypes of vehicles. Till this point, they even didn't build more than 20 identical tanks before they starte with a new subtype or sub-subtype!
I prefer the Tirpitz of the Bismark class. This is perhaps the third best. It has the highest rate of fire (ROF) of all BB's (ok, please don't remember the Scharnhorst class). It was less or more impossible to sink them with torpedos. But it was not impossible to put them out of duty. Al german capitalships have had the well known structural problem with the stern part, it was just to weak and several times, it just breaks away! (Prinz Eugen, Lützow/Deutschland, Hipper after self destruction, the loss oft the rear of the Bismark while it sinks). -> "Eidechsenheck" (lizardtail).

The japanese constructed at first the turrets of the main armament of the Yamato-class, after this, they constructed the BB around. This is stupid! The underwater protection was bad, the main armament oversized, the rate of fire (ROF) lousy. Yes, it has had many AA guns on board but the japanese AA guns were the most worse one in WWII. It is a tru BB but not the best one. 

2.) In WWII there were no Battlecruisers (BC) left. All "so called BC" were indeed fast BB's. Even the Kongo class BC's have been upgraded to fast BB's.
If the Scharnhost and the Gneisenau would have been equipped with 35 cm guns in a 3,3,3 or 3,2,3 combination, this would be the best fast BB's in WWII.
With 28 cm guns they were only oversized heavy cruisers for me.
I think, the Queen Elizebeth class and the Hood were the best Fast BB's in WWII (and for the QE's also in WWI).
And if not... 
They QE's were the most effective one!
What is the USS Alaska? Not a Battlecruiser. Not a Fast BB. Oversized Heavy cruiser? If we call it a Fast BB than the Alaska class are the "best" one.

3.) Hmmm...
Hipper class, because of the "german problem" whith the not identical capital ships:
Prinz Eugen and the Bluecher.

4.) Good Question. Not the german ones! I would chose one of the type "oversized destroyer" as flagship of a DD group.

5.) This is easy, there is no doubt possible.
The japanese invented the "modern" DD.
And the best ist the mighty:

Shimakaze!!!
3048 tons, 39 knots (trial 40.9), 6x 127mm and 15 Long lance tubes!!!
OK, the problem with the AA guns.
One hit with a Long Lance torpedo on a BB or a CV? It will be heavily damaged or perhaps even start to sink (if it is a british one  ).
And remember, two or three american heavy cruiser were hit by one Long lance torpedo and survived. They were "immediately" reperaired, but it was impossible to get them back on duty till to the end of the war. 
I think they were damaged in the year 1942 and the repair was "finished" 1943? 
Also a BB would perhaps to heavily devastated to get it ever back on duty.


The germans DD's were awful.
The Fowler class and british S class? (i'm not sure) were the best one on allied site.

6.) No question: XXI
It was the first submarine, all submarines before were only diving surface ships.

7.) I don't know! I have to think about it.

8.) the british CV were good, the american CV were better. The best japanese one was the Taiho, perhaps as good as the british ones.
The Shinano was in first case a replenishment vessel and not a carrier.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 14, 2007)

1. the aircraft carrier (no doubt)
2. im split between the destroyer or the submarine

The Destroyer was the only real effective sub killing boat, aside from Frigates


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 16, 2007)

Im still confused how someone can call the Iowa Class oversized Destroyers.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 16, 2007)

I would like to adress that in detail but I have little time.

1.) Battleships:

No doubt this title belongs to IJN YAMATO. Iowa may be faster and certainly is impressive but neither she nor any other ww2 commissioned BB could stand a fight one on one against Yamato and has a higher probability to survive than Yamato. Battleships are designed to stand up absurd degrees of punishment. I am aware of structural deficiancies of Yamato but some of them belong to other ships as well. Iowa practically has no immune zone for it´s vital engineering and magazine spaces against Yamato´s main guns as I recently worked out (a hit of the joint upper and lower side belt doesn´t require an underwater travel of the projectile first). Yamato on the other hand has what I would call a substantial immune zone. Contrary to popular believe, the cyclic rate of fire for Yamato´s guns was not lower than that of any other major calibre BL gun. Her underwater protection hardly can be called weak. Show me one single BB which survived two torpedo hits in a mission and made port! 

2.) Battlecruiser: No doubt, Iowa. Yes, Iowa. You ask me why it is an BC? In my eyes, there were at least four different types of BC´s, and Iowa and Hood belong to the last one:

A.) The "fisherized" BC: heavy calibre (BB like), light - mediocre armour, very high speed, insufficiant underwater protection on a mediocre displacement (I-Tiger, Lexington, Alaska)
B.) The "normalized" BC, good armour, a suboptimal armement (compared to BB´s) in terms of numbers and / or calibre, good speed on a mediocre displacement (all ww1 german BC, Dunkerque, Scharnhorst) 
C.) the pocket BB´s (Glorious, Couragious, Scheer...), which had the thinnest armour, heavy guns in two centerline end turrets and high speed on a light displacement.
D.) the fast battleships, excellent speed, armour and armement but on the costs for excessive displacement (Hood and Iowa)

I also put Alaska an BC, not caring how the USN called them, they in fact are capital ships in terms of costs (not much different to a North Carolina), details of the equipment (capital ship radar and RF´s) and protection (fisherized, altough slightly improved). The 12"/50 with superheavy shells carried by them was more powerful than the 12" on dreadnoughts still in service by then and arguably more powerful than the 14"/45 in use by US BB´s. No BC commissioned after ww1 had gun calibre´s comparable to BB´s.

Regarding heavy cruisers I would like to pay attention to IJN CA´s.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 17, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Im still confused how someone can call the Iowa Class oversized Destroyers.



the Iowa class ships were Battle Ships, so yeah that is a bit confusing


----------



## Glider (Apr 17, 2007)

I would certainly agree that the Iowa are fast battleships that didn't have to compromise armour or weapons to gain the speed. Battlecruisers are the result of a compromise.

Re Heavy Cruisers the Baltimore gets my vote. The Jap HC's may have an extra gun (but so did the Pensicola) but the Baltimore was way ahead in protection, systems and AA defence.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 18, 2007)

Sure. The baltimores have the huge advantage in Radar and protection (Face hardened side belts!). At least at wars end. However, the IJN CA´s do have the long lance torpedo, which I regard a huge plus also. It certainly depends on the timeframe either. But I tend to think that the Mogami´s, Kumano´s and others were more of an advantage for the IJN than were the Baltimore´s for the USN.


----------



## Glider (Apr 18, 2007)

I can understand where you are coming from. At the end of the day the USN would have won their battles without any Baltimores whereas the Jap heavy cruisers formed the mainstay of their fleet in a number of major battles.

If I had to pick a prewar Heavy Cruiser then I would go for the German Graf Spee. In a straight fight I believe that it would have won over the Jap vessels.


----------



## renrich (Apr 18, 2007)

The Graf Spee by definition was not a CA as CAs could have no more than 8 inch guns. Graf Spee had 11 inch guns.


----------



## renrich (Apr 18, 2007)

Chicago was hit by torpedo as well as shell fire at Savo Island and returned into action in less than a year. The Alaska class may have been called large cruisers by the US Navy but they in fact meet the definition of battle cruisers. Heavy guns much larger than cruisers but with cruiser like armor.


----------



## renrich (Apr 18, 2007)

The QE class of BB could on no account be called fast battleships. It is doubtful they could even reach their designed speed of 25 knots during WW2.


----------



## renrich (Apr 18, 2007)

del, I believe the Glorious and the Courageous were both CVs not pocket BBs.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 18, 2007)

My vote for best treaty cruiser that actually stayed within limits would go to the French Algerie. 10,000 tons, 8"/50 x 8, 3.9"/45 DP Gun x 12, 21.7" Torp x 6, 3 scouts, 31 knots, 8,[email protected] knots. Armor was about 20% displacement, when many other nation's treaty CA's were a paltry 8-10%. Japan's Mogami class, after receiving their 8" guns in 1939, may have been the best overall pre-war CA.

German classification of the Deutschlands was "panzerschiff" I believe.


----------



## renrich (Apr 19, 2007)

Interesting call on the Algerie. She was indeed almost a throwback to the armored cruiser. Her sea keeping properties might be in question. Carried 1900 tons fuel but only had 5000 mile radius of action because of inefficent boilers. 8-8 inch guns whereas a contemporary Augusta class carried 9-8 inch and on 1500 tons fuel had 13000 miles radius. Algerie probably designed for the Med.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 19, 2007)

The Northampton class suffered the same deficiency as the vast majority of treaty CA - no protection. Her armor was similar to the Pensacolas, at only 547 tons or so (I understand the problem of comparing armor, as different navies did have different methods for calculating armor percentage). That would come out to about 6% armor. She did carry an extra 8 incher, but her armor was terrible. I'm showing her best range at 10,000 miles on a couple sources, too. They had to be modified for their poor roll behavior as well. The first American CA to carry adequate armor was the New Orleans class, which tiptoed the 10,000 ton limit (sources seem to say 10,050 or so), and I believe commissioned in 1939 - five years after the Algiere.

Algiere was definitely designed with the Italian threat in mind. She packed upwards of 1720 tons of armor - three times what the Northamptons carried! What source do you have about the decreased range to 5,000nm? I couldn't find that anywhere.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 19, 2007)

The Pocket battleships were termed "Panzerschiff" only because the Versailles text limited large ships ("Panzerschiffe") to be 10000t.
Shortly before outbreak of ww2 all pocket Battleships were officially reclassified as "schwere Kreuzer" (Heavy Cruiser). However, if You follow my battlecruiser classification they indeed are type C battlecruisers.
Just like Couragious and Glorious.
I mentioned them in the as designed and commissioned condition:
Image:HMS Glorious (1917) profile drawing.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You will see a lot of parallels between those ww1 RN designs and the late 20´s/early 30´s german pocket battleships.

The Queen Elizabeth class is no fast battleship. It wasn´t a "true" fast battleship in ww1 (the squadron top speed was limited to a practical 23.4 Kts and the highest recorded top speed on the trial was 24.55 Kts) and struggled to make 22 Kts in ww2 due to the added bulges...


----------



## renrich (Apr 19, 2007)

I am getting my figures on Algerie from an original of "Janes 42" that I am fortunate enough to have. They say that her armour was 2000 tons so that fits with your earlier post. I don't doubt her range figures as they jibe with other French and for that matter British cruisers of thet era. Also have a copy (not original) of "Janes 44-45"which shows the range of Augusta of 13000 radius. It seems that most cruisers of that vintage and all nationalities needed some modifications after launch. By the way, same uncle that served on CA25 was in Augusta when she was flagship of Asiatic fleet. Told me once of a drinking contest between Augusta ncos and Russians at Vladivostok and the aftermath. No question that CA36 and later had better armor. CAs 24 and 25 gave great service in some of the hottest fighting of the war but guess they were just lucky as they were "tin clads" CA25 fought Nachi and Maya to a draw almost singlehandedly in March 43 at the Kormandorskis( the American CL, Richmond's guns were outranged) SLC fired 800 rds of AP shot and was reduced to using HC at the last. They were manhandling projectiles and powder from the forward magazines aft as the after magazines were empty. Imagine, 800 rds equal 80 ten gun salvos. The movement of shell was done at 28 knots in sub freezing temps except when SLC's boilers went out and her speed was 0.


----------



## renrich (Apr 19, 2007)

By the way the "Janes Fighting Ships 1942" has a beautiful photograph of Exeter taken after the River Plate but(obviously) before her service in the Dutch East Indies. She was a handsome ship. The caption under the photograph compares her service and subsequent fate off Java with the service of a British "64" also named Exeter in February 1862 at he Battle of Sadras. HMS Exeter, flying the broad pennant of Commodore Richard King was engaged by five French ships and reduced to a wreck. As a sixth French ship approached King was asked what to do next. His reply was"fight her till she sinks." In a recent book about the fate of the USS Houston, one of the Houston survivors recalled that when the ABDA task force steamed out to engage the IJN invasion fleet in the Java sea, one of the Commonwealth cruisers, either Exeter or Perth(I can't remember which) had her band mustered on deck and was playing "A Hunting We Will Go." Gave me a lump in my throat. Not exactly the same behavior of some of the members of the same service today.


----------



## renrich (Apr 19, 2007)

Correction-Battle of Sadras was in 1782.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 19, 2007)

Many of the "treaty cruisers" of the 1930's became top heavy during the war from all the AA and electronics installed.

Many of them became marginally unstable in high sea's (and also if flooded by battle damage).


----------



## Glider (Apr 19, 2007)

renrich said:


> The Graf Spee by definition was not a CA as CAs could have no more than 8 inch guns. Graf Spee had 11 inch guns.



The Graf Spee weighed less than some 8in cruisers and had thinner armour than most. The choice between armour, speed and weapons is down to the designer. 
To go by gun size alone is misleading. 
For example the Exeter had 6 x 8in and thin armour tipping the scales at around 8400 tons, the Cleavland had 12 x 6in, thick armour and tipped the scales at around 11,750 tons i.e around 40% heavier yet 'officially' the Exeter is the Heavy cruiser and the Cleavland the light.

If you went by the definition of cruiser in the 1930's treaties, the USA didn't build many destroyers in WW2 as all the Fletcher and Sumner classes count as cruisers. Take your pick


----------



## Glider (Apr 19, 2007)

mkloby said:


> My vote for best treaty cruiser that actually stayed within limits would go to the French Algerie. 10,000 tons, 8"/50 x 8, 3.9"/45 DP Gun x 12, 21.7" Torp x 6, 3 scouts, 31 knots, 8,[email protected] knots. Armor was about 20% displacement, when many other nation's treaty CA's were a paltry 8-10%. Japan's Mogami class, after receiving their 8" guns in 1939, may have been the best overall pre-war CA.
> 
> German classification of the Deutschlands was "panzerschiff" I believe.



Algerie is a good choice.


----------



## Glider (Apr 19, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Many of the "treaty cruisers" of the 1930's became top heavy during the war from all the AA and electronics installed.
> 
> Many of them became marginally unstable in high sea's (and also if flooded by battle damage).



Some war built designs had this problem in particular the Cleveland class. These were designed to have aluminium deckhouses but were built with steel, throw in extra AA guns not allowed for in the design plus radars and extra directors and you have a problem.


----------



## renrich (Apr 19, 2007)

By definition a heavy cruiser has 8 inch guns a light cruiser has 6 inch guns (during the period before and during WW2) It has nothing to do with how much the ship displaced. All cruisers were not to exceed 10000 tons each according to the several naval treaties agreed on and ignored by the Japanese and the Germans. There were also total tonnage limits on the different navies. There were a number of CLs that were larger than some of the CAs. For instance the Mogami, originally a CL was substantially larger than the Furataka a CA( one of the few classes where the Japanese stayed within the limits.)


----------



## Glider (Apr 19, 2007)

renrich said:


> By definition a heavy cruiser has 8 inch guns a light cruiser has 6 inch guns (during the period before and during WW2) It has nothing to do with how much the ship displaced. All cruisers were not to exceed 10000 tons each according to the several naval treaties agreed on and ignored by the Japanese and the Germans. There were also total tonnage limits on the different navies. There were a number of CLs that were larger than some of the CAs. For instance the Mogami, originally a CL was substantially larger than the Furataka a CA( one of the few classes where the Japanese stayed within the limits.)



Not quite. A destroyer was limited to 1500 tons and 5in guns although 16% could go up to 1870 tons making all USA Destroyers cruisers bar a handfull as well as Japanese, German, Russian and a large proportion of French and British ones as well.
It makes no sense for the Mogami to be armed with 6in guns as built to be a light cruiser and when rearmed with 8in ones it becomes a Heavy Cruiser.

I am not denying your definition as stipulated by the treaty but they don't make sense when we are talking about WW2.

To prove the point, can I ask which is your best destroyer in WW2?


----------



## Glider (Apr 19, 2007)

delcyros said:


> The Pocket battleships were termed "Panzerschiff" only because the Versailles text limited large ships ("Panzerschiffe") to be 10000t.
> Shortly before outbreak of ww2 all pocket Battleships were officially reclassified as "schwere Kreuzer" (Heavy Cruiser). However, if You follow my battlecruiser classification they indeed are type C battlecruisers.
> Just like Couragious and Glorious.
> I mentioned them in the as designed and commissioned condition:
> ...



Don't forget the Furious, she was built with 18in guns.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 19, 2007)

Glider said:


> Not quite. A destroyer was limited to 1500 tons and 5in guns although 16% could go up to 1870 tons making all USA Destroyers cruisers bar a handfull as well as Japanese, German, Russian and a large proportion of French and British ones as well.
> It makes no sense for the Mogami to be armed with 6in guns as built to be a light cruiser and when rearmed with 8in ones it becomes a Heavy Cruiser.
> 
> I am not denying your definition as stipulated by the treaty but they don't make sense when we are talking about WW2.
> ...



Glider - I'm not really following you - maybe I am misunderstanding you. How could US DD be called cruisers? The heavy cruiser type was a novelty in design. The 10,000 ton, 8" gun imposed limit defined the class. Heavy cruisers didn't exist before that. Navies built protected, armored, scout cruisers since the end of the 19th century.


----------



## renrich (Apr 20, 2007)

Glider, I don't quite understand what your point is. On reviewing my cruiser book and the London treaty I see that CLs were limited to 6.1 inch guns and of course CAs to 8 inch guns. I believe the term heavy cruiser came into use in the 30s as when the US launched the Pensacola class in 1929 they were called scout cruisers. Maybe you are saying that technically speaking some DDs were so large and heavily armed they could be called light cruisers? The Japanese had some cruisers (Yubari, for example, called second class cruiser) that were very little larger than some DDs. It may be that this is mainly about semantics. If I was to name what I would call the most successful class of DD I would probably say the Fletcher class. They had many characteristics that made them very useful in the Pacific.


----------



## Glider (Apr 20, 2007)

Maybe I should try to clarify the point. According to my records there were two definitions for a cruiser in the Treaty. 

One was those with over 6.1in 
The second for those with 6.1 or less
Neither of these had tonnage restrictions.

However in the Treaty a destroyer was limited by size as explained in the posting. They were limited to 1,500 tons with the 16% exception to 1870 tons. Anything larger than 1870 tons was therefore a cruiser of up to 6.1 in calibre. 

Therefore, if you want to apply the Treaty Definitions to the ships in question, your Fletcher Class vessels being over 1870 tons, are Cruisers.

In actuality this is of course rubbish, the Fletcher were first class destroyers, and in my mind, as yours, the best the all round destroyer of the war.

However it proves beyond any doubt that the definitions included in the Naval Treaties between the war are obsolete in the real world of WW2. 

For that reason I treat the Graff Spee as a Heavy Cruiser, it weighs the same as most of them, goes a lot slower than most, had similar armour to most, but traded this for extra weapons.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

Glider said:


> Maybe I should try to clarify the point. According to my records there were two definitions for a cruiser in the Treaty.
> 
> One was those with over 6.1in
> The second for those with 6.1 or less
> ...



Ok - I see your point now. Think of this though. The DD 1,500 ton limit came about at the London Conference at 1930. It was out the window by 1936. US Porters used this expanded tonnage for DD and weighed in at over 1,500 tons. The Fletchers weren't built until 42, so that is actually kind of moot since no holds were barred by that time. The 10,000 ton 8" cruiser I believe was created in through the Washington Treaty in 1922, and the cruiser class further broken down into light (6.1") and heavy (full 8") by the London Concerence. I'm not positive on this last note, however.


----------



## Glider (Apr 20, 2007)

The Porters were built to the exceptional destroyer size of 1870 tons. It was a very tight design to meet the Treaty Limits. A good example being the guns, _the Twin 5in L38 used in these vessels were single use, not dual purpose _which was the norm. 
Given a bit more weight these would no doubt have been Dual Purpose mountings.


----------



## renrich (Apr 20, 2007)

According to my source, the Washington Treaty in 1922 created two new classes of cruisers-"heavy" of no more than 10000 tons and with 8 inch guns and "light" with lighter guns. The numbers of CAs were fixed at the same ratio as capital ships. CLs were freed of all restrictions except gun caliber and tonnage. The London Treaty in 1930 created two classes of cruisers, Type A, armed with guns of greater than 6.1 inches but not exceeding 8 inches and Type B, with guns of less then 6.1 inches. There were also tonnage limits for each navy. According to that the Scheers were not cruisers. My book(not "Janes") is only about cruisers so does not address DDs.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

Glider said:


> The Porters were built to the exceptional destroyer size of 1870 tons. It was a very tight design to meet the Treaty Limits. A good example being the guns, _the Twin 5in L38 used in these vessels were single use, not dual purpose _which was the norm.
> Given a bit more weight these would no doubt have been Dual Purpose mountings.



Exactly - that was what I meant when I said they weighed in at over 1,500 tons. The US didn't build destroyers exceeding London limits until the war broke out, an example of this being teh Fletchers.


----------



## Glider (Apr 20, 2007)

renrich said:


> According to my source, the Washington Treaty in 1922 created two new classes of cruisers-"heavy" of no more than 10000 tons and with 8 inch guns and "light" with lighter guns. The numbers of CAs were fixed at the same ratio as capital ships. CLs were freed of all restrictions except gun caliber and tonnage. The London Treaty in 1930 created two classes of cruisers, Type A, armed with guns of greater than 6.1 inches but not exceeding 8 inches and Type B, with guns of less then 6.1 inches. There were also tonnage limits for each navy. According to that the Scheers were not cruisers. My book(not "Janes") is only about cruisers so does not address DDs.



I don't disagree with you, the reference that I am using, is the Conways All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1922-1946 which explains the impact of the Treaty limits on most of the navies at the time. It mentions the destroyers limits in a number of places.

I was clearly wrong to say there were no limits for the size of a cruiser, it common knowledge that the 10,000 ton was in place and I don't know why I didn't say it.

All I was trying to do was explain why I consider the Graff Spee to be a Cruiser i.e. that the definitions used in the between the wars treaties to be obsolete in WW2. 
If someone wants to insist the Graff Spee isn't a Cruiser because it has 11in guns and the Treaty defines a ship with 11in Guns as being something else. Then using that argument means that the Fletcher isn't a destroyer which it clearly was.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 20, 2007)

May I remind You that the Washington treaty did not pose any limitations to Germany? Germany by then was no signatory nation to the WT and the only treaty it was subjected to was the Versailles treaty. 
Unlike the WT, this treaty did not limit the size of guns (in theory they were allowed to mount 18" guns on 10000t. displacement, but this was impractical) only the displacement for "armoured ships". And since 10.000t. was also found impractical for anything except a coastal BB/monitor design shifted to a long range cruiser with heavy guns, the only ocean going ship found to be acceptable.
They also kept the unsharp treaty term "armoured ships" until they were reclassified heavy cruiser when the WT was over. That had two reasons:

A) to be conform to the Versailles Treaty
B) because the design indeed was neither dreadnought nor cruiser but something different (comparable to Glorious Couragios. Furious is a different matter as the ship was completed with only 1 18" gun and a half flightdeck as some kind of battlecarrier)


----------



## renrich (Apr 20, 2007)

del, Was Germany a signatory to the London Treaty of 1930? Glider, was there a definition for DDs? It seems clear to me that as far as the various naval treaties were concerned, the Scheers could not be cruisers be cause there guns were larger than 8 inchers. As regards a destroyer being called a cruiser, I suppose you could call an Alaska or Graf Spee a BB but that doesn't make it one.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 20, 2007)

Germany wasn´t a signatory nation to London 1930 but it entered a treaty with the UK in 1935 (by that time Deutschalnd Scheer were comissioned already and Graf Spee was beeing fitted out).

I agree that the PBB´s Alaska are no cruisers. They are different types belonging to what is called a battlecruiser, a mixture bwteen battleship and cruiser. The former belongs to the "armoured ship" type C, the Alaska´s were type A -BC´s in a fisherized way.

The 8 in gun defined the heavy cruiser by the WT. It is not reasonable to extend this aspect beyond 8 in cruisers. 

It is true that the german PBB´s traded armour for firepower but there is more than that. Unlike german CA´s, they had a fully developed TDS (like the HSF BC´s) and a 5.91" secondary armement, again as the old BC´s but unlike any CA. The details of their equipment, notably the pumping equipment, the optical rangefinders, the radar installations were all capital ship typed. 
The same capital ship equipment can be found in Alaska, which missed a fully developed TDS (like earlier US BC designs). Alaska´s armour was way superior to any US cruiser and indeed was even superior to the earlier Lexington class BC proposals.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

Glider said:


> I don't disagree with you, the reference that I am using, is the Conways All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1922-1946 which explains the impact of the Treaty limits on most of the navies at the time. It mentions the destroyers limits in a number of places.
> 
> I was clearly wrong to say there were no limits for the size of a cruiser, it common knowledge that the 10,000 ton was in place and I don't know why I didn't say it.
> 
> ...



I think part of the problem is that the heavy cruiser was defined by the treaty. I never heard before that there were no limits on cruiser tonnage. Before then, you had various types of cruisers: armored, protected, scout, etc. Even throughout the war, nations still built 8" CA. Germany's Hipper was still a CA even though she was massively obese, because she broke 10,000 tons doesn't mean she was a BB or BC, she was just a fat CA (assuming Germany was a signitory). Again, London was out the window already by the time the Fletchers were built. All bets were off once the war began. Actually, 1st London expired in '36.

I do see your point though, that there are some problems associated with assigning arbitrary figures to define a class. That is your main point, right? I'm a little slow


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 20, 2007)

Traditionaly,

Any warship with 5" guns or smaller was in the Destroyer catagory.

6" made them light cruisers.

8" made them heavy cruisers

10" - 12" was for battlecruisers

14" plus made them battleships.

Armour protection meant nothing whather it was "light" or "heavy".


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Traditionaly,
> 
> Any warship with 5" guns or smaller was in the Destroyer catagory.
> 
> ...



In the case of CA/CL, I agree. However, before the advent of heavy and light cruisers, there were armored and protected cruisers based off protection, and you also had scout cruisers. Also, historically, battleships and battlecruisers often had the same size guns, it was the protection that set them apart (and often speed due to decreased armor of BCs). Underneathe DDs you also had your escorts and torpedo boats.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 20, 2007)

mkloby said:


> In the case of CA/CL, I agree. However, before the advent of heavy and light cruisers, there were armored and protected cruisers based off protection, and you also had scout cruisers. Also, historically, battleships and battlecruisers often had the same size guns, it was the protection that set them apart (and often speed due to decreased armor of BCs). Underneathe DDs you also had your escorts and torpedo boats.



DD's almost always carried 5" guns. Some prewar classes had 4.7" guns, but rounded off, they were almost always 5".

WW2 DE's perhaps carried a couple of 5" guns, but usually 3" and 4" guns. But in the years prior to WW2, these types of ships were in the frigate class, and were the smallest fleet ships in the navy.

PT boats never carried any large caliber guns because they didn't have the hull or deck strength to use them. PT boats are not considered fleet ships, but more for coastal operations.

Battleships, as understood by all navies in the 30's, carried 14" and larger guns. Pre WW1 classes were at a technological crossroads and could carry either larger guns or more protection. But they were viewed as being obsolescent and not in the classes of ships the powers wanted to control.


----------



## Glider (Apr 20, 2007)

mkloby said:


> I do see your point though, that there are some problems associated with assigning arbitrary figures to define a class. That is your main point, right? I'm a little slow



Bang on


----------



## Glider (Apr 20, 2007)

Syscom
One of the problems with WW2 was the variety of vessels and that a number were modified to meet specific requirements.

For instance
The majority of British WW1 Light Cruisers were modified as AA cruisers equiped with up to 10 4in AA guns a role in which they served well.

The USA Atlanta class AA destroyers were equipped with 5in and some British Dido class were built with 4.5in guns due to the lack of 5.25.

A number of British and Japanese destoyers were built with 4in guns. 
In fact there is a strong argument that 'standard' British destroyers should have had 6x4in instead of 4x4.7in. They would have been far more effective. 

British Battlecruisers had 15in guns, Japanese 14in

Russian Cruisers had 7in guns 

Even MTB's could be difficult. At the end of the war some British MTB's were fitted with a 4.5in gun and Steam Gun Boats (a class of British MTB with steam engines) had a 3in.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 20, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> DD's almost always carried 5" guns. Some prewar classes had 4.7" guns, but rounded off, they were almost always 5".
> 
> WW2 DE's perhaps carried a couple of 5" guns, but usually 3" and 4" guns. But in the years prior to WW2, these types of ships were in the frigate class, and were the smallest fleet ships in the navy.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, but the classification of ship types based off only gun cal is incorrect.

Many pre-WWII DD throughout the world had 4" guns as well. The British were fond of the 4.7 incher, even into the WWII years. But, you are right that the most common armament did become the 5" range. The US loved the 5/38 DP gun.

US DE's were generally equipped with 3"/50 DP guns due to the lack of available 5"/38s which were in VERY high demand. On a side not, I believe the term "frigate" is a newer term, not actually used by the USN during WWII. I very well could be wrong on that, though. Any sailors???

I was referring to torpedo boats, not motor boats (ie PT). For example, German TBs which were armed with 4.1"/45 and 5"/45 guns and displaced about 1,000 tons.

My point was that you stated ships with guns less than 5" were destroyers, which is inaccurate.

As far as BBs are concerned, consider this: Many nations still had active BBs that had 12" guns. The US had USS Wyoming and Arkansas (granted these were not nearly frontline units), and many smaller navies, such as Argentina (Moreno, Rivadavia) and Brazil (Minas Gerais and Sao Paulo) still had active 12" BB. Italy had the Cavours and the Dorias, all WWI dreadnoughts still active, as well (which could have been excellent carrier escorts... if they maybe completed at least the Aquila). France had the old Courbets with 12 inchers, and the Bretagnes with 13.4" guns, and also the new Dunkerques built with 13" guns. And of course, there's also the Germans with the old Deutschland class pre-dreadnoughts, and the modern Scharnhorst BBs, with 44% armor or so and 11.1" guns. The Soviets had the 4 Sevastopols (which could be argued as really BC due to their weak armor) and the Imperatritsa Mariya class which didn't survive the soviet transition - which all had 12" guns. The Spanish Espana class had 12" guns, but these were all out of service just before WWII began. There may be other sub 14" battleships or dreadnoughts that were still active that I am forgetting.

Again, BB/BC was based off armor, not off the size of guns.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 21, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Many pre-WWII DD throughout the world had 4" guns as well.



4" to 5" guns. You are arguing mm's when my point is destroyers didnt carry anything larger than 5".



> I believe the term "frigate" is a newer term, not actually used by the USN during WWII. I very well could be wrong on that, though. Any sailors???



"The term "frigate" passed out of use in the mid-19th century and was readopted during World War II by the British Royal Navy to describe a new type of anti-submarine escort vessel that was larger than a corvette, but smaller than a destroyer. The frigate was introduced to remedy some of the shortcomings inherent in the corvette design, namely limited armament, a hull form not suited to open ocean work, a single shaft which limited speed and manoeuverability, and a lack of range."



> I was referring to torpedo boats, not motor boats (ie PT). For example, German TBs which were armed with 4.1"/45 and 5"/45 guns and displaced about 1,000 tons.
> 
> My point was that you stated ships with guns less than 5" were destroyers, which is inaccurate.



It is completely accurate because ships that mounted guns less than 6" were DD's and DE's. We are talking about fleet ships, not coastal types unsuited for operations on the high seas. 



> As far as BBs are concerned, consider this: Many nations still had active BBs that had 12" guns. The US had USS Wyoming and Arkansas (granted these were not nearly frontline units), and many smaller navies, such as Argentina (Moreno, Rivadavia) and Brazil (Minas Gerais and Sao Paulo) still had active 12" BB. Italy had the Cavours and the Dorias, all WWI dreadnoughts still active, as well (which could have been excellent carrier escorts... if they maybe completed at least the Aquila). France had the old Courbets with 12 inchers, and the Bretagnes with 13.4" guns, and also the new Dunkerques built with 13" guns. And of course, there's also the Germans with the old Deutschland class pre-dreadnoughts, and the modern Scharnhorst BBs, with 44% armor or so and 11.1" guns. The Soviets had the 4 Sevastopols (which could be argued as really BC due to their weak armor) and the Imperatritsa Mariya class which didn't survive the soviet transition - which all had 12" guns. The Spanish Espana class had 12" guns, but these were all out of service just before WWII began. There may be other sub 14" battleships or dreadnoughts that were still active that I am forgetting.
> 
> Again, BB/BC was based off armor, not off the size of guns.



Again, I state that the older warships in use prior to WW1 were obsolete or obsolescent by the 1930's and didnt scare anyone. They simply did not fit the definitions of warships that was pretty much accepted by everyone in that decade.

Of course you can find exceptions to anything, but the size of the gun, not the armour is what dictates the type of ship.

Remember, the larger guns naturally needed ships that had higher displacements and the structural strength to handle their use. Thus as gun caliber increased, so did armor, by default.


----------



## Glider (Apr 21, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Of course you can find exceptions to anything, but the size of the gun, not the armour is what dictates the type of ship.
> 
> Remember, the larger guns naturally needed ships that had higher displacements and the structural strength to handle their use. Thus as gun caliber increased, so did armor, by default.



Syscom 
I am afraid that I ould disagree with this statement. My previous posting gave a number of examples where the size of gun is misleading at best to define the type of ship there were others.

For example French Destroyers carried 5.5in guns and German ones 5.9in.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 21, 2007)

Glider said:


> Syscom
> I am afraid that I ould disagree with this statement. My previous posting gave a number of examples where the size of gun is misleading at best to define the type of ship there were others.
> 
> For example French Destroyers carried 5.5in guns and German ones 5.9in.



But they weren't 6" were they?

8)


----------



## Glider (Apr 21, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> But they weren't 6" were they?
> 
> 8)



Picky picky.

So the British Dido and American Atlanta cruisers with 5.25in and 5in forgetting the Japanese cruisers with 5.5in, are now destroyers.

And the German Destroyers with 5.9in are now cruisers, or are the German Cruisers with 5.9in now Destroyers.

I surrender, my Brain is Full.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 21, 2007)

Glider said:


> Picky picky.
> 
> So the British Dido and American Atlanta cruisers with 5.25in and 5in forgetting the Japanese cruisers with 5.5in, are now destroyers.
> 
> ...



If its less than 6", then its a destroyer.

The Atlanta class "cruisers" were "class types" dead ends.

The exception.

The standard on what constitutes a destroyer-cruiser-battle cruiser-battleship was set by the USN in WW2. We built so many of them, by default we set the standards.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 21, 2007)

It's ok to admit you made a mistake.  


syscom3 said:


> 4" to 5" guns. You are arguing mm's when my point is destroyers didnt carry anything larger than 5".


Fractions of an inch, when you are talking guns in the 5" range, is a lot. German 5.9" shells were double the weight the 4.7" shells used on British DD. Not to mention, 5.9" guns, nor the French 5.5" are 5" guns.



syscom3 said:


> "The term "frigate" passed out of use in the mid-19th century and was readopted during World War II by the British Royal Navy to describe a new type of anti-submarine escort vessel that was larger than a corvette, but smaller than a destroyer. The frigate was introduced to remedy some of the shortcomings inherent in the corvette design, namely limited armament, a hull form not suited to open ocean work, a single shaft which limited speed and manoeuverability, and a lack of range."


I specifically referred to the USN usage of the term, not RN, which I do not think was used by the US Navy at the time.


syscom3 said:


> It is completely accurate because ships that mounted guns less than 6" were DD's and DE's. We are talking about fleet ships, not coastal types unsuited for operations on the high seas.


DE are a wholly different class than DD. You just said all ships w/ 5" or less were DD, which is not true by any account. Furthermore, you have Torpedo boats, which were used by the Germans as DD substitutes, since they did not have an adequate number of DD for their operations. Later german TB were actually pushing the size of current DD. They were fleet ships, despite the term "torpedo boat." I think you might still be confusing these with motor boats.


syscom3 said:


> Again, I state that the older warships in use prior to WW1 were obsolete or obsolescent by the 1930's and didnt scare anyone. They simply did not fit the definitions of warships that was pretty much accepted by everyone in that decade.


 I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. Are you referring to pre-dreadnought BB? WWI era dreadnoughts, many included in the list above, were still very active in all the major navies throughout the world. Many of them received refits throughout the 1930s to modernize them. That list only included those with guns smaller than 14" and if you include 14" WWI dreadnoughts, it gets even larger. The only active pre-dreadnoughts I can think of off the top of my head are the KM's old Deutschland class. By the way, the US offered to buy the WWI dreadnought Almirante Latorre from Chile - I don't think they would have made that offer if they saw no use in it. It's interesting to note that the British argued at London in 1930 for 12" guns and 25,000 ton limits for new BB construction. Lastly, there was also new construction in the 1930s of BB with sub 14" guns including the KMs Scharnhorst and Gneisenau with 11.1", as well as the French Dunkerque and Strasbourg with 13" guns.



syscom3 said:


> Of course you can find exceptions to anything, but the size of the gun, not the armour is what dictates the type of ship.


Again, a mis-statement. I'm actually very interested as to what source are you drawing these from, because they are just flat our incorrect. See below for an example.



syscom3 said:


> Remember, the larger guns naturally needed ships that had higher displacements and the structural strength to handle their use. Thus as gun caliber increased, so did armor, by default.


Again, not true. The BC class was created to carry the guns of dreadnoughts and sacrifice armor in order to attain higher speeds. *Armor* is what separates the BB type from BC, not gun size, for they carried the the *same gun size*. You stated above 10"-12" guns were for BC, which is not true. HMS Renown and Repulse carried 15" guns, Hood as well (although her armor was about 32% displacement and in proportion with QE class and can be argued to be a BB). Japan's Kongos carried 14" guns and were BC until they received refits which increased their armor to 32%, and were reclassified as BB.

The only example where a type was strictly created around gun size was the CA/CL - they were defined by treaty limits, as they did not exist prior to then.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 21, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Fractions of an inch, when you are talking guns in the 5" range, is a lot. German 5.9" shells were double the weight the 4.7" shells used on British DD. Not to mention, 5.9" guns, nor the French 5.5" are 5" guns.



5" weaponry has usually meant to be inclusive of 5.000" up to 5.999". You are basing your argument on semantics. Therefore to make it clear for you:
0.0 up through 5.999" are found on Destroyers
6.0 up through 7.999" are found on Light Cruisers
8.0 up through 9.999" are found on Heavy Cruisers
10.0 up through 13.999" are found on Battle Cruisers
14.0 and up are found on BB's

I specifically referred to the USN usage of the term, not RN, which I do not think was used by the US Navy at the time.



> DE are a wholly different class than DD. You just said all ships w/ 5" or less were DD, which is not true by any account.
> 
> 
> > To simplfy things for you, any ship mounting a gun with a bore of less than 5.999" is either a destroyer of frigate (destroyer escort).
> ...


----------



## Glider (Apr 21, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> If its less than 6", then its a destroyer.
> 
> The Atlanta class "cruisers" were "class types" dead ends.
> 
> ...



So the Dido is a destroyer. Interesting as I have never read that in any book, description, or any other reference anywhere, ever.
And the Jap 5.5 in cruisers are also destroyers, similar comments to the Dido.

The standards for definitions were set by the USN. Where on earth did you get that one from?
The British built the first Battleship and the first Battlecruiser setting the definition. 
Heavy and Light Cruisers were a definition set by treaties signed by many nations. 
The British also built the first Destroyer, a term originally known as the Torpedo Boat Destroyer and then shortened to destroyer.

Can I ask where you got your information?


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 21, 2007)

Glider said:


> So the Dido is a destroyer. Interesting as I have never read that in any book, description, or any other reference anywhere, ever.
> And the Jap 5.5 in cruisers are also destroyers, similar comments to the Dido.
> 
> The standards for definitions were set by the USN. Where on earth did you get that one from?
> ...



Whomever has the dominating marketshare determines the specs.

Who cares if you built the first battleship. We built 10 far more modern types of them in less than five years (and two partially built that were scrapped), not to mention the scores of cruisers and destroyers. Sheer dominance gives you that right.

The USN convention of 5.999" or smaller is a destroyer, 6" for CL, 8" for CL, 10" and 12" for CB and 14" and higher for BB stands.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 21, 2007)

Syscom - this game is frustrating, and I'm done. Almost every single aspect of your last several posts is without question historically incorrect, and I don't know what source you are getting this information from, if any at all. I have used actual historical facts and specific ships to show you the inaccuracies of your statements, but for some reason you dismiss them and claim they're suspect. Please get some reputable books on naval fleets in WWII. Until then, in the interests of educational integrity, please stop putting out bad info out on this site. I'm begging you.

Everyone knows the severe problems that were facing designers when confronted with the treaty cruiser and the treaty battleship. What specific traits and ships do you think made best use of the allotted tonnage?

BB - I don't think that there was a single treaty BB that stayed under 35,000 tons standard displacement. I am going with the USS North Carolina (36,600 tons, 16"/45 Gun x 9, 5"/38 DP Gun x 20, Armor 40% displacement, AC x 3, 27 knots, Range 16,[email protected] knots, 1941).

CA - France Algiere (10,000 tons, 8"/50 Gun x 8, 3.9"/45 DP Gun x 12, 21.7" TT x 6, Armor 20% displacement, AC x 3, 31 knots, range 8,[email protected] knots, 1934). Renrich has an old Janes listing range about 5,000nm, listing inefficient boilers as degrading range - any other sources verify this? All sources I have list [email protected] This treaty CA actually stayed faithful to treaty limits, acheiving a level of protection that tripled most nation's treaty cruisers.

CL - Tough one, almost went with the USS Brooklyn, but instead I'm going with HMS Edinburgh (10,550 tons, 6"/50 Gun x 12, 4"/45 DP Gun x 12, 21" TT x 6, Armor 18% displacement, AC x 3, 32.5 knots, 13,[email protected] knots, 1939). Not too sure as to the accuracy of the figure of range of 13,[email protected] knots.


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2007)

Mkloby, 
If it helps I have the Algerie at 5,500 at 15kts which ties in pretty well with the Janes listing.
source French Warships of WW2 by Jean Labayle Couhat 

Also Edinburgh had 12 x 4in DP, it was her sistership Belfast that had 4 x 4in removed during the war. Your probably aware that the Belfast is moored in London oposite the Tower of London and is open to the public. Well worth a visit. 

As for Syscom I am afraid that you are wrong to go against every pubished work and historical expert re definitions on your own bat.


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2007)

Syscom
I forgot to add that if you want to play the numbers game the British built far more warships of all types since the modern design started from around 1910 than the USA.
Without checking I would expect it to be around 3 to 1 in most types and around 7-8 to 1 in light cruisers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2007)

Well I am going to go and get an old destroyer and I am going to heavily modify it and structurally strengthen it and put a 14 in Cannon on it. Just one 14 in Cannon and call it a BB. 

I can do that because gun size determines the classification of the ship, right syscom?


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well I am going to go and get an old destroyer and I am going to heavily modify it and structurally strengthen it and put a 14 in Cannon on it. Just one 14 in Cannon and call it a BB.
> 
> I can do that because gun size determines the classification of the ship, right syscom?



The French Sub the Surcouf had a twin 8in Turret and a seaplane so place your bets, Submarine, Heavy Cruiser or CVL?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2007)

Well lets see it was certainly a Heavy Cruiser (using Syscoms system) and it was definatly an aircraft carrier. I think it was only a seconday submarine!


----------



## mkloby (Apr 22, 2007)

Glider - what are your picks for best treaty BB, CA, and CL?


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2007)

Nothing Original 
BB - Iowa
CA - Baltimore
CL - Belfast


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 22, 2007)

*Frigate:*
"Modern frigates are only related to earlier frigates by name. The term "frigate" passed out of use in the mid-19th century and was readopted during World War II by the British Royal Navy to describe a new type of anti-submarine escort vessel that was larger than a corvette, but smaller than a destroyer. The frigate was introduced to remedy some of the shortcomings inherent in the corvette design, namely limited armament, a hull form not suited to open ocean work, a single shaft which limited speed and manoeuverability, and a lack of range. The frigate was designed and built to the same mercantile construction standards (scantlings) as the corvette - allowing manufacture by yards unused to warship construction. The first frigates of the River class (1941) were essentially two sets of corvette machinery in one larger hull, armed with the latest Hedgehog anti-submarine weapon. The frigate possessed less offensive firepower and speed than a destroyer, but such qualities were not requisite in anti-submarine warfare (for instance, ASDIC sets did not operate effectively at speeds of over 20 knots). Rather, the frigate was an austere and weatherly vessel suitable for mass-construction and fitted with the latest innovations in anti-submarine warfare. As the frigate was intended purely for convoy duties, and not to deploy with the fleet, it had limited range and speed."

*Destroyers:*
"In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet or battle group and defend them against smaller, short-range but powerful attackers (originally torpedo boats, later submarines and aircraft). Before World War II destroyers were light vessels without the endurance for unattended ocean operations; typically a number of destroyers and a single destroyer tender operated together."

"While destroyers would be able to hold off an attack by torpedo boats (which did not carry heavy guns), they would be easy targets for other warships when operating away from the fleet. Thus they were often given torpedoes of their own. While torpedo boats were short-ranged and cheap, destroyers had to operate as a screen for the fleet wherever it was. This required them to have the range of the ships they were protecting, requiring destroyers to be much larger than the boats they were designed to counter."

*Light Cruisers:*
"The term light cruiser was given a definition by the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921. The treaty, which sought to limit an arms race in warships, restricted the construction by nations of all large warships. Among its terms, cruisers could displace no more than 10,000 tons standard and light cruisers could be armed with guns of a calibre not exceeding 6.1 inches (155 mm) guns."

*Heavy Cruisers:*
"Heavy cruisers evolved from the light cruisers of World War I. The first heavy cruisers were the British Hawkins class (1915) of 9,750 tons that made 30 knots and were armed with seven 7.5 inch guns. These ships were directly descended from the preceding Birmingham (1911) group of Town class 5,440 ton light cruisers and at the time were referred to as "improved light cruisers". They remained the largest and most powerful cruisers in the world for several years."

"The Washington Naval Treaty of 1921 sought to stop an arms race in warships. It restricted the construction of warships of more than 10,000 tons standard displacement or with armament greater than 8-inch (203 mm) guns. The major naval powers then started to build cruisers up to those limits. These were usually between 9,000 and 10,000 tons and were typically armed with eight to ten 8-inch guns. In 1930 the Washington Naval Treaty was extended by the London Naval Treaty which split the treaty definition of a cruiser into Heavy Cruiser with guns larger than 6.1 inch (155 mm) and "light cruiser" with smaller caliber guns, creating the heavy cruiser as a category of warship. The upper limit of 10,000 tons displacement still applied to both"

"In the 1930s several navies began to secretly flout the tonnage limits. The Japanese who were planning on withdrawing from the treaty built the Mogami class with a displacement of over 12,000 tons. She was designed so that her five 6.1-inch gun triple turrets could be replaced with twin 8-inch gun turrets and the ships of the class were rearmed in that way shortly before World War II. Japan withdrew from the Washington Naval Treaty in 1936, after which there was no effective regulation."

*Battle Cruisers:*
"Battlecruisers were large warships of the first half of the 20th century first introduced by the British Royal Navy. They evolved from armoured cruisers and in terms of ship classification they occupy a grey area between cruisers and battleships. Generally, battlecruisers were similar in layout and armament to battleships but with significantly less armour allowing for gains in speed.

"The German pocket battleships (Germananzerschiffe - armored ship: Deutschland, Admiral Scheer, and Admiral Graf Spee), built to meet the 10,000 ton displacement limit of the Treaty of Versailles, were another attempt at a cruiser-battleship concept. Rather than construct a lightweight battleship which sacrificed protection in order to attain high speed, the pocket battleships were relatively small vessels with only six 11 inch (280 mm) guns — essentially large heavy cruisers. They attained fairly high speeds of 26 knots (52 km/h), and reasonable protection, while (allegedly!) staying close to the displacement limit, by using welded rather than riveted construction, triple main armament turrets, and replacing the normal steam turbine power with a pair of massive 9 cylinder diesel engines driving each propeller shaft (an ironic reversion from turbine to reciprocating engines). They were later reclassified as "heavy cruisers", having heavier guns and armour than regular heavy cruisers at the cost of speed. Unfortunately, they were outclassed by British WW1-era true battlecruisers in speed, weaponry, and protection. (They in fact had basic cruiser armour, except for the turrets.)

Two more ships were built later in the 1930s, the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, which were considerably more powerful. At 38,900 tons full load they were somewhat larger than the French Dunkerque class and very well armoured. As built, they had three triple 11-inch gun turrets, but the mounts were designed to accept twin 15-inch turrets (six guns total) when enough became available. However, circumstances and the fates of the two ships - Scharnhorst sunk by gunfire, Gneisenau heavily damaged by bombs and her repair sacrificed to higher priorities - meant that this plan was abandoned. At the time, treaty requirements allowed the production of 12+ inch guns at 1 a year, which along with the very time consuming production of naval guns, kept these two ships with 11-inch guns. The Royal Navy categorised them as battlecruisers since they followed the Imperial German Navy design lineage of trading off gun size for protection and speed. The German Navy nonetheless categorised them as battleships."

Although technical specifications varied, all battlecruisers shared a similar role specification. They were designed to hunt down and outgun smaller warships (or merchant ships in the case of the pocket battleships), and outrun larger warships that they could not outgun."


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 26, 2007)

1.) Battleship: USS West Virginia 
2.) Battlecruiser: Gneisenau
3.) Heavy cruiser/Armored cruiser: USS San Francisco 
4.) Light cruiser: ?
5.) Destroyer: Fletcher class
6.) Submarine: Type XXI
7.) Patrol Boat or MBT: The ELCO 80' PT BOAT
8.) Aircraft Carrier: USS Yorktown CV-5


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 26, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> 1.) Battleship: USS West Virginia



Better than the North Carolina class? S Dakota class, Iowa class......?



> 3.) Heavy cruiser/Armored cruiser: USS San Francisco



Better than the Baltimore class?



> 8.) Aircraft Carrier: USS Yorktown CV-5



Better than the Essex class?


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 26, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Better than the North Carolina class? S Dakota class, Iowa class......?
> 
> 
> Better than the Baltimore class?
> ...



West Virginia came back didn't she? Fully modernized and kicked some serious ass at the Battle of Surigao Strait...
San Fransisco saw through the whole war. Baltimore was comissioned in 15 April 1943.
USS Yorktown CV-5 took alot of beating before she went down, bombs and torpedoes. Hadn't the Japanese sub showed up, she'd probably been towed back to Pearl Harbor for repairs and modernisation....

USS West Virginia (BB-48) Action Report: Leyte Gulf/Surigao Straits

As you can see she fired 93 shots in 16 salvos, more than any of the other battleships.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 26, 2007)

If USS West Virginia found itself opposing an Iowa class, theoretically, she'd likely be completely wrecked. But then again, she could have gotten lucky - and it's always better to be lucky than good


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 26, 2007)

I'd guess that they both had the same radar installations. Iowa 9 against 8 16' guns.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 27, 2007)

Accuracy During World War II......

A Naval War College study performed during World War II estimated that an Iowa Class (BB-61) battleship firing with top spot against a target the size of the German battleship Bismarck would be expected to achieve the following hit percentages.

Range Percentage hits against a broadside target Percentage hits against an end-on target Ratio 

1: 10,000 yards (9,144 m) 
2: 20,000 yards (18,288 m) 
3: 30,000 yards (27,432 m) 

Percentage hits against a broadside target

1: 32.7%
2: 10.5%
3: 2.7%

Percentage hits against an end-on target

1: 22.3%
2: 4.1%
3: 1.4%

Ratio

1: 1.47:1
2: 2.56:1
3: 1.92:1

Suddenly I feel soooo much safer on my ol' mountaineer battle wagon.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 27, 2007)

So even though the Iowa, S Dak and NC class battleships were faster, better armed for both surface and aerial threats, better armor and had more advanced damage control designs, were inferior to the West Virginia?


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 27, 2007)

USS West Virginia Radar: 

1941 : CXAM / 
1944 : SK / 
1945 : SK-2 / 

USS Iowa Radar

1943 : SK, SRa / 
1945 : SK-2, SC-2 / 


To be good, you first need to HIT something when you shoot...Speed is usually good when you try to catch up or run away...

West Virginia: 8 dual 5"/38cal DP, 10 quad 40mm AA, 1 quad 20mm AA, 1 twin 20mm AA, 58 single 20mm AA
Iowa: 10 dual 5"/38cal, 18 quad 40 mm AA, 52 single 20 mm AA

West Virginia: Armor: 8-13.5 inch belt, 3.5 inch decks, 4.5-13 inch barbettes, 5-18 inch turrets, 4-16 inch CT
Iowa: Armor: 1.6-12.1 inch belt, 6 inch deck, 11.6-17.3 inch barbettes, 2.5-17.3 inch turrets, 7.25-17.3 inch CT...

Good way of learning....


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 27, 2007)

Just showing some CLASSY ladies here.....

USS Nevada BB-36






USS Pennsylvania BB-38





USS Mississippi BB-41






USS Maryland BB-46





USS West Virginia BB-48





And of course USS Yorktown CV-5.





Now, what was it that Stevie Wonder sang again...... Isn’t She Lovely?


----------



## delcyros (Apr 27, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Accuracy During World War II......
> 
> A Naval War College study performed during World War II estimated that an Iowa Class (BB-61) battleship firing with top spot against a target the size of the German battleship Bismarck would be expected to achieve the following hit percentages.
> 
> ...




These datas have been disproved mathematically recently and back then by ww2 combat records. The hit percentage for end on targets indeed is better than for broadside targets due to the dispersion field of the salvos and because it is easier to correct deflection than range. No US BB achieved 10% hit ratio (sustained) at 20.000 yards, nor 30% at 10.000 yards nor even a single hit at more than 25.000 yards against BB-sized targets, radar or not. 
The closest You could come with ww2 era firecontroll is a straddle and the tighter the salvo dispersion field, the better the hitting chances.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 27, 2007)

So delcyros, are you actually saying that it's worse!? Or am I just thick....Oi! Don't bother answer that.....


----------



## Glider (Apr 27, 2007)

I admit that I have been under the impression that the Bismark and the Nelson had better hit rates than these.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 27, 2007)

USS West Virginia (BB-48) Action Report: Leyte Gulf/Surigao Straits Is great reading. 13 salvos in 41 seconds.....hurts my ears just thinking about the noise!


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 27, 2007)

Battleship Bismarck, German Kriegsmarine The Battle of the Denmark Strait.

Do you agree with this? Battleship Comparison


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 27, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Battleship Bismarck, German Kriegsmarine The Battle of the Denmark Strait.
> 
> Do you agree with this? Battleship Comparison



Delycros found some mistakes in the methodology used in this comparison, especially in the armor protection.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 27, 2007)

It appeared to be a difference betwen peacetime trials against towed targets and wartime gunnery records.


The exact number of hits is not certain for Surigao Street. But with some probability the number of hit´s did not exceed 30 and could be as low as 20.
Which is - don´t take me wrong- an excellent display of gunnery averaging 10%.

Bismarck at Denmark street achieved a close to 10% hitting rate (at distances between 16.000 and 20.000 yards), which also is excellent.

KGV and Rodney achieved ~30 major calibre hits each on Bismarck during the final battle at distances between 2.500 and 15.000 yards but they only achieved 8% hitting rate against an almost immobilized target. Nobody says this was a bad performance. (the actual hitting rate could exceed 10% as the correct number of hit´s is a matter of debate)

DoY at Northcape achieved at least 13 hits against Scharnhorst but fired more than 300 rounds (4.3%) at distances between 5.000 yards and 21.400 yards in force 9 gale. 

As You see, an ~10% hitting rate is what the best gunnery allowed in ww2 for distances up to 20.000 yards. A higher hitting rate was possible (at least for point blanc range) but in no case sustainable.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 27, 2007)

Thanks a bunch mate.....


----------



## delcyros (Apr 27, 2007)

If You want to spend some time reading the discussion regarding combinedfleet:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/german-battleships-convoy-hunting-2817-3.html

It´s a long one. We had a good discussion.


----------



## renrich (May 2, 2007)

In order to justify my sentimental choices my criteria for best WW2 WARSHIPS will require that the ship had to be available for all or most of the war, had to have a good war record in action with the enemy, had to survive the war(helps to be lucky) and the ship must be cost effective(gets extra points if built well before the war because it was cheaper to build) CV- no contest--Enterprise(should have been preserved instead of Intrepid) BB--Washington(Ching Lee knew why)(honorable mention-Warspite) BC-Renown CA---Pensacola and Salt Lake City( both had good war records, both damaged more than once, both were lucky)( besides they had lots of guns) CL-Sheffield(good record, almost sunk by Swordfish, like her looks) DD-Onslow(she and Sheffield did good work on Murmansk run) DE-England- (Not much to look at but gave the IJN fits)


----------



## Glider (May 3, 2007)

Like your approach. Following that I would make the following changes

BB - Warstpite (upgraded from Hon Mention)
DD - Ushio Served the entire war including nearly all the major battles and survived


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 3, 2007)

Is it possible that the best cannot always be measured as a one on one comparison? 

For example. Lets take 3 British heavy cruisers at 6 guns each and 2 American 9 gun cruisers and lets adjust things for fun. lets make the guns equal except for number and lets make the two groups of the same weight and resources utilized to build them. I am not sure which side I would want to be on. 

Even that last comparison does not come to telling the whole story and prehaps it is impossible to have the whole story and just parts of it. 

War is economic, it is resources but not just resources, it is the ability to convert the resources so that is infratructure of machines and transportation. It is the ability to turn them into weapons without the country falling apart internally. It is also about man power. Conversion rates of resources. Economics is not about money as some think but about things. 

One thing that helped the US get some of the nice toys later is the fact that the US had 2 oceans providing alot of protection and we had the Isles to land on and form up first. That is an important consideration. We had lots of friends and we had nothing that was stopping our production. Does it mean we did the best that we could have with what we had. hard to say but I think that is why we had some nice ships.

Was the Iowa, and Baltimore the best. I like to think so but I an not sure. Perhaps we should have built fewer bigger ships, or perhaps smaller and more ships.

It is kind of funny that as battleships got bigger and bigger so did the cruisers until we reached a point that the new cruisers were really to big for the job we needed them to do. We might not have felt this problem as we had smaller ones as well but even that is not the whole story. We had allied ships helping us. Perhaps we didn't need certain fits because our friends had them.

The point I am getting at is naval battle is only rarely a one on one affair. The best ship seems to be the one that does and fits the fleet for the missions it has. 

Maybe it is not the best battleship that make the difference but the best light cruisers punishing the enemies destoryers while your inferior battleship buys time and does not have to win. The enemy destoyers yeild to your light cruiser in cooperation with your destoryers and perhaps open the board for destroyer action against the battleship. I know things didn't play out this way but there are lots of what ifs.

Maybe having the best in each class is the goal you want. Maybe sometimes you want second best in each class and a little more of them.

I have wondered about other 1 on 1 match ups as well. The Sherman cleaarly was inferior the the Panzers and Tigers and many say we should have had better tanks early in the war. Lets say we did have fewer better tanks. Would we have done better? I really don't know. We might have had a case where our tanks were slugging it out with the fine German tanks but that is not what we had. The fact that he had lots of Shermans meant that the better tanks could not interdict them all. Shermans could get to certain targets and achive objectives and support infantry because we had lots of them. Like I said I don't really know what is right.

I am just making the argument that having the bragging rights to the best ship might actually hurt your war effort.

Just think if instead of the 4 Iowa Class we instead had 6 2 turret sub-Iowa's. That could be the wrong answer but is it?

The American Heavy Cruisers would have had an advantage over a Cleveland or Brooklyn class cruiser. Maybe we needed potent destroyer killers that could after the destroyers are clear at least put fire on bigger ships to assist the larger ships and hope for killing a director or something rather than a heavier hitter.

I didn't mean to ruin the fun just some thoughts.

I didn't proof read this but typed as fast as I could and made this up as I went along so forgive how ugly this post is.


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 3, 2007)

Senarios, 

The enemy has a supported big slow bruiser mid ocean and you want to shell and island and you have a greyhound of a ship. You don't fight the big bruiser you speed around him and get to your target.

Now we change things up a bit. You have an area to protect so instead of being deployed out to sea you are close to what you must defend. Here comes the big bruiser and its target is in a fixed location and you are the in the way.

It seems to me that what is best is what meets you goals.

Another thing to think about what is best might be better examined by looking at what you already have and what the enemy already has. What is best for you to fill out your fleet and counter the enemy fleet might in no way be considered best in a one on one comparison.


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 3, 2007)

I have thought about the German Sisters a few times. They operated so much together. If they were upgraded as planed to be 6 15inch gun ships and got upgrades and they time and resources would have allowed. I don't think I would have wanted to meet the twins on any one surface combatant.

Alone they do not match up to the top 5 but together they could be a terror with the upgrade.

I actually think that there could be and edge on the best battleships of one better than the other. The Venito, Riechieue, King George, Iowa but I wonder if that is still what is most important. I think each of those ships can hurt each other. Sinking is one thing but you can still mission kill. Those ships were all capable but perhaps not equal. I am thinking how the lessor ships do in the right might be the deciding factor.


----------



## delcyros (May 3, 2007)

Following this line of argumentation, I think it worth noting the US american Casablanca - class escort carrier program. Each of them fielded 27 planes and they build 50 of them! Or the 23 Commencement Bay class escort carriers, each of them fielded 33 planes! The 26 laid down Essex class carriers are also worth mentioning.


----------



## trackend (May 3, 2007)

Here Here Del the Woolworth Carriers did a heck of alot of sterling work the UK had 45, 6 built in the UK all the rest came from the States. a great work horse vessel that saved many a merchantman.


----------



## renrich (May 3, 2007)

Understand your reasoning, Glider, and I at first was going to go with Warspite, but the fact(I think) that Washington was the only BB in WW2 that sank an enema BB all by herself swayed me. I did not give Enterprise enough ink but would anyone disagree that old CV6 was the most important, influential, greatest, best, finest, indispensable and valiant warship on any side during the whole war? Jon, I enjoyed your line of thinking. One reason I think CA25, old "Swayback Maru" saw so much action(for instance-Kormondorskis) was that by the war's midpoint, she was not a new and shiny toy and might be considered expendable so she was sent wherever any dirty job had to be done.


----------



## renrich (May 3, 2007)

Along the line of your thinking, jon, when the Scheers first were built, all the world's navies went into a tizzy because they could outrun almost all the warships that could outgun them and could outgun the ships that were faster(kind of like the USS Constitution and her sisters) so it was thought that the Germans had created an almost unbeatable candidate for the guerre de course(did I spell that right?) It was later found, however, that, rather than create ships to match or outclass the Scheers the antidote was a number of smaller, faster cruisers. del, I was ruminating a while back upon the dilemma that Langsdorf faced when he concentrated his main batteries on Exeter. That left only 4-5.9s (assuming the CLs stayed on one beam, which they did) to deal with 16-6 inchers. That was not good odds. Wondering if a twin 5.9 superimposed over each 11 inch turret and two twin 5.9s amidships on the centerline able to fire on either beam would not have been helpful.


----------



## Jank (May 3, 2007)

Concerning the U.S.S. Washington's action against the Japanese battleship Kirishima. (The Washington was the only US battleship to defeat another capital ship in WWII.)

Third Battle of Savo


----------



## renrich (May 3, 2007)

Jank, thank you for your reference. I did not endeavor to look it up but I don't believe the South Dakota got off a salvo before she was hit and all her circuit breakers popped or something. Strangely enough when the SD went back to the states for repairs ,she got all the accolades for the victory and the ship that did all the damage was unmentioned. Kind of like in the first reports of the Battle of Midway, the AAF B17s were at first credited for the sinking of the IJN carriers.


----------



## Jank (May 3, 2007)

"Strangely enough when the SD went back to the states for repairs ,she got all the accolades for the victory and the ship that did all the damage was unmentioned."

Yes. 

I did not know that the South Dakota didn't get get a shot off before she got walloped.


----------



## mkloby (May 3, 2007)

Hey Rich - you have some old Janes - is there any mention in them about a supposed Chichibu class cruiser armed with six 12" guns, up to 15,000 tons? I've read that Janes included them - of course they didn't actually exist. Anything?


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 3, 2007)

SD's faulty circuit breaker. I have sometimes wondered if this was a problem specific to this ship or if the whole class had a weakness here. It would be really scary if mulitiple classes had this problem but was not talked about. Obviously this is not a problem that affected the entire US navy, we had ship pounded to oblivion but the lights didn't go out at first contact. I wonder how SD would have done not for this fault. Perhaps SD recieved a very specific unlikely hit that would have turned out the lights on other ships. I don't think this is the case because I think I have read that SD had this as an ongoing problem.

I think no matter what ship you are on you are in big trouble if all of your power goes out at first contact. What might even be the best ship of its type the world has ever seen is nothing but a floating target when that happens.

I think if Washington had not been there and SD did not have its failure that SD would have defeated Krishma but would have taken some damage from Krishma and would likely have take alot of topside damage from Krishmas friends since she was the focus of attention.


----------



## renrich (May 3, 2007)

Nice going, Matt, I never paid much attention before, but my 1942 "Janes" mentions 4 ships building, one called Titibu but described as about 12000 to 15000 tons, 6 inch armor, 6- 12 inch guns, speed 30 kts. The exactitude of information is not guaranteed. Was in your vicinity last week at Port Mansfield. We flew up the beach about 30 miles upon leaving Sunday. Vfr but cloud layer though broken was low. Was hoping I did not get to meet you in an air to air. Martini time!


----------



## renrich (May 3, 2007)

Jank, I read your whole reference after I posted and it did state that the SD never was in action during the part of the battle when the Kirishima was sunk. Interesting that the Kongo, Kirishima's sister, was built in Britain. They were handsome ships but of course not as well armed or armored as Washington or SD.


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 3, 2007)

Battleship Washington:

I am a flag waving American and like to think we had the best stuff but I also want to always be a realist.

I see people give Washington a boost because she sank Kirishma. Well that is what you do in war, you fight the enemy but does she get too many points for this even though she did what she was supposed to do.

Kirishma was caught unaware by the Washington as she was pounding SD. I think this was partly Kirishmas fault for not responding to Washington but at the same time maybe Krishma was acting in the best way she knew in the circumstances. Perhaps she didn't realize that SD was having a circuit breaker problem and she was thinking she had to remove this threat before she could deal with another.

In any case if Washington did manage to approach the Japanese without being seen I doubt it was because Washington was stealtier than many other capital ships of the era. Well maybe harder to spot then some of the tallest masted ships but I think the tallest ships were the Japanese as well.

What if we substitute any 16 inch gun ship that was properly functioning into Washintons spot would it have made a differece. Not that I can see. If we substituted a 15 inch gun fully functioning ship of the era would it have made much difference in the outcome. I am thinking it wouldn't. I also think if we put any 14 inch gun ship of the era they would have killed of Krishma also. She had her attention on SD and was caught flat footed by Washington. She was a lesser ship but was also unprepared to face a new threat.

This is not to take anything away from Washington. I just think the way she handled Krishma does not prove or disprove what capablity Washington had.

This was not a one on one fight. Everyone was targeting SD. SD might not have been fighting back but thier turrets were trained on her. Washinton gained alot by not having turrets of various sizes trained on her.

If we substitute: Nelson, George, Venneto, Riechleu, Bismarck, I am convined the results would have been the same and Krishma is a lesser ship. I think any of the big gun battle cruisers could have taken her down just as well. You only need armor if you get hit. Washington did take any real hits. I think anything with 14 inch guns and up would have killed Krishma that day if they were in Washingtons position.


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 3, 2007)

Since SD, Washington, and Krishima have are part of this topic lets try and look at it from the Krishima's prespective.

Lets say I am am looking on from the bridge of the Krishima.

Oh, It's an American Battleship. One of those newer 16 inch gun varieties with lots of 5inch secondaries. This might be bad. Open fire!!!!!!!!

Boom Boom Boom!!!! We have scored some hits, everyone join in. Perhaps our lighter ships will take out her radar, damage the directors, maybe kill the bridge crew. 

Hmmmm, she is not firing back. Maybe we hit something vital. Maybe she actually was not aware we where here and was not ready. Perhaps the bridge crew is dazed. No matter, we need to finish her before she can respond with those big 16 inch guns. Everyone, concentrate your fire on that battleship. Don't let her recover. We can win this one if we do not allow her to repair what ever damage we have caused.

Hmmm, what is that??? Another battle ship. Our turrets are all on the first battleship. It will take time to turn out guns, If we do turn out guns the 1st battleship might recover and strike back. 

Boom Boom Boom!!!!!

Hmmm, it seems we are going to have trouble turning our turrets if we wanted to.

Boom Boom Boom!!!!!

We might be in trouble.

Boom Boom Boom!!!!!

Ok Ok, we are in trouble.


----------



## delcyros (May 4, 2007)

I would like to mention that South Dakota fired 3 salvos with her MK 40 FC director. There is no mention about the results and obviously she was missing and did not achieved a hit or straddle on the target. I do not know whether or not her 5" sec. achieved any hit´s on Krishima but with the close range in mind, this cannot be excluded. However, SD wasn´t silenced early in the action. The powerloss knocked out main secondary FC and limited the power hoists in operation. There was some emergency power avaiable for the training firing of the turrets (provided by turbo dynamos) altough this energy was channelled soon to ship operations and damage controll.
There was nothing wrong with the circuit breaker itselve, prior to ~1930, it was a prone to failure under impact shock. In fact until Rickover revised the construction of USN Breakers pre WW2 it was a common occurance in USN vessels for breakers to open due to schock. However, SD had Rickover´s shock proof Breakers.
The problem therefore must be found in the integration of equipment but I am nowhere near educated enough for this question.


----------



## renrich (May 4, 2007)

The reason that Kirishima concentrated her fire on SD was that she could see her. She did not see Washington. Washington "saw" Kirishima with her FC radar and her salvos were directed by radar. It is true that SD fired at a target early in the battle that was thought to be a BB but Kirishima took no hits at that time. One report says that an engineer on SD wired down the breakers so they would not pop and that caused further problems. Apparently SD was ineffective in the whole battle except as a target(which was helpful) The SD was hit several times by 14 inch bullets but most of them were shore bombardment type and did no vital damage.


----------



## Glider (May 4, 2007)

The lucky thing about this battle was that the Jap destroyers who you would normally to be deadly at night and close range, didn't shine with thei their torps.


----------



## renrich (May 4, 2007)

No question about the luck that the US enjoyed with their BBs in this battle re the IJN torps. In most of the other battles around Guadalcanal(as fierce and sanguinary as any in history) we suffered heavily from the Japanese torps. Of course "Ching" Lee was aware of the danger of those torps and he fought the battle accordingly. However, I stated as my criteria that a ship needed to be lucky to make my list and the Washington was lucky that night. Another ship that made my list, Pensacola, was unlucky at Tassaforonga, and had her bow blown off by a torp but she was lucky to not take the hit further aft, was repaired and fought out the rest of the war. Incidently my criteria include extra points if the ship was on the winning side in the war. We are talking about real results here.


----------



## mkloby (May 4, 2007)

renrich said:


> No question about the luck that the US enjoyed with their BBs in this battle re the IJN torps. In most of the other battles around Guadalcanal(as fierce and sanguinary as any in history) we suffered heavily from the Japanese torps. Of course "Ching" Lee was aware of the danger of those torps and he fought the battle accordingly. However, I stated as my criteria that a ship needed to be lucky to make my list and the Washington was lucky that night. Another ship that made my list, Pensacola, was unlucky at Tassaforonga, and had her bow blown off by a torp but she was lucky to not take the hit further aft, was repaired and fought out the rest of the war. Incidently my criteria include extra points if the ship was on the winning side in the war. We are talking about real results here.



Quite fond of the P'cola 

I always say it's better to be lucky than good. That's the damn truth!


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 4, 2007)

When I look at Naval history there was a turning point there the battles started to be lopsided against the Japanese in surface action.

My main point there if we would have substituted many different ships from many nations in the place of washington I think the results would have been the same. Washington was not spotted until too late. Most battleships in Washingtons position would have prevailed.


----------



## renrich (May 4, 2007)

Maybe, but Washington was there, she was commanded by a smart expert in gunnery, her FC radar(new) was in place and worked, her radar operators knew how to interpret the globs and her gunners were well trained. For a first action they were pretty effective. A combination of a good weapon, well trained crew, the ship was there when doctrine dictated BBs should not operate in those tight quarters and her commander had trained all his life for that moment. Lady Luck and maybe something else was looking over our shoulder that night.


----------



## syscom3 (May 4, 2007)

Renrich is correct.

The USS Washington was commanded by a good capt and a good admiral. And theres nothing that speaks for itself as who was left standing after a battle.

The results speak for themselves.


----------



## delcyros (May 4, 2007)

May I interrupt You on this? Don´t take me wrong -I very much like Washington- but she had only limited radar FC by 42. If You study the after action reports properly and compare them with FC MK 3 manuals it is absolutely clear that she needed optical input from the firing director also. The excellent display of gunnery was remarkable (esspeccially the rapid firing) but the radar was not truly able for "blind fire".
It was able to detect BB sized targets with comparably high range precission and good resolution but the deflection preciseness made it necassary to input datas via optics. In the end this process is more complicated than radar / optic only input but her crew mastered this task with remarkable performance and for good results.


----------



## renrich (May 4, 2007)

I will bow(as always) to del's superior knowledge as far as the details of the equipment used in naval warfare although I might feel somewhat equal to him when it comes to the ordnance on board the USS Constitution. (24 pounders and 32 pound carronades are within my area of expertise) The accounts I read of Washington at Guadalcanal did say that Kirishima revealed herself when she opened searchlights on SD so the Washington gunners were able to utilise optical sights as well as radar. I believe the ranges were incredibly short for naval gunfire(on the order of 8000-9000 yards.) Of course the Washington's secondary batteries provided star shells also. As del states the primary value of the radar aboard Washington was to locate the IJN ships.


----------



## ToughOmbre (May 4, 2007)

Essex Class carriers, Iowa Class battleships, Fletcher Class destroyers. My two cents.


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 5, 2007)

This was no attempt to take anything away from the Washington as she was a good ship and she was what she was. Two generations back from the Iowa but still a relatively new ship after the long battleship holiday. I have read this battle over and over. Washington did sink her and that was what she was supposed to do.

If someone gives you the shot you take it. I am still convinced this was not a test of Washington. What was the Japanese battleship supposed to do. She was pounding on a heavier bigger gunned ship not knowing why the the SD was not firing back. 

Kirishma had a target and that gave Washington everything. Washington was a superior ship to begin with. The Japanese battleship is occupied and distracted. I guess we will never actually know at what moment she saw the Washington because if she did see it before being fired upon it was too late to respond.

Once Washington sailed up the into position and finds that her presence has not been detected what brilliant work piece of captaining is left to do. Not a whole bunch I think. The gunnery crews know their job and SD is being pounded. You give the order to open fire. The captain is not manning the directors, or loading the guns. He is now waiting for when he should check fire and looking guaging the other threats. The crew saw the other threats I am sure as well and would know what to do. You direct some fire on the other vessles.

The reason I make this comment is I notice alot of people building up Washington for doing her job and perhaps over rating Washington. Iowa didn't kill a battleship and I am not prepared to say that Washington is superior to Iowa.

The way I see it is Washington was there. She got an opportunity and took it like she is supposed to do. 

What if it was Nelson that sailed into the same situation. Or perhaps Riechlieu. Maybe Venito. I think Bizmarch would do the same if they happened to be setting in that postion with and occupied enemy capital ship of inferior design. I am convinced Colorado would have made short work of her too. I am almost thinking Texas could have one this one quickly and easily.


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 5, 2007)

Instead of being my long winded self. 

I guess I should ask a question instead.

What battleships do you think would not have been able to handle this situation that Washington was in?


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 5, 2007)

what is interesing is hearing it from a Japanese poing of view.

Japanese Account of Savo Island Battle


----------



## delcyros (May 5, 2007)

Yes Renrich, the goold old Sail is my terra incognito, without doubt (it´s getting better in ancient times again).

I think the only modern BB, which probably would have problems in such a situation is the french BB Richelieu, assuming it would have been avaiable. Richelieu is an excellent ship but not designed for close range slugfests.
Her guns, while beeing extremely powerful, suffered from inacceptable dispersion patterns at ~10.000 yards (in excess of 10%!!!) and from a questionably low rate of fire of around 1.33 round per minute. Another fault of her guns was that they were prone to jamming in rapid firing mode. Her belt covered less than advisable for buoyancy reserve and there were no splinterproof plating at the extensive ship ends. One hit may knock out half of her firepower, even if the hit doesn´t penetrate (shock effect and plugs of armour, but at the ranges in question, she may suffer penetrations). Her power supply by 42 wasn´t up to the tasks and she had an easy to distinguish appearence.
The excellent speed of Richelieu doesn´t play a part in the confined waters of Savo nor would the excellent deck protection play a role in flat trajectory engagements.


----------



## renrich (May 5, 2007)

Ahhh, del it is always good to hear your objective, critical and thorough analysis of warship details. If one will go back to my original post on this subject I made the criteria I am using deliberately to justify my sentimental choices, primarily good old CA25, my favorite uncle's cruiser. I make no pretense that Washington was superior to Iowa or Bismarck or whatever. But she was there and she was the only BB on any side to sink another capital ship by her lonesome so I reckon the American taxpayer got good value out of that expenditure. Also, as good a Texan as I am, the Texas could not have done what Washington did because she could not have been in that location at that time because she was at least 10 knots slower if her old reciprocating engines had been able to get across the Pacific without breaking down and her guns could not maintain the rate of fire that Washington did and probaly couldn't hit anything because the guns were worn out.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 5, 2007)

jonsidneyb said:


> Instead of being my long winded self.
> 
> I guess I should ask a question instead.
> 
> What battleships do you think would not have been able to handle this situation that Washington was in?



USS Maryland BB-46?


----------



## renrich (May 5, 2007)

The problem with Maryland would have been that she would have had to steam with the SD to get to the area of the battle. The SD steamed at 26 kts(as did Washington) to get to the area(they needed to hurry) and Maryland was designed for 21 but I doubt she could achieve that in 1942, certainly not sustain it. Then at the last when Washington was executing "the get the heck out of here" Maryland would have been some 8 to 10 knots slower which would have kept her in range of the torps longer.


----------



## royal744 (May 23, 2007)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> 1.)Aircraft carriers, well i always loved Lexington, Akagi and shinano. Shinano had the brilliant idea of being moved from one yard to another, before completion, with US submarines patrolling everywhere....brilliant right? I like lexington, because she was fast, could carry many aircraft (ninety?) and had some decent damage control. The decks were too thin though, and made out of wood if i remember correctly. Akagi is a close contender, but im gonna go american on this one.



I prefer the English carriers. They had steel decks that didn't burn clear through.


----------



## T4.H (May 31, 2007)

The old question.

What is better?
Armoured flight deck or hangar deck?

advantage: small bombs and kamikaze couldn't penetrate the flight deck.
But even when a kamikaze didn't get through it...
One ship was permanently maimed (HMS Formidable) after one hit on the flight deck!

Armoured flight deck has one realy big disadvantage!
If you have to exchange the elevators, because they are too small for the new jet fighters (after war), you get in big trouble.
You have to cut out a big part of the thick flight deck.

some disadvatages of the british carriers:
short live of the boilers (HMS Indomitable)
the not real good underwater protection 
I'm not sure, but I think, íf they had to be repaired or refit, they have to stay in harbour for realy long time.


----------



## Glider (Jun 3, 2007)

As to the old questionthe armoured flight deck is best. I don't know where you got your info about the Formidable being permanently maimed from one hit on the flight deck. As far as I am aware she was hit by two 2000lb bombs in the Med and survived plus a number of kamikaze hits in the pacific. She was seriously damaged when a sliver of the armoured flight deck penetrated the boiler rooms, but thats a lot better than a bomb penetrating the boiler rooms.

The main problem with an armoured flight deck is the extra weight high up which sevrely limits the ability to carry large numbers of aircraft for the weight of the ship.


----------



## mkloby (Jun 3, 2007)

Glider said:


> As to the old questionthe armoured flight deck is best. I don't know where you got your info about the Formidable being permanently maimed from one hit on the flight deck. As far as I am aware she was hit by two 2000lb bombs in the Med and survived plus a number of kamikaze hits in the pacific. She was seriously damaged when a sliver of the armoured flight deck penetrated the boiler rooms, but thats a lot better than a bomb penetrating the boiler rooms.
> 
> The main problem with an armoured flight deck is the extra weight high up which sevrely limits the ability to carry large numbers of aircraft for the weight of the ship.



I think that's up for debate. The armored box took up much room as well as prevented A/C from running below deck like in the open american hanger. What is a more valuable fleet asset - a 19,900 ton carrier such as Yorktown that carried 100 A/C, or a 23,000 ton carrier like the Illustrious that could only carry 36 A/C initially - later boosted to 56? Yorktown and Hornet both showed resilience under fire, as did the Illustrious class. The big US carriers with heavy air groups worked beautifully in the Pacific. I believe if the US pursued a class like the Illustrious it would only have served to our detriment. Perhaps a design as such was more suited to the Atlantic - any thoughts?


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 3, 2007)

Armoured deck or not, I'd still pick "my" Yorktown any day....






How do they compare in anti aircraft defense the RN and USN carriers?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 3, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Armoured deck or not, I'd still pick "my" Yorktown any day....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The best anti aircraft defense was a fighter.

The more you carried, the safer you were.


----------



## Glider (Jun 6, 2007)

mkloby said:


> I think that's up for debate. The armored box took up much room as well as prevented A/C from running below deck like in the open american hanger. What is a more valuable fleet asset - a 19,900 ton carrier such as Yorktown that carried 100 A/C, or a 23,000 ton carrier like the Illustrious that could only carry 36 A/C initially - later boosted to 56? Yorktown and Hornet both showed resilience under fire, as did the Illustrious class. The big US carriers with heavy air groups worked beautifully in the Pacific. I believe if the US pursued a class like the Illustrious it would only have served to our detriment. Perhaps a design as such was more suited to the Atlantic - any thoughts?



My last sentence agreed with you to a degree, but its worth noting that the Hornet and the Yorktown were both sunk by bombers using bombs a lot smaller than the 2000lb that hit the Formidable.

Its also worth remembering that the Midway class of carriers that came after the Essex, were also equipped with armoured decks. The USN wouldn't have made the switch unless there were some benefits.

Your comment about the Ilustrious is accurate but the Illustrious not only had an armoured deck, her hanger walls were around 4 inches thick which added a huge amount of weight to her and as a result she only had one hanger deck. This was without doubt overkill and this was reduced in later ships and capacity improved.


----------



## mkloby (Jun 6, 2007)

Glider said:


> My last sentence agreed with you to a degree, but its worth noting that the Hornet and the Yorktown were both sunk by bombers using bombs a lot smaller than the 2000lb that hit the Formidable.
> 
> Its also worth remembering that the Midway class of carriers that came after the Essex, were also equipped with armoured decks. The USN wouldn't have made the switch unless there were some benefits.
> 
> Your comment about the Ilustrious is accurate but the Illustrious not only had an armoured deck, her hanger walls were around 4 inches thick which added a huge amount of weight to her and as a result she only had one hanger deck. This was without doubt overkill and this was reduced in later ships and capacity improved.



Good point on the weight of the bombs. Hornet was initially hit with 8 bombs, three torps, and two planes. The Americans attempted to scuttle her, hitting her with nine more torps, followed by an estimated 400 5" shells. Finally, she was abandoned and the Japanese hit her with four long lances. That is a lot of damage. After her hasty repairs after Coral Sea, Yorktown took 3 more bombs and two more torps, until finished by a sub. I agree that Implacable was an improvement (reduction in this case) over the armored box design of the Illustrious - which was just ridiculously strong. Max air group was much improved, and she carried was about 81 birds.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 7, 2007)

The Midway class I think was actually commissioned with wooden decks, they were later modernized with armoured ones...











USS Yorktown was sunk by a torpedo from I-168 a Japanese submarine.


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2007)

Basically both countries learnt from each other. The USA adopted the armoured deck, the British realised that the hanger walls were way to heavy and reduced them and the British also adopted the US method of protecting the aviation fuel tanks.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 7, 2007)

One advantage the wooden deck had over the armoured box type, was it was easier to build.

An important factor when you have to build many dozens of carriers quickly.


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> One advantage the wooden deck had over the armoured box type, was it was easier to build.
> 
> An important factor when you have to build many dozens of carriers quickly.



And harder to repair. Most armoured decks when hit dented which were fixed simply with quick drying cement. Light, easy to apply, almost self leveling and very effective.

With wooden decks you had a whacking great hole to sort out.


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2007)

And I forgot cheap, the bean counters must have loved that


----------



## Captn javy Wilson (Jun 11, 2007)

1.) Battleship

Yamato Class (Musashi)

2.) Battlecruiser

Alaska Class

3.) Heavy cruiser/Armored cruiser

Baltimore Class

4.) Light cruiser

Cleveland class (Detroit)

5.) Destroyer

Fletcher (Sands)

6.) Submarine

Nautilus

7.) Patrol Boat or MBT

hmmmm.... have to think about that

8.) Aircraft Carrier

Essex Class.
Although personally I like the Lexington


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 11, 2007)

What exactly is Un*frog*iven????


----------



## trackend (Jun 12, 2007)

A SEAL without a wet suit Les ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2007)

Captn javy Wilson said:


> 6.) Submarine
> 
> Nautilus



You wanna compare her to the Type XXI?


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 12, 2007)

Nautilus in WW2? If you mean the Nuclear one that was some years after WW2...



lesofprimus said:


> What exactly is Un*frog*iven????





trackend said:


> A SEAL without a wet suit Les ?


No idea but I doubt he will be here long...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2007)

There was a Nautilus that served in WW2. She was actually Pre WW2 though having been laid down in 1927 and had to be modernized in 1941.

I think that the German Type VII and IX and especially the Type XXI were better than the Nautilus Class. Hell the US had better boats with the GATO Class than the Nautilus.

For comparison:

*SS-168 USS Nautilus*

Laid down: 10 May 1927 
Launched: 15 March 1930 
Commissioned: 1 July 1930 
Decommissioned 30 June 1946 
Fate: sold for scrap 
General characteristics 
Displacement: 2730 tons surfaced, 4050 tons submerged 
Length: 349 ft (106.4 m) waterline, 371 ft (113 m) overall
Beam: 33 ft 3 in (10.1 m) 
Draft: 15 ft 9 in (4.8 m) 
*Speed: 17 knots (31 km/h) surfaced, 8 knots (15 km/h) submerged* 
Complement: 88 officers and men 
Propulsion: four 1350 hp (1MW) M.A.N. diesels; two 1270 hp (950 kW) Westinghouse electric motors (240-cell Exide batteries) 
Armament: 6 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (four forward, two aft; 24 torpedoes, 8 external); two 6-inch (152 mm)/53 cal guns; two 0.30 in (7.62 mm) machineguns 

*Type XXI*

*First Submarine designed to operate completely under water*

Displacement: 1621 t/1819 t, 2100 t full load 
Length: 76.7m (251ft 7.7in) overall, 60.5m (198ft 5.9in) pressure hull 
Beam: 5.3m (17ft 4.7in) pressure hull, 8m (26ft 3in) overall 
Draft: 6.3m (20ft 8in) 
Height: 11.3m (37ft) 
Propulsion: 4000 hp (3 MW) 
*Speed: surfaced = 15.6 kt (29 km/h), 4400 hp (3.3 MW) submerged = 17.2 kt (32 km/h)* 
Range: 15,500nm at 10 kt (28,675 km at 19 km/h) surfaced, 340 miles at 5 kt (630 km at 9 km/h) submerged 
Crew: 57 

Below are pics of the Nautilus and a Type XXI.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 12, 2007)

Cheers still is no contest between the two in my opinion - the XXI takes it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2007)

I agree. The Type XXI was the first "modern" submarine.


----------



## T4.H (Jun 15, 2007)

You can also say:

The XXI class was the first submarine-class of the world.

All "submarins" (Unterseeboote) befor were "only" surface ships, which could also dive.
They were "diving boats" (Tauchboote).


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Glider 
06-03-2007, 02:31 PM 
As to the old questionthe armoured flight deck is best. I don't know where you got your info about the Formidable being permanently maimed from one hit on the flight deck. As far as I am aware she was hit by two 2000lb bombs in the Med and survived plus a number of kamikaze hits in the pacific. She was seriously damaged when a sliver of the armoured flight deck penetrated the boiler rooms, but thats a lot better than a bomb penetrating the boiler rooms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You are right!
I think, I misunderstood my source.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Glider
06-07-2007, 09:54 PM 
And harder to repair. Most armoured decks when hit dented which were fixed simply with quick drying cement. Light, easy to apply, almost self leveling and very effective.

With wooden decks you had a whacking great hole to sort out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I know, wooden decks were easy to repair.
They were build with bars.
Put out the destroyed ones, put in new ones.


----------



## Glider (Jun 15, 2007)

T4.H said:


> You can also say:
> 
> Glider
> 06-07-2007, 09:54 PM
> ...



True but with space being at a premium on board ship where do you store the large quantities of wood to repair the deck at sea?

Cement is much easier


----------



## renrich (Jun 15, 2007)

The Nautilus and her sister ship Narwhal were large and unwieldy subs that were only used for special duty like landing troops or carrying supplies. They were not very effective in sinking the Japanese merchant marine like the fleet boats were.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 16, 2007)

Could this have been the best destroyer class of WWII? Anyone that knows what USS Charles Ausburne's claim to fame is?


----------



## T4.H (Jun 16, 2007)

Hmm...

I would say: shimakaze class...
But only one was build...
So the shimakaze class is no class, only one ship.

Long Lancers
Shimakaze Class


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 16, 2007)

THAT is one hell of a destroyer, eh?


----------



## T4.H (Jun 16, 2007)

Three quintuple torpedo mounts...Long Lances...

Look at this...


Japanese Torpedoes
The best torpedo of all time (each period)
20,000m @ 48 kts
32,000m @ 40 kts
40,000m @ 36 kts
1080 lbs. explosive charge


Mark 15 torpedo (destroyer torpedo of the US Navy)
5,500m @ 45 kts
9,150m @ 33 kts
13,700m @ 26 kts
825 lbs. explosive charge

All japanese destroyers have had some disadvantages.
slow turning rate of there main armament turrets (useless against aircrafts)
bad sonar systems.
realy bad AA guns.


----------



## Glider (Jun 17, 2007)

Impressive but not the best. A destroyer has to be able to fight all enemys and whilst I certainly wouldn't want to fight her in a night surface combat she lacks AA guns and A/S abilities.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 18, 2007)

The Shimakaze class is perfectly suited for the ASW and AA warfare. She fields 5"/50 DP guns in fully enclosed twin mounts. The mounts of Shimakaze and the Yugumo class DD´s (the only modified 5"/50´s) were given an elevation of 75 degrees and a more powerful training motor, which turns this gun into a true DP-gun. It outranged US 5" guns by almost 4000 yards and had decent ballistic perfromance with a very good AAA ceiling. The Shimakaze also had 18 DC´s with two depth charge throwers. Not overly much but adaequate for the ASW task.
Her type 21 radar, while inferior to contemporary US sets, still gives a credible scouting ability, the way Shimakaze usually was used in ww2.


----------



## Glider (Jun 18, 2007)

True but she didn't have the proximity fuze which made a vast difference, she didn't have the 40mm also a significant advance over the 25mm. Range means next to nothing on a destroyer as the ship itself makes such a poor gun platform and 18 DC's would not up up for the task as well as her ADSIC being a poor performer.
I am afraid I don't think she is up to the AA or ASW role.

Whilst her radar gives scouting ability it is very poor compared to the allied radars who could keep her at arms length and she wouldn't know about it.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 18, 2007)

Glider said:


> Whilst her radar gives scouting ability it is very poor compared to the allied radars who could keep her at arms length and she wouldn't know about it.



As early as 1942, the IJN was using passive detection of US radar beams to determine approximate locations of naval forces.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 19, 2007)

True, gun platform rating of DD´s typically was low but Shimakaze bested it´s contenders in this aspect (mostly thanks to her advantage in size).
It´s also true that the proxy fuze improves AAA capabilities and the japanese didn´t had one. 
That doesn´t make her a poor performer, either. Shimakaze was packed up with 25mm and the IJN considered that gun adaequate (I personally would prefer the 40mm anytime, too). The 5"/50 is not as good an AAA as the 3.9"/65 of the A. class DD´s (which most scholars regard as the best ww2 DP gun) but it is not bad in the AAA role and definetely superior in the surface role.
Shimakaze had longer legs than other DD´s and could outrun most as well.
An interesting what if remains in case Shimakaze would not have been packed up with survivors at Samar, keeping her away from action. Her torpedo battery never would find such a formidable target rich environment again.


----------



## Glider (Jun 19, 2007)

Delc
I agree with a lot of what you said its just my belief that overall she wasn't as good as the Sunner Class. Its worth noting that to significantly increase the number of 25mm carried she had to lose wher X turret leaving her with 4 x 5in and 28 x 25mm

Syscom 
I was't aware of the Japanese use of passive location, much appreciated.


----------



## Ghostdancer (Oct 6, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The only reason I did not rate the Yamato is because we never got to see how it really would be, if I recall the Yamato and the Musashi never fired there main guns in anger.



I don't know if either of these ships were even included in any of the Japanese Navy's planned operations. Their only action was when they were sunk by carrier planes. Well, I know that this was the fate of the Yamato, was the Musashi also sunk by carrier planes?


----------



## renrich (Oct 17, 2007)

Yamato and Musashi were both sunk by carrier AC. It was Musashi, I think, who fired her main battery at Leyte Gulf at the surface ships of Sprague. I don't believe she made any hits. Both Musashi and Yamato fired their main batteries whilst being attacked by ac.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 21, 2007)

Yamato actually fired her main battery in combat during oct. 1944 against Taffy 3 off Samar.
Altough actual evidence is problematic at best, the survivors of USS Gambier Bay (CVE) believe that they received critical damage from 18" rounds and Yamato claimed hits on an escort carrier and a destroyer. Probably these rounds -if APC- did only caused large holes but went through the entire hull. Evidence is overwhelming that critical damage was done by 8" rounds fired from the cruisers. It should be noted that in this action, Yamato and a superior cruiser force were chased off by very skillfully deployed US DD attacks, preventing that Yamato could be utitlized to it´s full potential. In theory, the IJN enjoiing numerical and force advantage should be able to wipe out Taffy 1-3 entirely as no CVE had a speed to disengage...


----------



## eddie_brunette (Oct 26, 2007)

Ok, I'm not very big on the ships, but what about the little PT Boats? Saw "Battle Stations" on THC and those guys really were insane or have steel, copper or golden balls


----------



## ColesAircraft (Oct 27, 2007)

The most powerful mechanical weapon ever built by man?

index

-Ron Cole


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2007)

ColesAircraft said:


> The most powerful mechanical weapon ever built by man?
> 
> ]
> 
> -Ron Cole



Most certainly not!

She was sunk by Aircraft Carrier Aircraft.

Aircraft Carriers are the most powerful weapons (minus Nukes).


----------



## ColesAircraft (Oct 29, 2007)

Actually, an aircraft carrier is a big barge with a flat top, and aircraft are individual machines with limited individual power. Yamato was a single operating machine, excluding launches and recon aircraft.

- Ron


----------



## delcyros (Oct 29, 2007)

Carrier have replaced battleships as the prime weapon of naval warfare mostly because they do project firpower over a larger area. While a BB may project it´s firepower to no more than 20nm distance, a carrier does this to no less than 200nm distance.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2007)

ColesAircraft said:


> Actually, an aircraft carrier is a big barge with a flat top, and aircraft are individual machines with limited individual power. Yamato was a single operating machine, excluding launches and recon aircraft.
> 
> - Ron



The aircraft can project more firepower with its aircraft. It is a more deadlier weapon. That is why after WW2 most Navies stopped building and using Battleships and building Aircraft Carriers.

The largest and most powerful ships ever built by man to this date are the Nimitz Class Carriers (again excluding Nuclear Subs and so forth but this is about largest and therefore it is the Carrier.)

Carrier Airpower proved to be the end of the Battleship.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Oct 29, 2007)

The _Yamato_ never proved herself in combat. Adler is right, the aircraft carrier rules.

And by the way, one on one, I would take any Iowa class BB over the Yamato.

TO


----------



## ccheese (Oct 29, 2007)

Has anyone thought what we would have done _*without*_ all those
landing craft ? They seemed pretty important at every amphibious landing
the US undertook !!

Charles


----------



## ToughOmbre (Oct 29, 2007)

ccheese said:


> Has anyone thought what we would have done _*without*_ all those
> landing craft ? They seemed pretty important at every amphibious landing
> the US undertook !!
> 
> Charles



No doubt Charles. But I wouldn't classify them as warships. 

My old man came ashore on Utah Beach on an LCVP.

TO


----------



## delcyros (Oct 29, 2007)

Both, Yamato and Musashi prooved theirselfe in combat, at least four times I am aware off.
A single ww2 CV may hurt a modern BB but has little to no chance to sink any of the modern BB´s (barring a fluke hit like Bismarck). What Yamato Musashi doomed was a concentration of US aircrafts which was unbelievable previously, including well over 300 bombers and deficiancies of their designed protective scheme (the thick and almost impenetrable belt had faulty rivetting, the inclined lower belt was prone to give way due to beeing installed non vertically and the whole protected box covered to little of the waterline).
Land based bombers could make full effect from either guided APC freefall bombs (Do-217K with Fitz-X) or superheavy bombs (Lancaster with Tallboys or Grand Slam), both of those may easily sink a modern BB.
But those modern ww2 BB´s were reasonably well protected against bombs dropped from carrier strike planes and eventually also from aircraft torpedoes, prior to introduction of Torpex as warhead.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Oct 29, 2007)

delcyros said:


> Both, Yamato and Musashi prooved theirselfe in combat, at least four times I am aware off.



"four times"  

Yamato and Musashi fired there 18.1 inch guns only once in anger at enemy ships (Battle of Leyte Gulf) with no confirmed hits. Yamato withdrew, Musashi was sunk.

Yamato was caught by American carrier aircraft and sunk during "Operation Ten-Go", the suicide mission to Okinawa in 1945.

Just when and where did Yamato and Musashi "prove themselves in combat"? 

TO


----------



## delcyros (Oct 29, 2007)

Beside of non combat operations 

No.1 (25th of dec. 1943):

Yamato beeing torpedoed off Truk by USS Skate in dec. 1943.
Altough in this action Yamato did not actively attacked an enemy, she showed elementary damage controll actions, justifying the term "combat prooven". The joint between upper and lower belt failed between frame 151 and 173 and thus a large amount of floodwater entered the ship. Yamatos crew was able to contain the flooding and stabilize the ship.

No.2 (24th of oct. 44):

Musashi and Yamato firing their main artillery off Sibuyan Sea against enemy planes (with delay fuzed special AA shells). Musashi received a possible max. of 17 bomb and 18 torpedo hits (altough 9 torpedohits are more credible estimates according to DC reports of it´s survivors) and eventually sunk later. Yamato received a total of 3 bomb hits and continued to proceed for Leyte.

No. 3 (25th of oct. 44):

Yamato continues to proceed into the Leyte Gulf, resulting in the battle of Samar, Yamato fired a total of 106 18.1" rounds, contributing to the sinking of 2 DD´s and the CVE Gambier Bay.

No. 4 (7th of april 45):

So called "Kamikaze"-sortie of Yamato against US operations of Okinawa. Yamato beeing subject of 386 carrier strike sorties, in whiches cause she received up to 13 torpedohits and 8 heavy bomb hits. Yamato fired her main battery against enemy planes, altough with no effect and finally succombed to the damage received.


That are four events in open sea, where she either attacked or was subject of enemy attacks. Few ww2 modern BB had such a "tight" operational record.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Oct 29, 2007)

delcyros said:


> Beside of non combat operations
> 
> No.1 (25th of dec. 1943):
> 
> ...



Quite an impressive record  

Doesn't come close to the combat records of almost any American BB, not to mention the CVs. Those two Japanese battleships were not much more than floating headquarters.

TO


----------



## mkloby (Oct 29, 2007)

Good info Del - but I would hesitate to equate "bullet sponge" with "combat proven."


----------



## delcyros (Oct 30, 2007)

While there is certainly room for discussion whether the definition of combat prooven does or not does include agressive action, the factor "staying power" is almost defining a BB. Once You receive damage by enemy action, You are in combat- at least that´s how I do see it.

Yamato´s combat record in this respect is more intensive than the combat record of most contemporary modern BB´s (not included coastal bombardments and participation on operations without naval engagement):

BB Tirpitz (0 actions)
BB Beatty (0 actions)
BB Anson (0 actions)
BB Wisconsin (0 actions)
BB King George V (1 naval action)
BB Duke of Yorck (1 naval action)
BB New Yersey (1 naval action)
BB Missouri (1 action)
BB North Carolina (1 action)
BB Indiana (1 action)
BB Alabama (1 action)
BB Dunkerque (1 naval action)
BB Strassbourg (1 naval action)
BB Richelieu (1 naval action)
BB Jean Beart (1 action)
BB Roma (1 action)
BB Hood (2 naval actions)
BB Washington (2 naval actions)
BB Iowa (2 actions)

Therefore, Yamato´s combat record is ok for a BB, altough the ship wasn´t utilized to it´s full potential.
Of course, a CV gave more returns than a BB in terms of utilization.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Oct 30, 2007)

Del, your "facts" are slanted to say the least. IMO you can't disregard *ANY* combat operation, as you conveniently do.

The question was, pure and simple, *Best World War II Warships*, no qualifiers.

I'll just address the American BBs. *Bold* data is my answer to your original post.

BB Wisconsin (0 actions) *Wisconsin earned five battle stars for her World War II service and one for Korea.*

BB New Yersey (1 naval action) *New Jersey earned the Navy Unit Commendation for Vietnam service. She has received nine battle stars for World War II; four for the Korean conflict; and two for Vietnam.*

BB Missouri (1 action) *Missouri received three battle stars for World War II service and five for Korean service.*

BB North Carolina (1 action) *North Carolina received 15 battle stars for World War II service, more than any other U.S. battleship during the war.*

BB Indiana (1 action) *Indiana received nine battle stars for World War II service.*

BB Alabama (1 action) *Alabama received nine battle stars for her World War II service.*

BB Washington (2 naval actions) *Washington (BB-56) earned 13 battle stars during World War II in operations that had carried her from the Arctic Circle to the western Pacific.*

BB Iowa (2 actions) *Iowa earned nine battle stars for World War II service and two for Korean service.*

Yamato and Musashi aren't in the same universe. One on one, any Iowa would blow the Yamato class (or any other BB for that matter) out of the water. Ask any naval expert.

Respectfully,

TO


----------



## delcyros (Oct 30, 2007)

Without wanting to take away anything from the well deserved reputation of US BB´s, Battle Star´s were given for very various events, including the participation in a campaign without naval or aerial gunfire action (this was done repeatedly) and Battle stars were also credited for participation of coastal bombardements, which don´t tell us anything about combat qualities. I excluded operations, which did not resulted in inflicting damage or receiving damage. As US BB´s, Yamato and Musashi served as cover for CV operations but unlike those they haven´t been used for coastal bombardement.

Regarding Your comment on Iowa, blasting Yamato out of the water, I made years ago a detailed analyses of both ships in gunnery action vice versa guns vs armour using Nathan Okuns Facehard and M79APCLC as well as metal properties derived from his misc. armour sourcework. I wouldn´t qualify myselfe as a naval expert, altough I do know who are the experts and have enjoied discussion with them. Be sure, ToughOmbre, there is no such comment made by any of the authorities.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 30, 2007)

What is the definition of "Naval Action"?
What degree of participation merits a "Battle Star" ?

The Yamoto and Musashi are magnificent but just cause they had 18 inch guns and a wide beam does not make them the best.
.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 30, 2007)

The Yamato class of BB is the ultimate classic gunship. While her guns are second to none in terms of range and penetration (US 16"/45 firing superheavy 2700 lbs APC do have comparable long range (deck) penetration power but are inferior in penetration of vertical surfaces over the whole range of distances) and way superior in terms of destructive potential (blast effects, fragmentation and kinetic energy) compared to any gun ever put on the seas, also it´s protection was better than any other warship.
It´s turret face plates beeing twice as thick as Bismarck´s main belt and -while not as effective in reltive stopping power- are still the only armour plates installed in any warship, which cannot be defeated by any gun the way they are installed (leaning back 45 degrees). 
The CT, turret barbette armour were the thickest ever installed into a warship and unlikely to be penetrated by any gun except at close distances. The embedded vitals enjoied the protection of the thickest armour deck to be put ever on a warship AND the thickest main belt to be ever installed into a warship. The details of inclined arrangement offered even increased stopping power and protection from below (mine protection bottom, the only BB to have one!). I am well aware of deficiancies in the design, which are thoroughly understood since years and produce weak spots in the armour scheme at certain conditions, but such weak spots are not uncommon in other warships, esspeccially in the Iowa-class.
One on one, Iowa should use it´s superior speed and either disengage or seek conditions to close the distance to below 16Kyards respectively. Below 16.000 yards, both ships are equally vulnarable to each other main guns, beyond this distance, Yamato has an appreciable and distinctive advantage.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 30, 2007)

Of all the US "fast" Battleships, only the USS Washington was involved in a classic gun duel at sea.

All the other actions the BB's were in were for shore bombardment and air defense roles.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Oct 30, 2007)

Del, one of the most important factors you fail to mention is *fire control*. The following is from the Imperial Japanese Navy website and it talks about fire control better than I ever could. 

"Then there's the fact that all radar fire-control is not created equal. Radar operating at meter or decimeter wavelengths is useful for ranging, but lacks the angular accuracy necessary for training. In practical terms, this means that a decimetric set can develop a range solution via radar, but must rely on an optical director to supply training information for the battery. This hybrid fire-control solution is, of course, limited by the quality of the optics available, and also by the visual horizon (which is closer than the radar horizon), and weather conditions. Only with the advent of 10cm and (later) 3cm wavelength sets was true 'blindfire' radar fire-control achievable, wherein the firing ship need never come into visual range of the opposing vessel. The Germans, Japanese, and Italians never developed sets of this capability (both the Japanese (despite its 10cm wavelength) and German sets were usable for fire control against a battleship-sized target only out to a range of about 27,000 yards.) The bottom line is, then, that the Allied vessels, and particularly Iowa and South Dakota, would enjoy an enormous advantage in gunfire control over their adversaries. She would have the ability to lob shells over the visual horizon, and would also perform better in complete darkness or adverse weather conditions.

The final adjusted rating also reflects the fact that American FC systems employed by far the most advanced stable vertical elements in the world. In practical terms, this meant that American vessels could keep a solution on a target even when performing radical maneuvers. In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns. This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems, and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other."

TO


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 30, 2007)

<<TO --- I typed all this crap and u beat me to it by a couple minutes!..Dont forget damage control too!>>

Thanks for breaking that down delycros. For the sake of discussion lets assume daylight action...

All the facts you state (very interesting) assume 2 things:

The NJ and Yam have equal accuracy and equal damage control

I have read that U.S. fire control and damage control were second to none.

I think no U.S. B.B. Skipper in his right mind would attempt to take on the Yam or Mus one on one... but in the confusion of battle with subs, destroyers and aircraft all adding to the mix, it's not unthinkable that a NJ class (or two) could close with the Japanese monsters.

Assuming that there were no catastrophic HMS Hood-like explosions, I believe that the U.S ships would land more critical hits and better manage any damage...

what are your thoughts on Japanese fire control and damage control?

There is no doubt that the Japanese ships had a longer reach and bigger knock out blow... but u gotta land a punch and take a punch too!


----------



## WARSPITER (Oct 31, 2007)

Interesting information on these ships. Thank you. Just a couple of things for perspective;

One post mentions the number of actions for various battle ships but there are a few missing. I don't know if anti aircraft fire counts as actions though as there must have been a lot of battle ships going through those kind of attacks fairly frequently. It's good to see HMS Warspite getting a mention though as that ship was in a lot of actions during the second world war as well as being at Jutland in the first.

Another thing I didn't know about was the apparent electrical problem with the South Dakota. How many ships had different problems which refused to be found?
The Warspite is again a good example here. She was prone to sticking when on full rudder. This happened at Jutland and she circled a smaller British ship several times until the rudder decided it was alright to move again. The crew of the other ship presented Warspite with gifts of alcohol etc for taking the fire of the German ships at the time and selflessly putting Warspite in harms way to protect one of their own. I don't know if anyone from Warspite ever told them the truth but I bet they accepted the drinks. Warspite did the same thing a couple of times in WWII and the problem was never found. Apparently her four sister ships of the class never had this happen.

Does anyone know of these types of problems with other ships?

By the way, I am not saying the Warspite was the best Battleship of the war but she probably should have been preserved as she was heavily involved.

My vote would have to go to the American IOWA class as they were well built, fast, and well armed. from what I have read these ships were also very reliable, a definite requirement for long term operations in war.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 31, 2007)

HMS Warspite does not belong to the group of modern BB´s represented in the list above, altough she initially was part of the fast wing concept, perhaps the earliest approach of an fast battleship. Warspite perhaps gave the best returns in terms of utilization of any battleship ever put on the seas.

The problems with her steering gear was a more severe design fault. The steering gear was modifed but basically overtaken from the preceeding Iron Duke class, altough the Queen Elizabeths should be a good 3-4 Kts faster (with almost TWICE the load on the steering gear if full rudder is applied at flank speed). Therefore, the steering gear tended to jam under full rudder, flank speed conditions (two weeks prior to Jutland, HMS Barham experienced the same rudder jam at high speed maneuvering off Scapa Flow, the issue indeed is a class wide aspect)

The radar FC issues put forward by TO are aspects but not as decisive as can be read on the website he quotes from. Radar is upgradable. So You have to be very careful to compare ships states in their same period with each other.
The best german radar set in use on a naval ship f.e. was operating on the 6 cm wavelength (Prinz Eugen). No german BB got these sets as they were inoperable by 1945. Comparing Tirpitz 1943 outfit with Iowas by mid 1945 is leading us nowhere, seriously...
Yamato´s FC was excellent, able to deliver tight patterns precisely. The Gambier Bay reports do make this clear. Yamatos nightoptics and training for nightfighting were arguably the best. Her radar was not. Radar is only ONE PART IN FIRECONTROLL, which includes optical or electromagnetic datacollection, ballistic computing, interior ballistics, gun dispersion, salvo patterns at ranges, angle of descent (the higher the shorter the area at which a shell might still hit a target), time of flight (the longer the higher the probability that an enemy ship may evade the shell, esspeccially at long range). But to understand for what radar is an advantage one should previously investigate how firecontroll solutions are obtained in a naval battle:

Predicting a target’s future position is a daunting task. This is exactly why weapons in the post war era went to guided weapons. Brad Fisher thinks one of the big misunderstandings with the gunnery problem is that it isn’t the target’s velocity per se, it’s the error in the calculated track and the attendant errors in range and bearing rate that are the primary causes for MPI errors. To get an accurate track you need not only accurate data but also a high data rate so that you reduce any lag in the track.
With the advent of continuous radar ranges (from 1938 in german sets and 1940 in british sets onwards), a proficient rangekeeper operator could track a target to with 2 degrees and 2kts. This translates to a range rate error of 19yds/minute and a bearing rate error of 67yds/minute (the latter assumes a broadside target). The problem is that early radars had discrimination problems as well as limited performance and slow rate of data transmission- early radar operators passed ranges to plot/TS via voice circuits (The first battleship to have integrated radar into it´s main firecontroll computer was Bismarck, and this was done late in 1940 by the AVKS with improvising means). This had two negative effects; one is that there is an obvious lag of several to tens of seconds in the reception of said ranges while the second is that there is a larger lag in waiting for the plotting of ranges and the extraction of the observed range rate.
With continuous ranges transmitted to plot – but not into the computer itself – went a long way to alleviate those two problems. Now ranges from the radar can be directly observed by the computer operator via a range indicator right next to the computer. He can “drive in” ranges as necessary and he can compare and any instant the observed range from the range indicator to the range as generated by the computer. If the two are in agreement in range and rate of movement, then the solution is good. If they two values become unsynchronized, then the target has changed course/speed and he needs to update his track. This process is much faster than that with early radars, to say nothing of optical ranges, and was further improved upon with automatic range input into the computers and range aided tracking.
Of course, radar tracking is not always a panacea. Long time of flight (TOF) couple with aggressive maneuvering could reduce effectiveness of fire considerably. A large factor in this is the target’s maneuverability and the tactical situation. Often in WWII most gunnery actions were generally small unit actions with smaller, more fluid formations. Few were with “traditional” column formations (battle line). Battle of River Plate is a prime example and was a very difficult gunnery problem for both sides so I do not think that the overall hit percentages are terribly surprising. Challenges were still seen even into late 1943 when FC reached maturity, where targets were difficult to hit not because of track lag but often because the inability to spot effectively as targets were either out of spotting range or the conditions weren’t favorable for blind fire (usually because the particular radar wasn’t capable of doing so)

The US Navy deployed four types of fire control radar in 1941: CXAS-1/FA/Mark 1, FB/Mark 2, FC/Mark 3, and FD/Mark 4. BuShips, which made search radars used the letter designations; BuOrd, which made fire control radars used the Mark system. Thus, fire control radars had two designations - BuShips and BuOrd - and they appear to be used interchangably in the literature. Depends on how pedantic you want to be, I guess - both Stern and Howeth use the BuShips terminology.

FA went into production in June of 1941. Howeth indicates that the USN purchased 10 CXAS-1/FA sets, all earmarked for cruisers - one on Witchita, the remaining nine on light cruisers. FA was a very crude gunnery radar. The operator was required to swing the antenna back and forth manually while watching the oscilloscope, during which time he estimated the range. The FA radar performed satisfactorily when operating at peak performance, but this performance was difficult to maintain because of the relatively short life (about 75 hours) of the oscillator tubes.

In October 1941, FC was first installed in the fleet, aboard Philadelphia. As had been planned for in the Model FB, the control console and indicators were remotely located in the directors. An additional 10 FC sets were produced and installed on ships before December 7, 1941 - Saratoga got two of them. FD was designed as an anti-aircraft fire control radar, very similar to FC, but with the radar arrays stacked vertically instead of horizontally. This installation was completed prior to 22 September and on that date the Roe put to sea. Delivery of production equipment did not begin until December 1941.
CXAM was very unreliable and tended to refuse detecting ships while operating at high speed or on any any seastate larger than 3 (Lexington and Saratoga reported this). Lexington took RCA technicians with her for a gunnery shoot in October, 1941. The CXAM was out of action by the fifth 8" salvo - vibration jarred loose tubes and soldier connections. The CXAM was also a casualty on the 2nd day - gunnery knocked the power leads loose. Cracks and short circuits were also noted in the oscillator valves. These sets continued to have frequent breakdowns.
Lexington Saratoga were the first US capital ships to have these FC radar sets. Saratoga's Mark 3 installation was very early compared to when most ships got Mark 3 - she appears to be the first capital ship to receive gunnery fire control radar. It is quite possible that Saratoga would not have recieved her FC radars as early as she did if she carried 8 16" instead of 8 8". The US Navy was putting it's available fire control radars on it's screen first and the capital ships second.
Thus, unless the fight is late in December 1941 and the USN decides to give Saratoga her historical priority on FC sets, I don't expect either ship to have gunnery control radar at all - nor do I expect their surface search sets to be functional much into the engagement. Quite frankly, the main gunnery aid in 1941 will be her spotter planes, if she can launch them. 
By 1942 the BB already has lost it´s importance to the CV.

BTW, the US with latewar, blindfire radar FC did not succeeded to hit a freely moving, enemy target at any distance larger than 23.000 yards. (Nowaki incident)
Scharnhorst Warspite with optical FC succeeded to hit a freely moving target at 26.000 yards+ each, representing the longest ever gunfire hits! 

Good radar is great to reduce some interrelated errors in range and bearing, thus enhancing the firing solution. But radar cannot be operated in vacuum. AntiRadar-shells were to be tested in ww2 UK and Germany and radar FC did not improved hitting probabilities per se on long range engagements. The way how they were operated is much more important.

A classic example is how both battleships thought they were hitting Sendai’s group with their main battery during the first phase of action. Recall that the Mk 3 radar’s – upon which they were relying for spotting – have low resolution in range and bearing. From practice reports it’s clear that radar spots from these sets are inaccurate and salvos spotted as straddles aren’t. This is a product of the poor range resolution ± 400yds. So with that in mind I have no doubt that based on radar information they thought they were hitting even though they weren’t.

P.S.: many thanks to Bill Jurens, Brad Fisher Tiornu

best regards,


----------



## renrich (Oct 31, 2007)

Comis, I have to respectfully disagree with you. I believe that any USN commander of an Iowa class BB would take on a Yamato class one v one in a New York minute. I believe, for instance Ching Lee would think he was fulfilling the dream of a lifetime to have that encounter and I believe no American BB skipper would avoid that match. The Japanese damage control at least early in the war was very poor.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 31, 2007)

I agree, Renrich.

It was part of the US doctrine to use BB´s. And we shouldn´t forget that by this time everybody except estimated Yamato to be equipped with 16" guns. This was "known" by US skippers. Even had they recognized the true size of Yamato, I doubt that they wouldn´t take on her. Even DD skippers took on Yamato off Samar! And they did very successfully, I would like to add (2 jap. cruisers lost).

I wouldn´t put Iowa personally as the best ww2 battleship, this has to be Yamato with it´s superior protection and firepower, hands down. The Iowa class instead is the worlds finest ever battlecruiser, balancing speed with firepower and staying power for the expanse of displacement (very comparable to how HMS Hood, another excellent design balanced it´s combat aspects in the 20´s).


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 31, 2007)

renrich said:


> Comis, I have to respectfully disagree with you. I believe that any USN commander of an Iowa class BB would take on a Yamato class one v one in a New York minute. I believe, for instance Ching Lee would think he was fulfilling the dream of a lifetime to have that encounter and I believe no American BB skipper would avoid that match. The Japanese damage control at least early in the war was very poor.



I'm sure any US commander would _*want *_to but by that time in the war, It was obvious that air power was a better tool. I think, given a choice, the BB skipper would avoid direct contact... I wouldn't be surprise if the US admirals ordered the BB skippers to avoid a surface action. Let the planes do the dirty work. The battleship guns are needed for beach assaults!

Now lets say that all that stood between the beaches of Okinawa and the Yamato was a NJ class BB... No doubt the the US BB would do whatever it could to stop the Yamato... LONG LIVE TAFFY 3!...


----------



## renrich (Nov 1, 2007)

Comis, I believe that the US BB commanders, including Halsey were foaming at the mouth to come to within gun range of the Japanese BBs. I am sure that Oldendorf was most appreciative of his opportunity at Surigao Strait and there probably was some trash talk going on later between the crews of the old BBs and the fast BBs. It would have been good strategy to take out the Jap heavies with air but those guys commanding the fast BBs, I am sure, were hopeful of testing their mettle against the behemoths. By the way, I can't find my reference, but I am sure that I read that the Iowa class were designed to withstand 18 inch weapons. Whether they would have withstood that is another question.


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 1, 2007)

It would have been very interesting.... I'm sure the BB crews were tired of excavating real estate with their 16 inchers.


----------



## renrich (Nov 1, 2007)

Yes, not very exciting or valorous to have finally become the CO of a fast BB and spend all your time either acting as a AA battery or digging up sand on the beaches.


----------



## Glider (Nov 1, 2007)

renrich said:


> Yes, not very exciting or valorous to have finally become the CO of a fast BB and spend all your time either acting as a AA battery or digging up sand on the beaches.



Digressing a little the old WW1 Battleship Iron Duke which had been used as a training ship and had most of her guns removed, was disguised as a KGV class warship, stuffed with AA guns and used as a decoy/floating AA battery on some convoys in the Med.
Saw a photo once and the disguise was pretty good


----------



## WARSPITER (Nov 2, 2007)

Thaks for the info on the steering problems with the Queen Elizabeth class. Warspite must have been a little more prone than the rest as she managed to have that fault when under tow as well.

I also didn't know about the Iron Duke being used in the Med. thanks.

This is off the subject a bit ( actually a lot ), but can anyone help with how far a Napoleonic ship of the line could turn into the wind in one go? In our games system we use 1/1200th scale ships and most rules allow two points per move with the wind and one into the wind. That seems right to me but there is some argument for allowing a two point turn (45deg) into the wind. I think this would have been a recipe for rigging damage on those ships from what I have read.

Since I don't have Lord Nelsons' email I hoppe someone here may be able to help.


----------



## Messy1 (Nov 24, 2007)

Here is a interesting website I have come across in my searches across the web. Chuch Hawks is the owner of the site. I think he has a ton of good info, and also some interesting stories.

NAVAL, AVIATION AND MILITARY HISTORY: Warships, Aircraft, and Military topics


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 17, 2008)

The Bismark could have used a decent complement of catapult-launched defence a/c, and maby a short fligh-deck. It wouldn't take an advanced a/c to down a Stringbag, so a very short deck with obsolecesent a/c with STOL could be used.

The Bismark was supposedly capable of carrying 4x Ar 196, but these only had a single MG 15 in a defensive position, though the land-based version had a cowl-mounted MG 17 and 2x wing-mounted MG FF. 

If a short flight deck had been included, fighters like the Ar 197 (or others originally designed for the Zeplin with STOL capabillities) would have been adequate for defence aganst Swordfish. Perhaps navy Bf 109T's could be used, but catapult launching would be the only option, and recovery on a short flight deck would be difficult. (though it could work, as long as the arrestor hook engaged, otherwise.... crash!)


Though with all that the Germans would have been better off building carriers to use in the anti-shipping role. Fitted with 109T's and suitable torpedo bombers and maby somthing like a carrier based Stuka, the RN would be in for some trouble. Though this hay hve led to more decent fighters beeing used earlier in the RN as well. (ie Sea Hurricanes and maby Gloster's F.5/34 design). Though a Sea Gladiator could take on an Ar 197 and most torpedo- and dive-bommbers, the Fulmar was almost no good as a fighter, and neither craft could handel a 109.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2008)

The Bismarcks Ar 196 were not there for defense, they were on the ship for scouting and mail.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 17, 2008)

I know, that's why there was no offensive armament, but it would have been useful to carry somthing capable of intercepting Swordfish.

Still though, if the Germans had developed aircraft carriers (not Air-ship/Zepplin carriers) along with their other naval tech just prior to the war, it could have been bad for the Allies. Can you immagine a coordinated carrier-based attack (along with the land-based attacks) durring the Battle of britain?


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jan 17, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Can you immagine a coordinated carrier-based attack (along with the land-based attacks) durring the Battle of britain?



The RAF and the Royal Navy would have attacked and done major damage to their carrier fleet. 

TO


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 18, 2008)

What if the carriers were used out of range of RAF fighters? Attacking British shipping coordinated with the handful of submarines available. Probably wouldn't have changed the outcome, but probably alot more damage done before the end.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 18, 2008)

Ar-196´s were not designed to, but occassionally did fight carrier planes. Tirpitz scrambled two Ar-196 late in 1942, which engaged Fairy Albacore´s. The two Ar-196 were able to put up a shortliving fight until the scouting Albacores found shelter in cloud cover. The Albacores weren´t designed to be used as a fighter, either.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 18, 2008)

But I don't think the Ar-196's used on the Bismark had offensive guns, just the rear MG 15 and were strictly recon a/c. From what I read (Wikipedia mind you) it was the later, land-based versions which carried a foreward armament as heavy as a single MG 17 and 2x MG FF cannons. Of course I don't know a lot on this and if you know otherwise I'd be glad to hear it.

On the other hand, all models of Swordfish and Albacores carried a single foreward .303 machine gun in addition to rear mounts (up to 2 .303 rear guns in the Albacore), not much but better than nothing and useful for ranging in for bombing, though not much for torpedo runs.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 19, 2008)

Bismarck and Tirpitz were equipped with Ar-196A3, which serially had two 20mm forward firing guns:

Battleship Bismarck, German Kriegsmarine

however, Bismarck couldn´t launch any Ar-196 due to the problem of the damaged launch catapult.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 19, 2008)

And I guess the couldn't take off from the water either. (no wat to lower them)

How were the Ar-196's retreived after a mission. Was there a retrieval crane? If so it may have been possible to lower them into the water for take-off, though the water may have been too rough.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> And I guess the couldn't take off from the water either. (no wat to lower them)
> 
> How were the Ar-196's retreived after a mission. Was there a retrieval crane? If so it may have been possible to lower them into the water for take-off, though the water may have been too rough.



Yes the Ar 196's could take off from the water. There was a crain to retrieve them and therefore it could lower them.



delcyros said:


> however, Bismarck couldn´t launch any Ar-196 due to the problem of the damaged launch catapult.



I have allways wondered why they did not just lower them into the water to launch them unless the seas were to heavy at the time.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 20, 2008)

They couldn´t lower them due to the seastate (force 7). The waves had gale and were much taller than the Ar-196. It would be suicidal.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2008)

delcyros said:


> They couldn´t lower them due to the seastate (force 7). The waves had gale and were much taller than the Ar-196. It would be suicidal.



That is what I allways thought. Thanks.


----------



## Don Cook (Mar 9, 2008)

delcyros said:


> ..rather strange how this discussion is placed in a ww1 mainlevel topic.
> Ok-my two cents on:
> 1.) BB: umm, Yamato for me. (unmatched protection and firepower (Iowas super heavy AP MK 8 shells were equal only for armor penetration at very long ranges, at medium to close range nothing could match an 18.1" AP round as nothing could match the japanese 18.1" shells in pure terms of destructiveness)-key factors for battleships)
> 2.) BC: Hood (handsome ship, decent speed, decent firepower, prestigeous)
> ...


I have seen and touched the Prinz Eugen (sister ship to the Bismark) it is in the Marshall Islands close to Kwajaleine missle range it is capsized with screws exposed off the atoll of Carlos (Eniwebegan)in around 100 feet of water. 
Germany retrieved the screws (props) and returned them to the motherland. There are also alot of Liberty concrete ships troop transporters around the area also. Just thought I would let you know I saw it. Don


----------



## delcyros (Mar 12, 2008)

Thanks Don. I admit that I would lend my left arm to have been there, too!


----------



## renrich (May 29, 2008)

Prinz Eugen was a heavy cruiser so could not be a sister ship to Bismarck, a battleship. Bismarck's sister ship was Tirpitz. Perhaps you meant she was Bismarck's consort.


----------



## fly boy (May 30, 2008)

battle ship: yamato
hevy curser:Us kind
light curser:US kind with 5in guns
destoryer:felchter class
sub:USS nautalis
carrier:USS enterpirse
pt boat: US kind


----------



## parsifal (May 30, 2008)

I have nominated the best Allied, the best Axis, and then the best overall
CV
Allied: Essex
Axis: Zuikaku
Overall: Essex
CVL
Allied: Colossus
Axis: Zuiho
Overall: Colossus
CVE
Allied: Attacker
Axis: Taiyo
Overall: Attacker
BB
Allied: Iowa
Axis: Yamato
Overall: Yamato
BC
Allied Hood
Axis: Scharnhorst
Overall Hood
CA/CS (Pocket Battleship)
Allied: Boston
Axis: Nachi 
Overall Boston
CL
Allied Brooklyn
Axis: Abruzzi
Overall Brooklyn
CLAA/DDAA
Allied Atlanta
Axis Akitsuki
Overall Akitsuki
DD
Allied Gearing
Axis Shimakaze
Overall Shimakaze
TB
Allied Le Fier
Axis Matsu
Overall Matsu
MTB
Allied MTB 511 (93 ft Vosper type)
Axis: S-100 (114 ft type)
Overall S 100
Submarine
Allied Gato
Axis Type XXI
Overall Type XXI


----------



## starling (May 30, 2008)

do not forget the hunt class destroyrs,that helped out during d-day.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 30, 2008)

renrich said:


> Prinz Eugen was a heavy cruiser so could not be a sister ship to Bismarck, a battleship. Bismarck's sister ship was Tirpitz. Perhaps you meant she was Bismarck's consort.



Good catch. I am surprised I did not catch that. The only sister ship the Bismarck had was the Tirpitz.

I am sure though is talking about escort.


----------



## renrich (May 30, 2008)

flyboy, are you saying that the US CLs with 5 inch guns were the best CLs? Those were built for use as AA cruisers and were really handicapped in a surface action.


----------



## timshatz (May 30, 2008)

Parsifal, not a bad list. Good pics in there. 

Not sure about the destoyer pics though. Granted, I'm partial to the Gearings (served on one) but the Shimakaze looked like an updated 30s design. Granted, it was big and fairly fast. But it looks like a wet ride. 

More like an oversized torpedo boat than a fleet destroyer. 

Maybe it shows a different design philosophy.


----------



## parsifal (May 30, 2008)

Shimakaze was the sole example of her kind, and was the foreunner of the new fleet destroyer for the Japanese fleet. She was not as well protected as the gearings, lacking unitised machinery spaces, and her AA defences were also inferior. She carried 16 x 25mm AA, and the 6 x 5 in guns provided a marginal AA capacity (better than the Brit 4.7, but worse than the 5 in/38 cal US weapon). She was adequately equipped for ASW defence, being provided with 18 DCs and sonar from the start. She was also completed with radar.

Her noteworth features were her heavy armament, and her speed. On trials she made 42 knots, and in service, fully laden, her sea speed was 39 knots. Whilst other DDs had higher theoretical speeds, particuarly the French Contre Torpilleurs, none could maintai such a high speed for such an extended period of time.

The heavy armament was evident in both her guns and her torpedoes. Carrying 15 24 in torps (of the very latest kind), she was able to engage with torps out to about 18000 yds. When you consider that even battleships seldom engaged at ranges more than this (the record being 26000 aet by Warspite in 1940, with Scharnhorst also scoring a similar record against the Glorious, also in 1940) the full power of this type becomes apparent. Her 5in guns also outranged (in terms of effective range) the guns of the gearings by at least 5000 yds.

The downfall of these ships were their cost, their indifferent AA and ASW armament. By the time they arrived, the dominance of carrier aircraft had been well and truly established, and the much cheaper, and more durable Akitsukis offered a better investment for the Japanese. The Akisukis represented, in my opinion the best value for money so far as AA deence was concerned, but in terms of the traditional fleet destroyer, the Shimakaze was the "battleship" of the destroyers.


----------



## Glider (May 31, 2008)

Its a good list. The only things I would comment on are the 

TB
Allied Hunt
Axis Matsu
Overall Matsu

This was close. The Hunt has the Guns and better ASW, the Matsu the Torpedo's and the edge in speed, LAA was similar
For a fleet action then its the Matsu, for escorting the Hunt which is what they were each designed for. If its a shoot out then I gave it to the Matsu.

MTB
Allied Fairmile D
Axis: S-100 (114 ft type)
Overall Fairmile D
Again close, very close. The S100 has a clear advantage in speed but the D has the firepower. I gave it to the D as in action extream speed was little used, the approach being normally being at very slow speeds or even at rest. The key was to have sufficient speed and this I feel the Dog Boat had. When it came to action the D was almost unmatched and the S100 would have to give way. 

DD
Allied Gearing
Axis Shimakaze
Overall Gearing
Again very close but the DD has to be an all round vessel with good AA protection, speed, ASW and the ability to fight with Guns and Torpedo's. The Gearing is good all round, the Shimakaze has strength and gaps and in a war where aircraft are such a threat those gaps are lethal.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 3, 2008)

Glider said:


> MTB
> Allied Fairmile D
> Axis: S-100 (114 ft type)
> Overall Fairmile D
> Again close, very close. The S100 has a clear advantage in speed but the D has the firepower. I gave it to the D as in action extream speed was little used, the approach being normally being at very slow speeds or even at rest. The key was to have sufficient speed and this I feel the Dog Boat had. When it came to action the D was almost unmatched and the S100 would have to give way.



I think the key disadvantage of the D-type was it´s seakeeping ability. The D-type is a true shore combat boat, excellent for this purpose and in a 1 on 1 fight vs any S-boat better, hands down. The S-boats however, had the general advantage in better seakeeping abilities despite beeing rather glider than displacement -propelled crafts. They invested a considerable amount of efforts in establishing the -for their size- extraordinary tolerance to environmental conditions (including waterwings aft to stabilize the trim). The S-boat could engage and disengage at utmost speed without impairing it´s fighting abilities...


----------



## Glider (Jun 3, 2008)

Good points. The German boats were certainly exceptional but the D Class was designed for long range missions some of them going as far as Norway so to think of them as mainly coastal boats is a little unkind.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 3, 2008)

Glider

The reason i didnt pick the Hunts was because they were a bit short on endurance (or so ive read). But they were nevertheless useful ships, and as you point out had significant advantages over the Matsus in certain areas. So I could not object if the Hunts were on the list, or placed as the best available. But the Le Fiers, ton for ton are worth having a look at

I have always had a hard time finding good material on MTBs. I have one book on them. Your description of tactics is basically correct. Nearly always used at night, Tactics usually relied on stealth rather than speed, for both sides


----------



## parsifal (Jun 4, 2008)

delcyros said:


> Hi Del
> 
> *Parsifal, the Panzerschiffe were conforming to their treaty limits within acceptable tolerances.
> standart displacement is what counts. The PB Deutschland had a std. displacement of 10.600t. and a light displacement considerably below 10.000t. The deep load was 14.290t., altough this increased after the Atlantic bow had been refitted (long after the treaty of Versailles and London expired). Follow on ships were a tad bit heavier due to refits and modifications undertaken after war broke out but thats true for all combattants (additional AAA, updated firecontroll...).*
> ...



I am not saying the PBs were invulnerable, but the odds against the three British ships on that December morning were heavily weighted in favour of the Spee, at least on a theoretical level


----------



## trackend (Jun 4, 2008)

Even the fastest vessels are a lot slower than shells. 
A small example is, The Gremans carried out several raids across the Rhine prior to the crossing made by the allies. A number of LCA's had been brought overland from Holland for the crossing.
At night the German storm boats would make dashes across the river while the LCA's on patrol duty would turn the wick down and cruise silently along. 
The phosforesant plume and noise from the outboards made them easy targets and even though the LCA's only carried a Lewis gun, 2 or 3 boats each firing 750 RPM on a stable slow moving platform would rip these much faster little boats to bits.


----------



## Glider (Jun 4, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Glider
> 
> The reason i didnt pick the Hunts was because they were a bit short on endurance (or so ive read). But they were nevertheless useful ships, and as you point out had significant advantages over the Matsus in certain areas. So I could not object if the Hunts were on the list, or placed as the best available. But the Le Fiers, ton for ton are worth having a look at
> 
> I have always had a hard time finding good material on MTBs. I have one book on them. Your description of tactics is basically correct. Nearly always used at night, Tactics usually relied on stealth rather than speed, for both sides



The Le Fliers together with the slightly larger Le Hardi were fine ships but the problem with the Le Fliers were that they were never completed. For that reason I didn't want to include them.
The Hunt did have short legs, certainly when compared with the USN Destroyer Escorts having about a third of the range. 
One small aside the Hunts were I believe the first warships fitted with stabalisers but these were often removed and the space used for extra fuel. What I don't know is how much this helped.


----------



## fly boy (Jun 4, 2008)

renrich said:


> flyboy, are you saying that the US CLs with 5 inch guns were the best CLs? Those were built for use as AA cruisers and were really handicapped in a surface action.



oh then that other kind with eight inch sorry


----------



## delcyros (Jun 4, 2008)

parsifal, side discussion moved to another thread.

regards,


----------



## JugBR (Jun 28, 2008)

submarines !


----------



## AVRoe (Jun 28, 2008)

​*"Liberty ship" *was the name given to the EC2 type ship designed for "Emergency" construction by the United States Maritime Commission in World War II. Liberty ships were nicknamed "ugly ducklings" by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.The Liberty was 441 feet long and 56 feet wide. Her three-cylinder, reciprocating steam engine, fed by two oil-burning boilers produced 2,500 hp and a speed of 11 knots. Her 5 holds could carry over 9,000 tons of cargo, plus airplanes, tanks, and locomotives lashed to its deck. A Liberty could carry 2,840 jeeps, 440 tanks, or 230 million rounds of rifle ammunition.Libertys carried a crew of about 44 and 12 to 25 Naval Armed Guard. Some were armed with:

One 3 inch bow gun 
One 4or 5 inch stern gun 
Two 37 mm bow guns 
Six 20 mm machine guns 
The ability to build merchant shipping at a rate faster than it was lost, while maintaining a steady stream of supplies to the front was one of the keys to winning the war.


----------



## Big Rock (Jul 5, 2008)

Hard not to acknowledge the substantial role the Essex class carriers played in winning the Pacific role. So too the Illustrious class in the Atlantic.


----------



## trackend (Jul 5, 2008)

Cant dispute the brilliance of the Liberty ships but then in many ways that sum's up the USA's incredible industrial out put during WW2 even Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto recognised that the axis forces could not hope to compete on the scale of logistics that would pour out of the factories once war was directly engaged with the USA.
Having said that the liberty ship was not IMO a war vessel but a merchantman. If that is not the case you could then argue that the queens where warships transporting troops. 811000 for RMS Queen Elizabeth  800000 for RMS Queen Mary and averaging 12000-15000 troops per trip.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jul 19, 2008)

BB: Yamato Class
BC: Scharnhorst Class
CA: Prinz Eugen (Late Hipper Class)
CV: Essex Class
CL: Edinburgh Class
DD: Don't know enough about aaall the different classes
SS: Type XXI


----------



## namvet68 (Aug 11, 2008)

1. RN Littorio Class BB
2. Graf Spee
3. RN Zara Class curisers
4. Essex Class Carriers
5. Fletcher Class


----------



## Radarman60 (Sep 28, 2008)

Hi,
I have Aerial Photos of the Aircraft carrier Graf Zepplin that Germany built and she sitting in dockside getting fitted for aircraft. The Photos I have were never published by anybody and they include the Battleship Tirpitz,ADMIRAL SCHEER,LUTZOW PRINCE EUGEN AND HIPPER ALONG WITH THE LIGHT CRUISER NURNBERG,LEIPZIG. AND OTHER CRUISERS OF THE FLEET. These photos were taken by the R.A.F. in 1943-44 Norway, Denmark, and Baltic coast. Does anyone else have such photos of these ships?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2008)

Radarman60 said:


> Hi,
> I have Aerial Photos of the Aircraft carrier Graf Zepplin that Germany built and she sitting in dockside getting fitted for aircraft. The Photos I have were never published by anybody and they include the Battleship Tirpitz,ADMIRAL SCHEER,LUTZOW PRINCE EUGEN AND HIPPER ALONG WITH THE LIGHT CRUISER NURNBERG,LEIPZIG. AND OTHER CRUISERS OF THE FLEET. These photos were taken by the R.A.F. in 1943-44 Norway, Denmark, and Baltic coast. Does anyone else have such photos of these ships?



How do you have photos of the Zeppelin in Norway or Denmark or anywhere other than Germany? The GZ never left Germany. Or am I just not understanding you correctly?


----------



## Glider (Sep 28, 2008)

Be interested in seeing them as I also firmly believe that she never left Germany


----------



## delcyros (Sep 30, 2008)

GZ stayed on the Baltic coast so Radarman is basically correct.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 30, 2008)

I did not think it ever left port, except when the Russian's tried to tow it back to Russia.


----------



## renrich (Sep 30, 2008)

The CAs built by the Germans for WW2 were largely failures. They had major engine problems. Could not compare to the later war US CAs.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 30, 2008)

renrich said:


> The CAs built by the Germans for WW2 were largely failures. They had major engine problems. Could not compare to the later war US CAs.




BIG Call Richard!!! I think the Bostons were better, for the record when all of the elements are taken into account, but the Hipper/Eugen Class were very capable ships (and therefore it seems a little harsh to me to describe them as failures (perhaps they were failures, but not because of design issues, rather in their original specs as short ranged "treaty cruisers" but this was the fashion at the time of their construction...its even arguable whether they were in fact that short ranged, as Del will tell you). 

One has to be very careful when talking "up" the US designs. They were very much the compromise......the 1940 expansion plans were drawn up with treaty limits stil in place, and to speed construction and output, the American simply ordered repeats of the same designs in subsequent fiscal years leading to 1944, rather than update the designs, which were urgently needed (there were a few exceptions to this. One effect of this shortcut to numbers was the increasing topweight of the American cruisers, which particulalry manifested itself in the Clevelands, but was also a much smaller problem in the Bostons. The main part of the fighting was done by the older "treaty" cruisers of the USN, except for the 1945 battles against the kamikazes....so the bostons were never really tested in a hotly contested battle. The german cruisers fought several quite hard battles and these cruisers fared up quite well 


My opinion is they (the hippers) WERE a bit short ranged, but the only serious engine failure I am aware of was the Eugens last cruise as she was taken back to the US as war booty. I would think she was in a poor state by then , plus there is evidence to suggest that the inexperience of the American crews operating her on thet cuise may have been a factor


----------



## renrich (Oct 2, 2008)

Quote from "Fighting Ships of WW2" by J N Westwood. "But in contriving ultra-sophisticated machinery, the designers neglected one or two simple matters. In 1941, for example, when the Eugen was operating in warm Atlantic waters, it was discovered that her condensers could not convert her exhaust steam fast enough into boiler feedwater." "Thus the Eugen did very little for the german war effort. Her sister ships did even less. Part of their trouble was unreliable machinery and part was their comparatively short range." I have read of these machinery problems in other references so I would argue that the german CAs would not match the American CAs or for that matter the IJN or British CAs for their contributions to the war effort.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 5, 2008)

Renrich, do You blame machinery as the prime reason for the low war record of the three CA´s? Have you checked about Hippers atlantic cruise in 1940?
Or is it rather possible that the strategic decision after sinking of Bismarck in may 1941 may have been responsible for that no german surface ship broke out into the Atltantic in 41 and 42?

I am no great fan of the design, either but PRINZ EUGEN in 1945 state does not generally compare unfavourably with US CA´s, even in electronic equipment (a fairly large ECM suite, AR-shells), FC and basic radar technology (The only KM ship to receive FuG Berlin-0 centimetric sets). It was also subject to a series of very tough Il-2 and RAF air attacks in 1945 druing it´s part in the baltic rescue operations when operating under soviet VVS air superiority umbrella and with help of light forced performed well in this difficult tactical environment. A failure looks different to me.


----------



## renrich (Oct 5, 2008)

No Del, I don't blame machinery totally for their war record. No major unit in the KM had much of a stellar war record. Too few and poorly used for the most part. The Hippers were over sized and over designed and over complicated IMO. If they had been forced to serve in the ways that the US, IJN or British CAs they would probably have been poorly suited. The Hippers IMO were not nearly as well designed as the much earlier designed Pensacola or Kako class. They were handsome though.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2008)

"Boston" class?

Dont you mean the Baltimore Class cruisers (the epitomy of heavy cruiser design in WW2)?


----------



## delcyros (Oct 5, 2008)

Agreed, Renrich. But I am not quite not agreeing with stellar records to all ships: Scheer is the cruiser, which still holds the title for sinking most enemy merchants tonnage in ww2. The two BC´s also sunk over 100.000.t. of enemy shipping including one of only two aircraft carriers lost to surface forces in ww2.
I think the KM got much in return for the money spend on the PBB´s and BC´s but much less for the ressources spent in CA´s and BB´s.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 6, 2008)

Yes, the baltimores....I mistakenly always refer to them as Bostone fopr some reason that even escapes me. Thanks for the correction


----------



## renrich (Oct 6, 2008)

Agree Del, in the early war when the KM was employed aggressively there were some positive results in traditional ways. Also, the "fleet in being" concept had an impact throughout the war. For those purposes it did not matter too much about engine reliability as long as the British were not aware of any problems.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 6, 2008)

I think the biggest problem in the german navy was not their ships. In fact I would argue that their ships were first class. In my opinion it was in the nature of their employment, and this was brought about by their limited numbers, obsessive care to avoid casualties, and lastly the imbalanced nature of the fleet itself. The fleet lacked an effective carrier based air arm (I have often wondered what might have happened if the germans had embraced carrier warfare in the same way as the army embraced blitzkrieg for the ground battle. What might have happened if the Germans had the use of four carriers instead of none, with a proper support base and a doctrine on their use.

Alternatively some time many years agao, I calculated that if the Germans in 1937-38 had opted for submarines in place of the BBs and the CAs that they were building, whether this might have resulted in some greater level of success. I remeber estimating on the basis of unit costs and crew training, that instead of the Bismarck-Tirpitz, and the Heavy Cruisers Seydlitz and Lutzow (not the Pocket battleship) the Germans may have entered the war with an additional 60-80 fleet subs.....what effect might this have had on the first year of the war????

But it is unfair, and innaccurate to try and blame the KMs failures on some design failures of the ships.....i believe the ships themselves to be first rate, at least from a technical point of view


----------



## renrich (Oct 6, 2008)

With respect, Parsifal it is rather fruitless to speculate about the size of the KM. Germany was not and is not a maritime country and expended huge sums of money and effort to build a navy before WW1 which still could not defeat the Grand Fleet. WW2 was not supposed to begin until 1945 and even then plans for the KM would not have brought it on par with the RN, much less the USN. Might as well speculate what would have happened if the population of Germany had been twice as large. Her CAs had mechanical difficulties, her true BBS have been criticised for poor arrangement of armor, Scharnhorst and her sister were undergunned for BBS, the Scheers were innovative but the answer to them was several cruisers. Again, Germany was a relatively small, continental power with not much maritime capacity, a little like the South in the War Between the States.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 9, 2008)

Richard

You raise many good points, most of which i agree with. However, the comment that generated this sub-strand of the thread was whether the German cruisers were failures due to their design.

I dont think either myself or Del are arguing that they were not failures. The question is whether this was due to their design and specifically their engine reliability.

I dont have much information to support the reliability argument. This leads me to suspect that they were not suffereing nearly such reliability problems as you might think. If you have supporting information to suggest otherwise,, I would love to know about it.


----------



## Henk (Oct 10, 2008)

Yes, the Germans did use their Surface Naval Vessels fot all the wrong things, but they were verry skilled in their work. The Royal Navy sailors had lots of respect for the Germans because they were very good gunners.

The German vessels were very good in their own way and used correctly they could have done a lot, but the big problem was Hitler did not care about the Navy and they lost quite a few destroyers in the Norway invasion and they never had enough naval forces to see the war through.

Hitler said himself; "on land I am a hero, but on sea I am a coward".


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 1, 2008)

As renrich has already mentioned, the KM was built on the basis that the war would not start until 1946. Therefore, it was nowhere near ready for hostilities in 1939. If things had kicked off in '46 the KM would theoretically have had the H class BBs and at least one carrier, and would have had some experience in using them together.

Having said that, the ships that the KM did have were not best in class by any means. Although _Tirpitz_ kept the RN paralysed with fear for most of the war, she and _Bismarck_ were closely based on the superdreadnoughts that would have been built had the Imperial Navy carried on building it's fleet through WW1. As such they were old technology - fortunately for the KM, many of the RNs BBs and BCs were WW1 veterans themselves, which helped to level the playing field.

The _Panzerschiff_, such as _Graf Spee_ and _Scheer_ were the development of Wolfgang Zenker's plans for 'cruiser killers' of the mid 20's, which were ultimately put on hold by the Great Depression. By the time Hitler built them, they were anachronistic. The Battle of the River Plate proved that the 8-inch gun 'Treaty Cruisers' that they were designed to destroy (i.e _HMS Exeter_) could give the type a hard time, and they had neither the speed or firepower to face the RN's BCs. Likewise, _Scharnhorst_ and _Gniesenau_ were really neither one thing or another - too small and weakly armed to fight a BB, and probably to lightly aremed to sucessfully face a BC either. So really, the KM's major fleet units were noting to write home about.

And as an aside, following renrich's comments on Germany's maritime aspirations, I would contend that the Imperial Navy's failure to defeat the Grand Fleet was more to do with leadership than technology. In fact, German ships were far tougher than their British counterparts - especially the BCs, which bore the brunt of the actual fleet combat in the North Sea. Had they have been deployed more aggressively, things may well have turned out differently. Anyone who is after a one-volume history of the Great War as fought between the RN and Imperial Navy would be well off to read _Castles of Steel_ by Robert K. Massie. _Dreadnought_, by the same author, covers the dreadnought arms race prior to the war, and shows that pre-1914 Germany was indeed a country with very serious naval aspirations - so serious in fact that they played a large part in the international tension that lead to the Great War.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 7, 2008)

MHO, the germans should have taken the one thing from their 'pocket battleships' that was a world beater at the time - their diesel powerplant - and used them to build small aircraft carriers. Lighter than the Pocket battleships, minimal armour protection, and with about 24 Ju 87s and 9 carrier versions of the Arado floatplane fighters, they would have been a tremendous headache to the British in the early days of the war had they employed them in twopacks _where one or the other was continuously flying a reconnaisance combat air patrol._ 

Such a (say) twinset of a two pack of carriers wandering around in shipping lanes would cause havoc not only for their large search and strike radii against merchant shipping, not only for their ability to see pursuers in time (due to their aircraft) and run away in a sprint which would exhaust their pursuer's fuel while conserving theirs (due to their diesel engines) but also _for their ability to refuel any U-boats they rendezvoused with on the Ocean._

If I were the chief of the German Navy just before WW II I would have cancelled the Scharhorst and Gneisenau and built four of these U-tanker Carriers. With their lighter loads, I could have got at least 28 knots out of those diesel engines, and while a battleship or cruiser could theoretically chase at 30 knots, doing so would gobble up their fuel faster than water filling up the titanic. 

But of course...there is one reason why the German Navy never got carriers...that reason being expressed in two words:

HERMAN GOERING.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 20, 2008)

I thought there might be some Marine Engineering and Naval Architecture enthusiasts around here...(even on a Warbird Forum!) so I'm bumping this up in the hope that they respond!


----------



## renrich (Dec 20, 2008)

One reason Germany has never built a dominant navy has been that Germany is not a maritime country like, for instance, Britain and the US and Japan. They have not relied on trade for their economy and they don't have the maritime tradition as Britain has had for centuries. The art and science of building and operating aircraft carriers was by no means a proven skill when Germany was building up it's navy in the 30s. The German navy like many of their counterparts in other navies was still in the battleship age. Another factor was that operating carriers in the North Sea and vicinity with the technology of those days was not easy.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 20, 2008)

True, Renrich, Germany did not have a maritime _naval tradition_, but in maritime _technology _in the 1930s Germany was behind no one. From about 1890 onwards german maritime and naval architecture was on a level with anyone else's. 

I agree however that carrier technology was a very immature one in the 1930s. But certainly not beyond the capabilities of Germany's naval architects! And in some ways, carriers are much more simple to design than battleships.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 20, 2008)

Del is without a doubt the best expert in this general area


----------



## renrich (Dec 20, 2008)

Double B, I agree German technology in building ships was pretty good, although perhaps not as good as advertised, but building ships and operating them is another question. Britain, US and Japan had been operating and learning and getting the bugs out of carrier operations ever since WW1 and still did not know all the answers. For instance I recently found out that the IJN carriers did not have the capability of starting the engines and warming them up on a strike force until the AC were on the fight deck. The US could and that played a role at Midway. The German started to build a carrier or two but had never designed a purpose built ship board fighter and they even got their ideas for dive bombing from a USN dive bomber demonstration.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 20, 2008)

Yes, Renrich. I am aware that the operation of ships, particularly a very complex weapon system such as an aircraft carrier, which has some very demanding operational procedures, is an art which can be learned only by doing. 

However, my argument was not that the germans would have got better value for their money by building carriers as ships for _naval warfare _- my argument was that the germans would have got better value for their money by building carriers as _commerce destroyers_. 

Now, if you'll think about it, the requirements for a commerce destroying mission are far less than that required for a naval warfare mission. Even if you are so inefficient (and a navy just beginning to operate carriers will definitely be!) as to have a very low aircraft takeoff rate, and loooong servicing times, deck clearing times, etc etc etc, you dont need a cloud of carrier bombers to sink slow, clumsy and defenceless or almost defenceless merchantmen. And maintaining a slow air patrol for 2-3 hours five times a day by two planes at a time circline in a 60-80 mile radius from your carrier should not be too difficult either.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 21, 2008)

Its a reference as old as dirt, but in his encyclopaedic work "*Aircraft Carriers -A history of Carrier Aviation and its Influence on World Events*" _Norman Polmar, Minoru Genda, Eric Brown (RN) Professor Robert Langdon (US Naval Academy), Macdonal Co, 1969_, an entire chapter is spent on the European Axis efforts to develop carrier aviation. The salient point they make is...

"_An operational carrier in either the German or italian Navy would have been of considerable value to the axis. At the very least, fleet exwercises with a carrier would have exposed naval commanders to the potentials and threats of a seaborne air striking forces.

With proper aircraft and personnel, and some operational experience, an aircraft carrier with an Axis battlefleet or raiding squadron could have provided invaluable recon, defence and possibly offensive capabilities. It is unlikley , on the basis of carrier experience during the war that Germany or Italy could have produced an effective carrier striking force. The requirements and co-ordination of men, machines and doctrine appear to have been beyond their competence."_

I think this assessment is pretty much on the money. Co-ordinating multiple carriers is an altogether different proposition to having a single carrier operational


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 21, 2008)

Great authorities cited, Parsifal. I have not read that - at least not directly, though the book is familiar as I have seen many excerpts from it - but I have studied naval warfare, and one of the things that strikes me, is that the potential for carriers as _a commerce destroyer and commerce interrupter_ has not, AFAIK, been studied by any of these otherwise awesomely detailed and wise studies. 

One reason is clear...they were not deployed as such. Number of carrier missions, any side, during WW II for commerce destruction: 

Zip.

Thus it was that historians and analysts of all sides overlooked this potential.

And yet, if we look at the situation dispassionately, the potential is *there!* Submarines are supposed to be the commerce destroyers par excellence, and yet when we look at the cost of four wolfpacks of 20 submarines versus one light aircraft carrier and air fleet, by virtue of its tremendous range, 130 to 250 mile search radius, 3x economical cruising speed, 2x sprint speed, time on station, and economy of force (one 1000 lb bomb costs a fraction of a torpedo) I am amazed that the potential of the fast, cheap light carrier as a commerce destroyer was not explored by the Germans. 

And, as I have said in my original post, the one-two punch of a carrier capable of both independent operation and U-boat refueling would have caused tremendous problems to the British during WW II.


----------



## renrich (Dec 21, 2008)

BB, you make some good points and the report authored by Genda is most interesting. Actually, Freebird, on other threads, has postulated some of the same ideas as you have.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 21, 2008)

Carriers were used for mercantile warfare. The most well known was Kakutas foray into the indian Ocean. In operations independant of the main fleet under Nagumo, the Japanese carrier Ryujo, with no more than ten strike aircraft available, managed to sink or disable over 80000 tons of shipping

In their conquest of the NEI, the Japanese Mobile Fleet was used to blockade and sink over 250000 tons of shipping in less than a month. Another 400000 tons (roughly) was locked up tight in NEI ports, and was promptly captured, and put to use by the Japanese. 

The American fast carriers subsequently achieved greater sinkings than the Ryujo raid, but never with such economy of scale. The Brits also used their carries for mercantile raiding (although not dedicated as such) of the norwegian coast and in the med. 

The effects of carrier based aviation in this sea interdiction was actually massive. It was crucial in winning the war in the pacific, and led firectly to Hitler concluding that Norway was going to be invaded


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 21, 2008)

Somewhere deep in the archives of this forum, is a brilliant analysis of the KM "Graf Zeppelin" done by a member who rarely comes by anymore ...."Leonard".

He systematically chopped to pieces any argument there was for the potential effectiveness of the "Graf Zeppelin" should it have been completed and used.

In the end, its probably good for the KM they didnt complete it.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 21, 2008)

> And yet, if we look at the situation dispassionately, the potential is *there!* Submarines are supposed to be the commerce destroyers par excellence, and yet when we look at the cost of four wolfpacks of 20 submarines versus one light aircraft carrier and air fleet, by virtue of its tremendous range, 130 to 250 mile search radius, 3x economical cruising speed, 2x sprint speed, time on station, and economy of force (one 1000 lb bomb costs a fraction of a torpedo) I am amazed that the potential of the fast, cheap light carrier as a commerce destroyer was not explored by the Germans.



Aircraft carriers are expensive to make, equip and use in operations. And they cannot be used in foul weather and have quite limited effectiveness at night.

Unless you can get a task force together with a fair sized escorting force, all you're doing is spending a lot of time and money to get minimal results.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 21, 2008)

R_Leonard made a good account on operational concerns with Graf Zeppelin here:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/what-if-721-5.html
#61

I have tried to make a response to this account starting #26 at this thread:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/lack-german-aircraft-carrier-8375-2.html

Best regards,
Delc


----------



## renrich (Dec 21, 2008)

The post by Leonard shows a lot of knowledge about WW2 carrier ops and, as usual, Del makes many good points and I enjoy his knowledge about sea power but I think the post which includes an opinion from Genda is the key. In a nutshell he says that based on experience gained in WW2, it is unlikely the Germans or Italians could have produced an effective carrier force. Sounds pretty definite to me. And I would think he is quite an authority. Also made me think about carrier ops in WW2. The actions in the Pacific by IJN and US forces are strikingly different from theactions that British carriers participated in. By the way, Del, CVEs operated with difficulty but effectively in the Atlantic as convoy escorts and hunter killer groups in WW2. Another point is that it would be interesting to see the performance figures on the 109T. My bet is that they would not be much if any better than the FM2s.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 21, 2008)

didnt read all of the discussion Del, but i get the drift.....GZ as a design would have had problems, but it would have been possible to iron out the kinks, like happens with every warship ever built, some more than others. Because the Germans had little experience with carriers, the GZ would have had a lot of problems, but it would be possible, like every other ship ever built to overcome.

That is certainly the position taken by Polmar, Genda, Brown and Langdon.
I dont believe that the germans could have operated a carrier TF with multiple carriers working in unison, but they could have operated a carrier singly with a small number of escorts on limited operations (this is what the experts say). Development of the skills needed to operate a multi-hull CTF would have been beyond the germans, as it is a skill that takes years to develop. But a single carrier was entirely within the realms of German capability. I also believe that the GZ was a ship with a lot of problems, but they were all fixable problems, even in the early years wartime environment.

As for the notions that Carriers are the realms of the rich nations and that carriers can only operate in clear weather....well the operations of the numerous small nations that have operated carriers very successfully on relatively limited budgets stands as mute testimaony against that....countries like Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Thailand, Canada, Netherlands, these have all very successfully operated carriers on low budgets, and with minimal outside assistance. Carriers are actually cheaper to build and operate than a force of capital ships, and are much more cost effective, even for small nations....

Moreover the operations of the British carriers above the arctic circle puts the old chestnut of carriers not able to operate in rough seas to rest. The correct answer is that the US and Japan were unable to operate carriers in rough weather. The RN did it on a more or less routine basis. they also operated carriers using massed deck strikes at night as well. The question that cannot be answered is if the Germans could have operated with the same special rough weather/night capability as the Brits. At a guess I would say probably better than the Americans, but less so than the British.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 22, 2008)

First, my thanks to all the very, very experienced members of the forum who have posted very illuminating comments. And another apology too - as a NooB here, unlike the members who have something like 1,000, 2,000 or even 30,000 posts, I of course am not aware of most of what has been posted before. I am at present reading the excellent thread referred to, and will post more after I have digested it.

A point, however, about carrier cost. There is a 'middle way' between the cheapo-cheapo 'carriers' built on merchant hull conversions, which are (just) barely capable of carrier duties - and the 24 karat built-to-naval-standards fleet carriers of WW II. It was the brits who discovered that 'middle way' with their "Collosus" class auxiliary fleet carriers.

That class was built to mercantile standards but used destroyer powerplants that happened to be more or less surplus. It was built from scratch in two years, versus the four or five years it took for British shipyards to build "Illustrious" class carriers, and I suspect ton for ton at about half the price. 

I have given a figure of one carrier with air group and armament equivalent to 20 submarines. I suspect with the Colossus class, the equivalent would be nearer 14-15 subs. 

At that ratio, the carrier looks increasingly cost effective...IMHO...

but without actual monetary figures, all this is of course just guesswork. Who has the cost figures for the 'Collosus' class versus 10-20 British submarines of the equivalent tonnage? The air group of course would be a separate expenditure.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 22, 2008)

The Invincible Class "Thru deck cruisers" in 1980 dollars cost 500 million, with the CAG attached cost another $500 m. The Collins class boats, (the Oberon Class replacements) were originally contracted at $1.5 Billion for ten boats. That price has been considerably exceeeded in tha ctual delivery, and the government wont cough up what it has cost the taxpayers in the final run. Mind you, they are probably the most effective conventional subs on the planet today, with a submerged speed in excess of 25 knots, sub launched cruise missiles, and wire guided torpedoes that also have both active and passive homing systems, and a range exceeding 50000 yards

But to give a perspective....one modern carrier with air group is equivalent to six boats in terms of cost


----------



## steelDUST (Dec 22, 2008)

Best World war two warships?
1.) Battleship: Iowa class/Yamato class
2.) Battlecruiser: Admiral Graf Spee
3.) Heavy cruiser/Armored cruiser: Scharnhorst 
4.) Light cruiser: Atlanta class
5.) Destroyer: USS Johnston class
6.) Submarine: Germany's type VII-B
7.) Patrol Boat or MBT: US PT boats
8.) Aircraft Carrier: Essex class


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 22, 2008)

To continue...

The use of u-boat packs was not. as some might think, a concentration of u-boats in the ocean waiting for convoys.

No. All u-boats were spread out in a scouting line, and the pack was formed from the nearest available u-boats only after the convoy had been sighted and trailed by one lucky u=boat. 

This meant that the formation of the pack, and the synchronization of the attack, suffered. Only in 1943 did the KM have the numbers to have a real pack attack on convoys - the 'pack' in 1940 and 41 usually was about four boats! 

But with the introduction of diesel engined commerce destroyer carriers into the picture, the tactics can now be changed....


----------



## delcyros (Dec 22, 2008)

> That is certainly the position taken by Polmar, Genda, Brown and Langdon.
> I dont believe that the germans could have operated a carrier TF with multiple carriers working in unison, but they could have operated a carrier singly with a small number of escorts on limited operations (this is what the experts say).



That´s my opinion, too. Possibly without escorts (due to the lack of proper escort vessels with a long enough range to operate at high cruise speed) as a lone raider. A true carrier Task Force is to much strain on operational and logistical conditions imposed to Germany in ww2 and therefore unlikely. 
There is one good argument for that they expected modifications on their carrier designs. Carrier 2 (Träger B) was delayed and hope was expressed that the construction should get a positive impact from experiences of Graf Zeppelin. It was builded up including to the level of the side belt main armour deck. When fitting out of carrier 1 (GZ) was halted in 1940, construction of carrier two 
was abandoned.
One of the strange things is that the Luftwaffe already commenced flying trials on specially congested landing strips and catapult trials with Bf-109 from the mothership BUSSARD. The Luftwaffe asked for construcion of a floating ponton deck in 1939/40 to continue the trials on more realistic conditions but the Navy rejected that with reference to construction yard workloads. It appeasr to me that a carrier was not really wanted pressed for.



> By the way, Del, CVEs operated with difficulty but effectively in the Atlantic as convoy escorts and hunter killer groups in WW2. Another point is that it would be interesting to see the performance figures on the 109T. My bet is that they would not be much if any better than the FM2s.


Perhaps one should ask HoHun or Kurfürst for performance figures of the Bf-109T. the figures I have seen indicate a performance on par with the Bf-109E3 (575 km/h at full pressure height with 1 x DB-601N and 1.3 ata). The -T submodel did had fully folding wings, a structurally enforced tail and gear and an arrestor hook. The greatest difference ist the new wing. It was increased in span by adding a special inner wing filet to give more area and higher aspect ratio and effectively reduced the stall speed despite increased weight to 115 - 120 Km/h compared to 130 - 135 Km/h for the late Bf-109E. Therefore and despite identic top speed figures, You might expect to see some significant performance differences on the Bf-109T compared to the Bf-109E with DB-601A (just a guess):
(A) larger wing area, reduced landing stall speed, resulting in better turn climb performance
(B) worser roll performance
(C) lower dive speed limit
(D) better approach angle controll by wing mounted airflow breaks
(E) heavier but due to (A) better (=lighter) wingload, possibly less acceleration, too. 

Still, that carrier fighter does not compare unfavourably in performance with 1941 period opposition. But GZ does only has an airwing of four (!) fighters (plus reserve)...


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 22, 2008)

Very well. Let us imagine that in 1933, when Hitler came to power and threw off the terms of the Versailles treaty, he made the decision (and only he could have made it) to build commerce destroyer aircraft carriers, over the heated protests of both the battleship admirals of the KM and Hermann Goering. 

And let us suppose that he decided to go down the 'Collossus" route instead of the "Graf Zeppelin" route. Carriers with AA armament only, no armour, no fancy advanced turn-on-a-dime cycloidal propellers, just slim merchant or second class passenger liner hulls with the diesel powerplant of the Graf Spees. Buildable in two years. Let's say three, to be conservative.

Laid down in, say, 1934. Finished in 1937.

Two years to shake out the carriers in their expected hunting ground...THE ATLANTIC. 

How many could they have built? If they kept the Bismark and Tirpitz but cancelled the Scharnorst and Gniesenau, they could have built at least four. I think six, but let's say four. 

So in 1939 you have four 26-28 knot carriers, capable of travelling up to 19,000 miles at 10 knots, and using diesel power.

AND with two years at least of Atlantic experience.

How should they have been used?


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 22, 2008)

Ah, welcome, Delcyros! I see my post has crossed yours. Would you like to comment before i post further?


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 22, 2008)

My thought: They should have been used with the u-boats.

In tandem, with the strengths of one combined with the strengths of the other. 

In 1939, the KM could have put three packs of six u-boats each in the Atlantic. 

Let our four German Collossi go out in two packs of two. Trail their flags in front of the British hunter groups. 

Let the British sight them - but let the Germans see the british first, due to their constant air patrolling. Let the germans radio their own location to the packs. 

And as the British chase...let the Germans run away...straight towards a u-boat pack...


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 22, 2008)

Note: fear of this tactic was BTW the reason why Jellicoe broke off the action at the Battle of Jutland - he was afraid that the retreating German fleet was luring him into the torpedo tubes of waiting german submarines.


----------



## renrich (Dec 22, 2008)

Steeldust, The Scheers were a kind of hybrid with BC or BB guns and CA armor probably best classed as large cruisers. An example of a BC in WW2 was the Alaska class although the US liked to call them large cruisers. The Scharnhorst was actually a slightly undergunned BB, not an armored cruiser. The Atlanta, although classed as a CL was actually more properly called an antiaircraft cruiser. In a fight with a true CL, she would have not stood much of a chance. Parsifal, you are saying that the IJN and US did not operate carriers in really bad weather. That seems bit of a stretch to me as the North Pacific weather could get really nasty. But to say that the Germans who never operated carriers at all would be better in bad weather than the US seems like a real stretch.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 22, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Very well. Let us imagine that in 1933, when Hitler came to power and threw off the terms of the Versailles treaty, he made the decision (and only he could have made it) to build commerce destroyer aircraft carriers, over the heated protests of both the battleship admirals of the KM and Hermann Goering.
> 
> And let us suppose that he decided to go down the 'Collossus" route instead of the "Graf Zeppelin" route. Carriers with AA armament only, no armour, no fancy advanced turn-on-a-dime cycloidal propellers, just slim merchant or second class passenger liner hulls with the diesel powerplant of the Graf Spees. Buildable in two years. Let's say three, to be conservative.
> 
> ...



The answer should be obvious...what you are saying is what if the germans had four fully operational carriers....well, they would have had four carriers. Incidentally, leaving the beginning of the development work to 1933 is delaying the carrier development program, not bringing it forward. The Germans began looking into Carriers in the Weimar years.

But I get the drift....you are saying what if the Germans had somehow overcame all the problems they faced....Well firstly, that IS the issue, overcoming the problems is just not something that the Germans were going to do in the time frame all that easily.

The nearest equivalent you are going to find isnt the big three, but the French, and they had difficulties with their sole carrier, the Bearn.

The other thing you are not considering is the quid pro quo that is likley to develop as a result of this intense activity into carrier aviation. . The Brits are not going to just sit back and let the germans develop an advantage. They are going to maintain their advantage, by building more carriers, introducing more capable types etc etc. One of the great lies about the so-called "Z" plan was that the british would simply sit back and let such a construction program pass unchallenged. If the germans stated building carriers, or battleships, or landingcraft, there is going to be a reaction from the allies

So while the Germans would derive some benefits from a better use of carrier aviation, it is hardly going to go unchallenged, and therefore it is difficult to say that it would be a "war winning" strategy.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 22, 2008)

Shades of Tony Williams' "The Foresight War!" I act, he reacts...

Yes, that could well have happened, Parsifal. (OT - I spent last night reading up on your bio, and you get a four star salute from me! )

However, my thinking (admittedly biased) was that the simultaneous building of BOTH the carriers and the two German Battleships would spur the hand of the battleship admirals in the Bwiddish Navy (just a little joke there, All brits here keep your famous sense of humour, please!) to keep their King George V class and smile and say complacently that the illustrious class was quite enough to handle these four small buggers.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 22, 2008)

Actually, I think the scenario that you would need to adopt in order for this to occur is a deferral in hostilities until 1943 or so. 

I am at work (in my break) , and dont have the building schedule for the Z plan at hand. However, as a guess only, I would say that by 1943, the Germans might have had 2 carriers, and 4 or 5 BBs (including the bismarcks) , plus the BCs (possibly two others with 15' guns as well as the Scharnhorst class) and the Pocket battleships. In reply to that the Brits would have had the four Illustrious plus the two Indefatigibles, the Unicorn, and probably two or three other Light carriers of the Colossus vintage (in lieu of the escort carriers, which were forced on the british as a wartime expedient).

The British would have completed the KGVs plus they probably would have built two or three Lion Class BBs. In cruisers the brits probably would have built repeats of their Town Class and Colony classes, and more AA cruisers.

With only 68 DDs projected in the Z Plan, the germans would have been completely outclassed in Light Forces. By that stage the british had built over 200 DDs with many smaller ships of ocean going capability to support them. As the germans had only projected an expansion of the U-Boat fleet to about 100 boats, the pressure to erxpand the ASW forces would have been less than historical, and so more resources would go into the Blue Water fleet.

In aircraft the germans would probably be equipped with Me 109fs and Ju87D carrier based equivalents. Ranged against this the Brits would be equipped with Fireflies, Seafires and Sea Hurricanes. I dont think the US types would have been as well represented, but if they were, the brits would have some Corsairs, Hellcats, Avengers as well. in that scenario the Germans would have been completely outclassed, outnumbered, and outranged. 

The only hope for the Germans would be a Guerre De Course campaign centred around individual carriers, and battle squadrons of two or three Heavy Ships. Individually these TGs would still be vulnerable to being hunted down by the british, but it would be the best outcome that could be hoped for. if the Germans could break out, and operate at range, they would get an advantage, since British refuelling at sea capabilities were virtually nn-existent until 1945.


----------



## Soren (Dec 22, 2008)

> In aircraft the germans would probably be equipped with Me 109fs and Ju87D carrier based equivalents. Ranged against this the Brits would be equipped with Fireflies, Seafires and Sea Hurricanes. I dont think the US types would have been as well represented, but if they were, the brits would have some Corsairs, Hellcats, Avengers as well. in that scenario the Germans would have been completely outclassed, outnumbered, and outranged.



Outclassed ? Hardly seeing that the 109F4 outperformed all the mentioned a/c in 43.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 22, 2008)

The moment those KM carriers and their escorts left their sanctuaries, they would be the most hunted ships in the world. They would face an huge allied armada with lots of aircraft doing one thing .... find them and sink them.

You are forgetting the huge numbers of B17's and B24's that could be deployed against them had they existed. The allied bombing campaign would have taken a hiatus and the bomber assett's used for maritime patrol and attack.

The IJN and USN experience in the Pacific showed just how much fleet defense was needed to protect the carriers. And the KM just didnt have it.

Read Leonard's article again about how small the defending air wing was and how vulnerable the GZ was just from normal attrition.

Their fate would be the same as what befell the Bismark. A single sortie to sea, accomplishing nothing in the way of commerce raiding, and then an inglorious ride to Davey Jones locker.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 22, 2008)

Soren said:


> Outclassed ? Hardly seeing that the 109F4 outperformed all the mentioned a/c in 43.



If a Hellcat could hold its own against a Zero, then a -109 would hardly be frightening. Same with the Corsair.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 22, 2008)

I was not referring to the actual combat performance as such when i made the comment about the me109f. Although I would like to know the outcomes of any air battles that may have occurred between corsairs and me 109s (gs???) i think) over norway in 1944. 

What I was referring to mostly were the range differences, followed by the aircraft handling capabilities of the ships themselves, followed by the tactical concept s the Germans would be likley to possess.

Do you agree that ther was a signifcant range difference between the Corsair and Hellcat (on the one hand) and the me 109 on the other. But if the Allies can outrange the germans in strike distances, all the performance advantages (if any) by the german fighter is going to count for nothing, because the Allies will sink the carrier, for the loss of say 5 or 6 aircraft , and then after the german carrier has been dealt with move in to sink the rest of the TG. 

The aircraft handling capabilities of the ships themselves have been criticized in the past. assuming that the germans have manged to get to sea in their carriers, their AC capabilities are going to be terrible compared to the british carriers. GZ launching, and deck areas and catapults were broadly based on the Furious, which had a launch rate (called a spot rate) that was a fraction of a later Brit Carrier. If the Germans were keeping their fighters fuelled, but on the deck, until radar detection was achieved, they might have the ability to get 10 fighters launched in a hurry. It then depends on the lead time, that is the time it takes for the strike to reach the target, as to whether, and how many, of the intercepting fighters can make it to combat altitudes. If you have ever been in a carrier Ops room, as I have, then you will know that getting the birds off the deck in good time is a major headache, and if the deck crews are struggling with a slow catapult, and/or a cluttered deck space, then sometimes that lead time is very short indeed. this is particualrly true if the weather is at all bad, and the birds are a bit finicky in handling on the deck. 

It may admittedly be possible for the germans to maintain a constant air patrol, but this would increase the at sea attrition rate, increse the wear and tear on the birds themselves (and a downgrading of the performance asa result) and would prevent a massed emergency CAP effort. Say the Germans had a total deckload of 20 Me 109s, but were mounting constant air patrols, that would mean in clear weather they might be able to put 7 or 8 birds into the fight. If they kept the birds on the deck, readied with the pilots strapped in and engines running, they might get 10 of the 20 airborne, but an indeterminate number to combat altitude. 

The tactical concept that the germans might possess for their carrier fighters would probably follow that of their land based air forces, which may or may not suit the at sea conditions Its difficult to be specific in this area, but most of the pundits here are saying that the german concepts are mre than likley going to be more backward than those of their opponents.

Of course there is one other possibility we have not even canvassed as yet. Alone amongst all the navies, the british possessed the ability to deliver massed strikes at night, using ASV radar, flares, and a defgree of night flying training that they had been working on for more than 10 years. If the british delivered their bismarck style strikes at night, the germans are going to be completely flummoxed, since they could not have developed the same skills in the short time of development available to them


----------



## renrich (Dec 23, 2008)

Corsairs never had any ACM in the ETO. They escorted some strikes against the Tirpitz but no LW fighters were encountered. There were a few encounters by Hellcats and from memory they did well.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 23, 2008)

Syscom 3's post is accurate - except for one thing. Time.

I believe, Syscom, that we are talking at cross-purposes. 

In my posts I have based my premise on the possibility of the KM having four carriers having two years of Atlantic Weather Experience and ready to fight _in 1939._

In 1939. Way, wayyy before the USA got into the war. Way before even the illustrious class was ready. Way before even the sea hurricane was ready. Way before the British had absorbed the lesson of carriers combined with other ships used efficiently - lessons that would be driven home only after many ships, including the Ark Royal, had been sunk through a shocking misunderstanding of how best to use and protect carriers... the list goes on and on...

I think Parsifal, too, has made this misconception. Parsifal, I believe you are still thinking that I am only tinkering with the Z plan (I'm aware of it). No. What I am positing is a radical redrawing of the Z plan, using even less resources than it called for (the plan was an economic impossibility, as I'm sure you know very well!) but redistributing those resources radically.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 23, 2008)

Put the economic issue to one side just for a minute, although I concede it is a big issue. What you are proposing is essentially, what would happen if the germans had the biggest and most effective carrier force in the world in 1939? 

well, in short they would win....

Why would I say that your hypothesis involves the Germans having the biggerst carrier fleet in the world? Well, because in order to get where you would want to go, the germans would have to make some fundamental changes to their designs. The GZ was an innefficient design, although I baulk at saying she was an abject failure, because her deck area was too small, her lifts innefficient, her machinery spaces too large and overpowered, and the amount of weight devoted to armament far too great. At 20000 tons, she was the equivalent in tonnage to a yorktown, yet only was designed with an airgroup of 40. If you are going to factor into the equation a complete re-think of the theory, then at some point the germans are going to realize that they can cram 100 planes onto the same displacement as they currently have 40. So, the fleet you are proposing has a capacity of 400 or 500 planes. Nobody else, not the Japs, not the Americans, not the british had a carrier capacity of that size in 1939. moreover, nobody had fully developed their respective carrier tactics to anything like what you are nudging at here. So the answer is very simple....if the germans are given the wonder weapon that nobody else possesses in 1939 then of course they are going to clobber everyone..

But the whole hypothesis is just a bit ridiculous to me. No mention or thought on how they might get there, no mention or thought of the allied reaction to such a program...it assumes, in the worst possible way, that the allies are just going to sit there like a bunch of dumars*s and let the germans build their uber fleet and do nothing about it. Its really is a silly concept in my opinion, because it is just a bit too fanciful for my liking.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 23, 2008)

Just a bit of trivia .... 

The efficiency of the carrier ops can be related directly to the numbers and placement of the aircraft elevators and just how fast the elevators operate.

Think that is important? You bet it is!!!! Slow elevator cycle times dicatate how fast aircraft can be spotted on the deck and how soon aircraft can be brought to the hanger. When the elevator is in operation, a good chunk of the flight deck is not available for flight ops. And that also goes for the placement of the elevators. Poorly chosen locations can create congestion on the flight deck and hanger.

Mr. Parsalls in his excellent book about the Battle of Midway looked at such mundane things such as this and realized that the tempo of ops and how the battles were fought were directly related to these little nuances.

Now has anyne have figures for the elevator cycling times on the GZ?


----------



## Glider (Dec 23, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Syscom 3's post is accurate - except for one thing. Time.
> 
> I believe, Syscom, that we are talking at cross-purposes.
> 
> ...



I think that this is one of the most unlikely scenario's ever. The British, Americans and Japanese had been learning their art from the end of WW1, adapting their designs in stages. 
For a good example look at the changes made to the Furious, Glorious and Courageous from when they were first built compared to when WW2 started. The lessons were incorporated in the Ark Royal.
Similar examples exist in the USN and IJN. You don't just build a ship or four, practice for a few years and hey presto can take on the best in the world.

Even today, look at the problems Russia has had in developing an aircraft carrier, with all the benefit of history and no doubt the assistance of people with some experience who have been hired as 'consultants'.

The aircraft have been mentioned. No one would doubt that the 109F was a first class fighter in its time, but on a carrier? If the Spitfire had all those problems with a weak undercarridge, what on earth makes anyone believe that the 109 would do any better? That is no slight on its designers it simply wasn't designed for the job. The additional weight alone to allow for the stresses and strains would have had a measurable impact on its performance.
Its hard to think of many land based aircraft that have been a success on a carrier. Take away the Harrier which is a special case and your probably left with the Sea Hurricane which at least had a solid set of wheels and that was only good against weaker opposition.

Then there is the small point that has been mentioned ie, do you think that the other nations would have sat back and done nothing?

What are you going to arm it with. 
The German 4.1in AA gun was very good but without a proximity Fuze it (and all other heavy AA) was of little use in a situation where you have to stop the enemy and no second chances.
The pre war 37mm was a very poor weapon being semi automatic with a very slow rate of fire.
The 20mm was very good but you are not going to stop a bomber or dive bomber attack with a 20mm. You may get them when the load has been dropped, but not before unless you are really lucky.

Sorry but this is a non starter.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 23, 2008)

When I step in again on this issue, let me first assure You that I don´t have any doubt that carrier operations on a large scale are somehow ridicolous to think about from the german perspective. They lacked many key abilities to do so in the proposed time frame.

In defense of the historic carrier and it´s airwing I might add these points to consider:

(A) insufficiant flight deck area:
The flight deck area of Graf Zeppelin (795ft. x 120 ft.) might appear to be small in comparison with that of SHINANO but once You looked into the details, it is not small in comparison to other carriers. As a matter of fact, the flight deck area is larger than that of the largest british aircraft carriers HMS ARK ROYAL (720 x 95 ft.) and HMS IMPLACABLE (760 ft. x 95 ft.) and only second to the largest US and japanese fleet carriers.

(B) insufficiant avgas storage:
GRAF ZEPPELIN carried 65.000 US gal. for 40 A/C. it might have been small in comparison with an ESSEX-class or another PTO CVL but I am convinced that it compares with the european carriers: 100.000 gal AVGAS storage are recorded for the 60 A/C of HMS ARK ROYAL. The late war HMS IMPLACABLE-class of CVL carried a legend 60 A/C airwing (to be increased to 81) and had a petrol storage of 94.540 gal. I would also like to stress that a number of carriers had less AVGAS: 20.800 gal AVGAS carried by HMS FURIOUS for it´s airwing of 36 A/C is a good example. 34.000 gal AVGAS of HMS COURAGIOUS for it´s 48 A/C or a look into the ILLUSTRIOUS-class gives an AVGAS storage of 50.540 gal, which was considered to be enough for 50 A/C. Even the INDOMITABLE-class had a fuel storage of 75.110 gal, which allowed her to operate 56 A/C.
Therefore the AVGAS storage of GZ doesn´t appear to be to small, rather contrary, it appears to be on the large end of the european carrier capacities with reflection of the numbers of A/C carried by the ship.

(C) Elevator capacity was to small
GZ had three main elevators from hangar deck to flight deck. I don´t know about the cycle times for them but the whoole flightgroup (design) launchtime was in within a margin of a 10(20) minutes.

(D) Some notes on the carrier ability of the Bf-109T:
Compared to other european carrier fighters (Sea-Gladiator, Fulmar, Sea Hurricane, Firefly, Sea-Spitfire), the Bf-109 appears to be better prepared for carrier operations. The Sea-Spitfire, it´s closest performance match, for example had it´s fixed wing unchanged until the appearence of the (l)Mk III in 1944. It also failed to counter the weight increase with larger wing area (one distinctive new figure on the -109T, which helped to reduce take off approach operating speed and thus contributed to an increased level of safety) and thus experienced weight growths, which increased the landing speed. The -109T also had air brakes to give improved approach angle controll over other fighters of that period. The weak undercarriege should be noted but this problem was shared by Seafire, Fulmar Firefly, too. From a purely technical perspective, the Bf-109T was certainly fitter for carrier operations than was the Seafire. 
With regards to performance, the -109T in it´s 1941 state with D-601N is a credible A/C. It features two LMG + two 20mm guns, has unsurpassed climb performance, goos maneuverability and in top of all, it appears to be quite fast for a carrier fighter: 575 Km/h.

*F4F-3* Wildcat 1941 (unlike -109T no pilot windscreen armour, no reflector type gunsights and no self sealing fuel tanks):
530 Km/h
*F4F-3A/4* Wildcat 1942 (like F4F-3 but with a full outfit):
510 Km/h
*FM-2* Wildcat 1944:
535 Km/h
*F6F-3* Hellcat 1943:
597 Km/h
*F6F-5* Hellcat 1944:
611 Km/h
*Sea Gladiator* 1940:
430 km/h
*Fairey Fulmar MK II* 1941:
445 Km/h
*Sea Hurricane MK II* 1942:
530 Km/h
*Firefly MK I* 1943:
510 km/h
*Seafire (L)MK III* 1944:
560 Km/h
*A6M2* 1941:
561 Km/h
*A6M5a*: 1943
576 Km/h

You could expect to see the DB-601N beeing replaced by DB-601E in 1942 with clearance to full 1.42 ata in mid 1942, giving a top speed in excess of 610 km/h (no weight increase). I don´t think that the Bf-109 T could easily accept the heavy and more powerful D-605 without a significant weight increase but from late 1943 an MW-50 injection could be included, which could boost performance further. It would not have been on par with land based fighters in mid war but compared with carrier fighters, the Bf-109T would remain competetive until the appearence of the F4U-1. Until that time the allies would certainly have been successful to trap the carrier somewhere on it´s raids, hands down.

GRAF ZEPPELIN was an isolated tactical element and for this very reason abandoned in construction. Had it been put in service by late 1941 it would have been a nasty fast atlantic raider but as the war progresses, the little GZ would find the operational environment more and more hostile for an isolated carrier without TF. That certainly would seal her fate this way or another...


----------



## parsifal (Dec 23, 2008)

Thanks Del, I'll stand corrected on that. But you did not mention ehat her aircraft spot rate might be. Any ideas at all??


----------



## parsifal (Dec 23, 2008)

Also, the scenario being posted is for the germans to have four to five carriers with a modern deck park, and a lot of experience under their belts by 1939...

With regard to the suitability of the air wing, Polmar et al had this to say " As part of the pilot training for Gruppen 186 (the carrier air wing) the Luftwaffe operated a small airfield on a Baltic island which resembled the carrier in size particularly runway legth. There were so many accidents because of the short runway, particularly amongst the Me109T formations, that these training operations were abandoned "pending the installation of better catapults". 

Thes improved catapults incidentally, as far as I know, were never installed, suggesting they were never designed or built. This further suggests that had the GZ gone to sea she may well have gone to sea with sub-standard catapults. But we will never actually know. Just as an aside Japanese carriers as I understand it never needed catapults on their carriers because of the light weight of the planes they embarked. One reason, perhaps, why the German mission to Japan prewar was so fruitless. Many sources I have read talk about the German difficulties with designing an adequate catapult


Quite apart from the obvious conclusion that the catapults that had been installed were inadequate (and I am presuming the arrester gear as well) was the noted high attrition of the 109. It seems to me that like the Seafire, the narrow tracks of the undercarriage is the common thread here. hohun proved to me that in land based ops the narrow track was no big danger, but I wonder if it was not a problem on shipboard operations. It would certainly make deck handling a problem.

Lastly were the German air groups practising night operations to any degree. If not, how would they defend against the standard British method of attack in the pre-1943 environment, namely a strike at night


----------



## Glider (Dec 23, 2008)

First of all thanks to Delc, the 109T was more specialised than I thought. I have been digging around as it caught my attention and found a couple of things that might be of interest.
A 109T was the plane that shot down the first B17 destroyed by the Germans in WW2. It was an RAF aircraft from 90 squadron and I know from other books that I have, that the RAF were surprised that a 109 was able to intercept the B17 so quickly. At the time, the B17 was being used as a very high altitude bomber the idea being that it would fly above any interception.
You have to wonder if the additional wingspan helped.

Re other interesting item relates to the 'spot' time. The wings did fold but the flaps had to be detatched first which wouldn't have helped ground handling.

Addition
I don't know about the catapults being fitted to the GZ but I did find a photo of a 109B being used as a trials aircraft for catapults.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 23, 2008)

I found the CinCs report to the Fuhrer dated April 12 1942, on the problems associated with the then still incomplete carrier. In part it says:

_"About two years are required to develop, construct, and test the catapults.....If it is possible to convert the existing catapults the time limit would be reduced by six months. New winches for the arresting gear are needed. The company developing these winches has not yet announced when they can be delivered, or even when development will be completed"

_

This suggests that catapults had been developed prewar, but for some reason they were deemed inadequate. The lack of arresting gear suggests even more key problems.

The development of carrier based airpower for the German Navy appears to have been riddled with difficulties. I thin the lack of experience, or even interest in the pre-war period made it anextremely hard nut for them to crack. I still think that given the right priorities, and entusiasm, the Germans could have built carrier(s). They may have been ready by 1941-3 if they were extremely lucky. But these ships would have had a hard time being as efficient as the contemporary allied carriers, who by then had a wealth of experience behind them.

The report I mentioned above also advised that the fuel capacity reduced the endurance of the ship to unnacceptable proportions, and that modifications were needed to lift the fuel stowage by at least 25%. Air capacity for the 1943-4 configuration was expected to reduce to 32 aircraft, at maximum, partly because of the limited supply of converted aircraft, and partly, it seems beccause the air force was reluctant to spend more effort providing wing folding to the a/c.

This is a scenario that does not look good


----------



## delcyros (Dec 24, 2008)

From what I have seen, the original catapults installed into GRAF ZEPPELIN were operated by compressed air. There were compressed air depots which - when depleted- required half an hour to replenish. This can be described as a design mistake and was to be changed to steam operated catapults in 1942 and that coincides perfectly with Your source, Parsifal.
Another aspect in that timeframe is the increased fuel oil capacity of GZ to refuel it´s own TD´s while enroute. By this time, they tried to adopt true task force setups to their lone carrier. Realistically spoken, such an attempt would have encountered many more serious problems not yet discussed.
The only useful scenario for the carrier in my opinion is in late 1941, when it could have been fitted out and -with all shortcomings- had at least a realistic chance to be on operational status. 

I am certain that no night flight ops were carried out by any dayfighters. Strike fighters had night ops experience but in the context of a german carrier, I think we may conclude that night ops wouldn´t happen soon.

best regards have some nice holidays,


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 27, 2008)

Delcyros! 

I found a post by "Delcyros" on the Naval Weaps.Com board in the thread "Designing a better Graf Zeppelin" in which you posted your (assuming that it's you!) thoughts on a 'cheap raider variant' which the Germans could have built on a light cruiser hull.

Great work, Delcyros! You posted it on Dec 26. Two questions.

(1) Why didn't you post it here?
(2) Does this mean that you think my premise, that cheap diesel powered carriers for commerce raiding, is both possible and plausible?

Here, for the benefit of all forumers, is "Delcyros" of the Naval Weaps.com board's post...

_Based on a 8.250 t. light cruiser hull, I managed to install a sizable flight component composed of 24 Ar-195 naval strike fighters into a cruiser hull.
He-118 with folding wings are possible, too.
It retains two 15cm triple turrets on the stern for self defense and to finish off lone freighters. All Diesel propulsion for increased range.

Ingenohl, german CVL laid down 1934

Displacement:
7.924 t light; 8.202 t standard; 9.406 t normal; 10.369 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(656,33 ft / 628,94 ft) x 60,20 ft x (17,39 / 18,69 ft)
(200,05 m / 191,70 m) x 18,35 m x (5,30 / 5,70 m)

Armament:
6 - 5,91" / 150 mm 60,0 cal guns - 110,23lbs / 50,00kg shells, 150 per gun
Quick firing guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1934 Model
2 x Triple mounts on centreline, aft deck aft
1 raised mount aft - superfiring
10 - 3,46" / 88,0 mm 76,0 cal guns - 23,56lbs / 10,69kg shells, 250 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1934 Model
4 x Twin mounts on sides, aft evenly spread
2 raised mounts
1 x Twin mount on sides, aft deck centre
1 double raised mount
16 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm 115,0 cal guns - 0,29lbs / 0,13kg shells, 500 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1934 Model
4 x Quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 902 lbs / 409 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1,97" / 50 mm 341,21 ft / 104,00 m 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 83% of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2,36" / 60 mm 1,57" / 40 mm 1,57" / 40 mm
2nd: 0,79" / 20 mm 0,39" / 10 mm -

- Box over machinery magazines:
1,18" / 30 mm
Forecastle: 0,00" / 0 mm Quarter deck: 1,18" / 30 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 3,15" / 80 mm, Aft 3,15" / 80 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 64.000 shp / 47.744 Kw = 30,86 kts
Range 8.450nm at 16,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2.167 tons

Complement:
476 - 620

Cost:
£3,149 million / $12,597 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 271 tons, 2,9%
- Guns: 271 tons, 2,9%
Armour: 1.016 tons, 10,8%
- Belts: 371 tons, 3,9%
- Armament: 77 tons, 0,8%
- Armour Deck: 508 tons, 5,4%
- Conning Towers: 60 tons, 0,6%
Machinery: 1.841 tons, 19,6%
Hull, fittings equipment: 3.895 tons, 41,4%
Fuel, ammunition stores: 1.481 tons, 15,7%
Miscellaneous weights: 900 tons, 9,6%
- Hull below water: 100 tons
- Hull above water: 200 tons
- On freeboard deck: 500 tons
- Above deck: 100 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
18.069 lbs / 8.196 Kg = 175,5 x 5,9 " / 150 mm shells or 2,2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,13
Metacentric height 3,0 ft / 0,9 m
Roll period: 14,7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,34
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,60

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low forecastle, rise forward of midbreak,
a normal bow and small transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,500 / 0,513
Length to Beam Ratio: 10,45 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26,86 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 44
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 10,00%, 28,77 ft / 8,77 m, 24,61 ft / 7,50 m
- Forward deck: 35,00%, 35,04 ft / 10,68 m, 35,04 ft / 10,68 m
- Aft deck: 40,00%, 13,12 ft / 4,00 m, 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
- Quarter deck: 15,00%, 13,12 ft / 4,00 m, 14,44 ft / 4,40 m
- Average freeboard: 22,21 ft / 6,77 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 78,2%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 241,4%
Waterplane Area: 25.832 Square feet or 2.400 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 142%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 96 lbs/sq ft or 469 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,95
- Longitudinal: 1,58
- Overall: 1,00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather_


----------



## delcyros (Dec 27, 2008)

This proposal was thought of as a design exercise to exploit the lower (extreme) limits of carrier designs. It is not a good proposal, even though it matches some of Your ideas well. As Dave pointed out, gun battles and avgas stores don´t match well.
Two main criticisms may be raised:
(A) the block coefficient is to low for the ship, resulting in to high a speed and significant space limitations for the submerged part of the hull 
(B) I believe that the flightdeck is to small, altough it would be possible to operate dedicated low stall speed A/C such as the Ar-195 and Fi-167

The basic impetus for the design comes from Harold, who redesigned kind of a seaplane carrier on the base of a K-class CL-cruiser hull by removing the foremost turret and installing a Hangar, two catapults and plane recovery instruments. Quite an interesting proposal as it allows rapid introduction of air power on the mid atlantic without requiring carrier doctrines.

The task to give Germany airpower in the Atlantic is difficult. Sometimes I believe that the most practical way wouldn´t be a carrier but an auxilary cruiser, a rebuild merchant optimised for launching seaplanes such as the Ar-95.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 27, 2008)

Delcyros, 

In spite of your own disclaimer of your design being "close, but no cigar" I personally think it is good both from the design and the tactical point of view, because 

(1) It is even cheaper, I think, than my "50% Scharnhorst" design, which means that one should be able to build at least six light carriers if one was willing to forego building these two battlecruisers. If we throw in two light cruisers foregone - the germans did build at least two light cruisers, which effectively did zip during the whole war - we get EIGHT light carriers, half ready before 1939, half in 1940. Plenty of time to work the bugs out in Atlantic shakedown cruises. 

(2) In 1939 we would still have the Panzerschiffes as well. Two Panzerschiffes with two carriers apiece, with rendezvous and refuel instructions for deep sea wolfpacks, could be sent out. Four packs of four submaries could have been put into place in 1939. Concentrate them, don't spread them out to search. Let the airplanes go out to search. When convoys are found, radio their location, then let the wolfpacks close in and massacre them. Stand off with your own planes and bomb them - don't get close to the convoys. Air patrol continuously. If a British hunter killer group is found, avoid them. If they pursue, run to the nearest wolfpack and lead the British into a torpedo trap. 

By the way, Delcyros, what about using the biplane Hs 123 for a naval attack plane? On the Eastern front it gained a legendary reputation for battle damage tolerance, bombing accuracy, and the STOL capacity. Its only weakness was its light bombload. Perhaps an upengined version with a navigator/rear gunner would be just the ticket for the German Carrier Navy!


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 29, 2008)

In another post on the Nav Weaps.com board a poster mentions the possibility of using seaplanes with the Jumo opposed piston opposed cylinder diesel engine...

I think that's an excellent idea. Have the two or three Panzershiffes, give them an escort of two carriers each, build six fast tankers with Jumo diesel engined seaplans, and hey presto...a strike/refuel/reconnaissance force!


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 2, 2009)

Here is something I wrote on another forum:

My reasoning is this - it is 1939 and because the KM has cancelled the Scharnhorst and Gniesenau, we have six diesel carriers with three panzerschiffe accompanied by three tankers on the high seas. They have left port escorted by the destroyers available before the outbreak of war. 1000 nm out, the heavy ships refuel from the tankers - watched by the British, who are following from a not-so-discreet distance - and then the destroyers and tankers turn back towards port. The nine ships continue, followed by the British - until nightfall, when they break up into three hunting packs, one panzerschiffe and two carriers each, and do a night sprint at high speed in three different directions.

Dawn finds them lost from sight. (I think this is quite plausible)

Two days later, war is declared. The British intensify the hunt, but the three packs are still lost...for they are heading deep, deep into the south atlantic, into the area of weakest British Presence.

Meanwhile, pre-positioned U-boats move into action near Gibraltar and the North Atlantic, distracting a portion of the British Fleet, which has to consider the possibility of combined action near the Mediterranean or the North Atlantic. (Rumours to that effect of course having been let slip beforehand)

Near the South Atlantic the raiders spring their surprise. Acting in concert, about 60 nm apart, they systematically divebomb any merchantman showing a British flag within 80-120 miles radius of their carriers. Radio silence is preserved by the use of aircraft couriers, allowing the three raiding forces to operate with stealth.

The British rush heavy cruiser, carrier and battlecruisers to the South Atlantic. However only two Fleet carriers are available. Thus of six British hunting forces, only two have carrier search and strike capability.

Meanwhile, the three raiding forces have recieved orders from Berlin to return. (I believe this, too, is plausible as the British fleet assembly and departure would be too large to be completely hidden, and in addition there is radio traffic analysis...) orders also go out to all u boats to combine into one large pack in mid atlantic.

Now, the three raiding forces combine in a prearranged rendezvous, and with 144 aircraft and three panzerschiffe mounting 18 28cm guns, sweep up concentrated to escape even as the hunting groups come down spread out to hunt. The advantage of the raider in escape is now apparent: he can afford to concentrate, whereas the hunter has to spread out to search. The raider's orders are: avoid combat with superior, equal, and near-equal opponents: overwhelm weaker opponents with dive bombing and gunfire: maintain air patrols at all times in daylight and good weather so that tactical surprise cannot be achieved: try to maintain patrols as conditions permit in night and bad weather: steer to your home ports on a course that goes through the U-boat pack mid atlantic.

And the results? Well, on the side of the raiders I like these odds in 1939.


----------



## Soren (Jan 2, 2009)

Delcyros,

Since I know you're pretty much an expert in the area of WW2 Naval material I have a question:

What was the difference between the Bismarck's fire control system and that of the Iowa class ?

Now I know the Germans fielded by far the best optical equipment, but that is only useful for visual contact and cant be used to accurately assess where each salvo hits. So gun laying radar was used. But what was the difference between the system used on the Bismarck class and that on the Iowa class ?


----------



## delcyros (Jan 2, 2009)

> What was the difference between the Bismarck's fire control system and that of the Iowa class ?
> 
> Now I know the Germans fielded by far the best optical equipment, but that is only useful for visual contact and cant be used to accurately assess where each salvo hits. So gun laying radar was used. But what was the difference between the system used on the Bismarck class and that on the Iowa class ?



To answer this question one has to check the primary source material GUNNERY DOCTRINE and INSTRUCTIONS, BATTLESHIPS U.S. PACIFIC FLEET. Unfortunately, they don´t explain the rational behind the spotting procedures but I remember that Bill Jurens and Brad Fisher wrote a good analysis of this in an older warships international issue, worth reading.
The US Navy deployed four types of fire control radar in 1941: CXAS-1/FA/Mark 1, FB/Mark 2, FC/Mark 3, and FD/Mark 4.
The USS IOWA´s (as well as all US BB´s with Mark 8 FCS) FC/Mark 8 radar had a significantly better range and bearing discrimination than their 1941 predecessors. In fact and compared to US cruisers, The battleships main battery had better radar about 4 times the range discrimination of +/- 15yds + 0.1% of range.
In addition to the much improved range discrimination, the advent of Mk 8 FCR continuous radar ranges, allowed an experienced rangekeeper operator to track a target to with a margin of error of 2 degrees and 2kts. This must be considered as a critical advantage. Early radar sets such as BISMARCKS DeTeG had discrimination problems as well as limited performance and (not Bimsarck´s problem but typical for period sets) slow rate of data transmission- typically early radar operators passed ranges to plot/TS via voice circuits. This had two negative effects; one is that there is an obvious lag of several to tens of seconds in the reception of said ranges while the second is that there is a larger lag in waiting for the plotting of ranges and the extraction of the observed range rate.
This allowed IOWA to spot not only a target but also the individual fall of shots, easening any correction in firecontroll solutions. Bismarck´s FC system relied on stereoscopic rangefinder (as did the US) for observing the individual fall of shot, it´s radar could find ranges to targets but couldn´t spot the fall of shots.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 2, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Here is something I wrote on another forum:
> 
> My reasoning is this - it is 1939 and because the KM has cancelled the Scharnhorst and Gniesenau, we have six diesel carriers with three panzerschiffe accompanied by three tankers on the high seas. They have left port escorted by the destroyers available before the outbreak of war. 1000 nm out, the heavy ships refuel from the tankers - watched by the British, who are following from a not-so-discreet distance - and then the destroyers and tankers turn back towards port. The nine ships continue, followed by the British - until nightfall, when they break up into three hunting packs, one panzerschiffe and two carriers each, and do a night sprint at high speed in three different directions.
> 
> ...



BB

This scenario pre-supposes a lot, not least of which being that there would be a fundamental change in KM thinking and theory. The KM would transform itself from being one of the least air minded navies to being one of the most, and manage to overcome all the problems associated with a new type, namely a disel powered carrier. I assume, for example that these fictional carriers are relying on the older style catapults, which as Del points out were slow in recovery and not considered satisfactory. So even though the Germans could fild superior types, the deck handling and turn around capabilities of these carriers is going to be terrible. 
But assuming that all these inconvenient truths could be solved, the really big flaw in this scenario is that the British are going to sit back and just do nothing. The British in fact are going to react, and not in a limited or inneffective way. With experience of raiding dating back several hundred years, and a primary mission of trade protection, and a German navy assumed to have lept forward several generations in its thinking, one has to also assume a similar gestation in British thinking. Its all fanciful, for both sides, and a bit silly, but I felt it necessary to demonstrate why such fantasies are dangerous to understanding the problem.

Just using the extrapolation method, the British are going to realize pre-war that the germans are building a carrier force for raiding. The first thing they are going to realize is that they need carriers as well, lots of them. So they are not going to build battleships when the Germans are building carriers, and they are going to progress their carrier designs to the 2nd or 3rd generation like the germans. That means that they will have available to them the super carriers of the Audacious class, and the Light Fleet Colossus and Majestic classes. They will also pour a lot more into aircraft development, with a number of possible outcomes, Most optimistically they will have a dedicated carrier fighter the most likely candidate in my book might be the F5/34 prototype, which appears to me to be something very similar to a zero. With proper deck handling, long range, good performance, this spells trouble for your German effort. Allied to that would be the development of high performance strike aircraft, something equivalent to the Firefly and Barracuda.

Now with approximately 3.5 times the funds for new construction, new designs and new aircraft, and a proven ability to anticipate the effects of surface raiders, your six German carriers are not going to be met by six hokey British carriers, they are going to be met by siomething like 15-20. Being conservative, I roughly estimate that the British would retain their 6 existing carriers, and add to that 12 or so Colossus class, and 1 or 2 Audacious classes.

In addition to that with the German carriers being diesel, the British are going to develop thair at sea refuelling capabilities. So when your carriers attemtp to sneak into the south atlantic theirr positions are going to be immedialtely known, and tracked. Within two days of war being declared, I would predict their demise at the hands of the British carrier fleet. 

The problem with all these fantasy scenarios is that they fail to consider any quid pro quos. If the germans change their build policies, why on earth would the British just sit their and let it happen. They never displayed such disregard for any threat previously, and with vastly greater resources at their disposal, no amount of german "cleverness" is ever going to solve that. The British are going to anticipate their every move, and simply out build them in the appropriate category of ship, as they did historically....


----------



## spitfire44 (Jan 2, 2009)

Battleship - Texas
Battlecruiser - Alaska
Carrier - Enterprise
Heavy Cruiser - Baltimore
Light Cruiser (under 9,000 tons standard) - Fiji
Destroyer - Allen N Summers
MTB - Fairmile D
Submarine - T Class


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2009)

Battleship = Texas class?

Carrier = Enterprise?


hehehhehehehe. Sure ......


----------



## ratdog (Jan 2, 2009)

depends on who is commanding them syscom


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2009)

ratdog said:


> depends on who is commanding them syscom



I think even an ensign commanding an Iowa class BB or Essex class CV would win.


----------



## ratdog (Jan 2, 2009)

ok this is kinda off topic but look up "big guns rc warship" on google and on youtube there are some interesting videos


----------



## fly boy (Jan 3, 2009)

spitfire44 said:


> Battleship - Texas
> Battlecruiser - Alaska
> Carrier - Enterprise
> Heavy Cruiser - Baltimore
> ...



uhhhh spitfire when you use class of ship it works better then giveing the names because anyone of the yorktown class carriers cloud have made the war.


----------



## Soren (Jan 3, 2009)

delcyros said:


> To answer this question one has to check the primary source material GUNNERY DOCTRINE and INSTRUCTIONS, BATTLESHIPS U.S. PACIFIC FLEET. Unfortunately, they don´t explain the rational behind the spotting procedures but I remember that Bill Jurens and Brad Fisher wrote a good analysis of this in an older warships international issue, worth reading.
> The US Navy deployed four types of fire control radar in 1941: CXAS-1/FA/Mark 1, FB/Mark 2, FC/Mark 3, and FD/Mark 4.
> The USS IOWA´s (as well as all US BB´s with Mark 8 FCS) FC/Mark 8 radar had a significantly better range and bearing discrimination than their 1941 predecessors. In fact and compared to US cruisers, The battleships main battery had better radar about 4 times the range discrimination of +/- 15yds + 0.1% of range.
> In addition to the much improved range discrimination, the advent of Mk 8 FCR continuous radar ranges, allowed an experienced rangekeeper operator to track a target to with a margin of error of 2 degrees and 2kts. This must be considered as a critical advantage. Early radar sets such as BISMARCKS DeTeG had discrimination problems as well as limited performance and (not Bimsarck´s problem but typical for period sets) slow rate of data transmission- typically early radar operators passed ranges to plot/TS via voice circuits. This had two negative effects; one is that there is an obvious lag of several to tens of seconds in the reception of said ranges while the second is that there is a larger lag in waiting for the plotting of ranges and the extraction of the observed range rate.
> This allowed IOWA to spot not only a target but also the individual fall of shots, easening any correction in firecontroll solutions. Bismarck´s FC system relied on stereoscopic rangefinder (as did the US) for observing the individual fall of shot, it´s radar could find ranges to targets but couldn´t spot the fall of shots.



Thanks Delcyros


----------



## renrich (Jan 3, 2009)

Spitfire, did you know that Texas had reciprocating engines that were so out of date that with prolonged use, she probably would have been towed into battle. My guess is that when assigned to her the crew and officers probably thought they had been banished to Purgatory. She would have been "state of the art" in 1903.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 3, 2009)

Even Enterprise is a strange choice, as they were completely eclipsed by the Essex class.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2009)

Renrich, the USS Texas did perform gunfire support duty for the Normandy invasion, and did it with distinction. But aside from that, she was obsolete by the middle 1930's, and the fact the USN didn't invest a lot into her in the modernization refits of 1942 and 1943 indicate her days were numbered.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 3, 2009)

Parsifal:

The RN counter the KM's carrier building spree? Such a response may well have been done...

...in 1938, after Czechoslovakia...

..when it was too late. For these reasons ...

Remember the peace pledge vote of the 1930s? Remember the cry "scholarships not battleships" ditto? Remember the motion carried by a majority of the Oxford Debating Society that its members would "never again fight again for King and Country"???

The fact is that ALL the parties, both the Tories and Labour and the Liberals, were rabidly pacifist in the 1930s was because of the insanely naive pacifist mood of the 1930s, aided and abetted by the usual suspects, the liberal intellectuals, the artists, and the media pundits. In 1936 Stanley Baldwin nakedly admitted that the British Government had known all along about German Rearmament but hushed it up because he did not want to lose the election! Here is a verbatim quote from his speech..

"...put before the whole House my own views with an appalling frankness. From 1933, I and my friends were all very worried about what was happening in Europe. You will remember at that time the Disarmament Conference was sitting in Geneva. You will remember at that time there was probably a stronger pacifist feeling running through the country than at any time since the War. I am speaking of 1933 and 1934. You will remember the election at Fulham in the autumn of 1933...That was the feeling of the country in 1933. My position as a leader of a great party was not altogether a comfortable one. I asked myself what chance was there...within the next year or two of that feeling being so changed that the country would give a mandate for rearmament? Supposing I had gone to the country and said that Germany was rearming and we must rearm, does anybody think that this pacific democracy would have rallied to that cry at that moment! I cannot think of anything that would have made the loss of the election from my point of view more certain.."

Churchill commented "...I have never heard such a squalid confession from a public man as Baldwin offered us yesterday"

And to add to all this, the Royal Navy was riddled through and through with Battleship Admirals.

So...with all these as givens...a decision by Britain to match the German CV building spree before 1938???

I don't think so, no sirrreeee!


----------



## renrich (Jan 3, 2009)

I was pretty familiar with Texas and actually went aboard her at San Jacinto once. She originally burned coal but was converted to oil between wars. She also served in the Neutrality Patrol, I think, in early 1941 in the Atlantic and, I believe, was tracked once by a German sub which could not get into a positon to fire. She also served, along with her sister, New York, at Iwo and Okinawa. We got our money's worth with those old girls.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2009)

renrich said:


> I was pretty familiar with Texas and actually went aboard her at San Jacinto once. ......



Me too.

I like how they preserved the deck damage from that unexploded German 8" AP shell from Cherborg.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 3, 2009)

my sources for the following are the HMSO records, which are reproduced in the official histories.

Notwithstanding the so-called pacifist revolutions that you talk about, Britain nevertheless laid down the following tonnages of capital ships in the prewar years

1934: 57700 tons
1935: 64300 tons
1936: 67700 tons
1937: 76300 tons
1938: 170200 tons
1939: 233900 tons 


This does not include ships uncompleted, notably the Lion Class, which added over 90000 tons to the 1939 totals.

So despite the pacifist issue, Britain was still rearming herself at sea to the teeth in the prewar period. If we assume that the germans dont produce Battleships, and are building lots of carriers, then the quid pro quo for that must be that the British are going to do the same. That means that 265000 tons of shipbuilding capacity is going to be built. to this should be added the 175000 tons of carriers already built historically. Just using the battleship tonnage and the historical carrier tonnage, the British have 527000 tons of naval tonnage they can call upon. that does not add a single ton to the Capital ship program, and does not decrease the cruiser tonnage by anything,

For the record, that 527000 tons of naval tonnage yields 29 Colossus class carriers. All that is doing, is moving the british build effort up to the 2nd generation of carriers, and adds nothing to the naval appropriations. I dont see that as any more outrageous as the notion that the Germans are going to learn how to build carriers, abandon battleship construction, and then build all of this, and have it ready for 1939.... 


Now, you say that the British wont build carriers until after March 1938. This raises a question in itself however, when do the germans start building their carriers.....remeber that in 1933, the Germans dont have the slightest idea of carrier technology. Assuming they make extraordinary efforts to build carriers, it is still going to be at leat 1937-38 before they can initiate them into production, and that means they wont be ready until the end of 1939 anyway (as Scharnhorst and Gneisenau wernt ready until the end of 1939). If you are going to accelarate the german build policy (as well as their acquisition of the technology) then surely the British should be assumed to do the same. In a sense I am saying that if you are accelarating the germans so as to pack 10 years worth of R&D and construction into just 3 years, then why is it so unreasonable to assume that the british arent goiung to simply push their build programs forward by a year or two, and shift their naval construction forward one gneration of carrier technology

In one sense you are right, you are saying the british build scenario is outrageous. But so too is your German scenario, made more outrageous if you assume the Brits are not going to modify their prewar naval buid strategy in response.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Me too.
> 
> I like how they preserved the deck damage from that unexploded German 8" AP shell from Cherborg.



Interesting note on the USS Texas. She was the first US Battleship to launch an aircraft off of her deck.


----------



## renrich (Jan 4, 2009)

Chris, are you saying that she was the first to launch off a catapult or off the actual deck like a CV?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2009)

renrich said:


> Chris, are you saying that she was the first to launch off a catapult or off the actual deck like a CV?



No it was off of a catapult. The Texas was not the first ship to launch an aircraft, but it was the first *US Battleship* to do so.

It happened on March 19, 1919. The aircraft was a Sopwith Camel flown by Lieutenant Commander Edward O. McDonnell.

I had this as an extra credit question in a History of Aviation in the United States Class I took for Embry Riddle.


----------



## renrich (Jan 4, 2009)

Thank you, now I understand. I seem to remember seeing an AC launched on a catapult from a cruiser and an AC taking off from a deck built over the turret of another cruiser.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2009)

renrich said:


> Thank you, now I understand. I seem to remember seeing an AC launched on a catapult from a cruiser and an AC taking off from a deck built over the turret of another cruiser.



Sorry that I have taken this discussion off topic...

In 1910 Eugene Ely took off from the deck of the Cruiser USS Birmingham which had a flight deck modified to it. Later in 1911 he became the first man to land on the deck of a ship (modified BB USS Pennsylvania).

In 1912 Commander Charles Rumney Samson became the first man to take off from a moving ship, the Battleship HMS Hibernia.


----------



## Valo300 (Feb 9, 2009)

Iowas and Essexes gotta be right at the top of any "best WWII ships" list.


----------



## BombTaxi (Feb 9, 2009)

Parsifal:

While the RN was indeed arming itself 'to the teeth' in terms of pure tonnage, it must be noted that it did so within the framework of the Washington Treaty. Even the KGVs were laid down within those guidelines, hence the relatively light displacement and 14in guns. And the new building was also accompanied by the financially expedient but militarily dubious practice of 'modernising' Jutland veterans. Even this was not done in a uniform manner, with some the 'R' class superdreadnaughts steaming into WW2 in much the same condition they steamed out of WW1. Perhaps if the RN had done what the Japanese navy did and simply ignored the Treaty limitations, it would have made a better showing as a surface force in WW2. I would certainly struggle to find a 'world class' vessel amongst any of the RNs 1930s building.


----------



## renrich (Feb 9, 2009)

The Queen Elisabeths served well and one could make a good case for HMS Warspite being the best value of any ship built in the 20th century except she might be edged by USS Enterprise. I would argue that, given budget constraints and adherence to the spirit of the naval treaties(although the treaties were designed to work for Britain) the British overall did a good job building a navy to fight in the ETO against a likely enemy.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 9, 2009)

Britain was scrupulous in her observance of the trety restrictions. In fact she exceeded the limits on certain warships, over and above those imposed by the treaty. Case in point are the KGVs. After 1936 they could have invoked the "escalator clauses", and upgunned these ships to 16" in much the same way as the US North Carolinas were upgunned (the US warships, like the Brits started life as 14" armed ships). 

Ren is also right, however, the treaties were written so as to favour (but only slightly) the RN


----------



## Glider (Feb 10, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Parsifal:
> 
> Even this was not done in a uniform manner, with some the 'R' class superdreadnaughts steaming into WW2 in much the same condition they steamed out of WW1.
> I would certainly struggle to find a 'world class' vessel amongst any of the RNs 1930s building.



The R Class were not updated as they were due to be replaced by the Lion Class. The Queen Elizabeth class were to be retained whch is why theey were rebuilt.
As for the World Class vessels the Ark Royal would be a contender and at the other end of the scale, the Black Swan Class would be my choice as the best escort of the time.


----------



## PJay (Aug 29, 2009)

The 'Black Swans' proved flimsy on Atlantic operations. Of course they were being used hard.


----------



## Glider (Aug 29, 2009)

PJay said:


> The 'Black Swans' proved flimsy on Atlantic operations. Of course they were being used hard.



I admit that this is new to me and to be honest I find it hard to believe as a repeat class was built buring the was and the original class was a development of other types.

Can I ask where this information has come from?


----------



## PJay (Aug 29, 2009)

It was in a book about Walker and the support group. These were Modified Black Swan. They were getting cracks in the deck and other problems. Walker was not impressed by the durability of the ships.
The book was Burn, Alan; The Fighting Captain : The Story of Frederic Walker CB, DSO, RN & the Battle of the Atlantic. Foreword by Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Lewin, KG, GCB, LVO, DSC


----------



## Glider (Aug 30, 2009)

Thanks for the information, looks as if I will have to find an alternative!!


----------



## renrich (Aug 31, 2009)

Just finished reading a recent book about HMS Hood and the author stated that modifications of design during original construction caused her to draw 3 feet more than planned and thus decreased freeboard and later prewar modifications and remodeling cut her top speed to 29 knots. Seems that the "Mighty Hood" was badly outmoded.


----------



## Glider (Aug 31, 2009)

renrich said:


> Just finished reading a recent book about HMS Hood and the author stated that modifications of design during original construction caused her to draw 3 feet more than planned and thus decreased freeboard and later prewar modifications and remodeling cut her top speed to 29 knots. Seems that the "Mighty Hood" was badly outmoded.



I think its fair to say yes and no. 29 knots is an exceptional speed for a 1918 Battleship with guns and armour to match the best battleships afloat. It was 4 knots less than she was designed for but still excellent for the time. 
By 1939 she was in desperate need of a rebuild having been kept in service without a major refit since 1918 and one similar to that given to HMS Renown was planned. However as we know the refit never happened and if it would have made a difference, who knows?


----------



## PJay (Aug 31, 2009)

Yes the 'Hood' was always very wet aft and additional armour etc made it worse.


----------



## diddyriddick (Aug 31, 2009)

Glider said:


> I think its fair to say yes and no. 29 knots is an exceptional speed for a 1918 Battleship with *guns and armour *to match the best battleships afloat. It was 4 knots less than she was designed for but still excellent for the time.
> By 1939 she was in desperate need of a rebuild having been kept in service without a major refit since 1918 and one similar to that given to HMS Renown was planned. However as we know the refit never happened and if it would have made a difference, who knows?



I've never seen anybody seriously question the guns, but my understanding is that her Battlecruiser armor did her in when she faced Bismark.


----------



## trackend (Sep 1, 2009)

It was a common failing to send BC's against BS's. Jutland the BC (Queen Mary see below) suffered the same fate as Hood. Used as they were designed against heavy cruisers they had a big advantage. although having said that HMS Hood was all that was around to take on the Bismark in that sector the POW had not even completed sea trials so was far from ready to take on Bismark.
although the Royal was the worlds largest navy at the outbreak of war its resources were very thinly spread and due to cut backs in defense spending many vessels like the Hood although upgraded still dated back to WW1


----------



## renrich (Sep 1, 2009)

It was a tragedy that Hood was matched against Bismarck and her armor proved inadequate. An interesting point to me to ponder is comparing the fate of the British BCs, Invincible, Indefatigable, Queen Mary, Hood and the Japanese BCs which were similar to Tiger. The British BCs all blew up at once while Hiei took a lot of punishment from surface guns and aerial attack before succumbing and Kirishima was hit some 30 times by 16 inch and 5 inch shells before eventually sinking. Kirishima was engaged at relatively close range where the incoming was flat trajectory and so was Hiei during the night fight and the max size shell she was hit by was 8 inch. Perhaps that explains it.


----------



## PJay (Sep 2, 2009)

Off Topic for WW2 ships...The 'Invincible's actually had a gap in the deck armour amidships for a gangway. OK the chance of a shell plunging exactly there were low...


----------



## iat_butcher (Oct 11, 2009)

Hi all I’m new here but I have been reading this and was thinking about my favored ships.

Battleship- nelson, I know it is not the best but if you look at the Hood you see that it sunk because it rushed in to the Bismarck and only could use it front turrets. An also only front turret means you have a smaller side to be hit on.

Aircraft carrier- Shinano, it may not have had the best crew but it was the first real super carrier.

Heavy cruiser- panzerswift (is a pocket battleship I know) was considered a cruiser.

Light cruiser- kuma class, especially kitakami in the early days. It had 40 torpedo tubes. Made in 1920 and was active in the night raids (it is the ship I love the most of all ships.

Destroyer- shimikaza, it had good guns and torpedo’s.

Frigate- the germane snell boot. 2 torpedo launchers 2 turrets.

I’m surprised that no one spoke about the kitakami, It rock’s!! (for me it does because it is a transport ship)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 12, 2009)

iat_butcher said:


> Heavy cruiser- panzerswift (is a pocket battleship I know) was considered a cruiser.



Which *Panzerschiff* are you referring to?

Light cruiser- kuma class, especially kitakami in the early days. It had 40 torpedo tubes. Made in 1920 and was active in the night raids (it is the ship I love the most of all ships.

You had the Deutschland Class (Deutschland (later called theLützow), Admiral Scheer, and Admiral Graf Spee), and you had the heavy cruiser class Admiral Hipper (Admiral Hipper, Blücher, Prinz Eugen and Seydlitz) 



iat_butcher said:


> Frigate- the germane snell boot. 2 torpedo launchers 2 turrets.



Are you referring to the E-Boot? I only ask because you use the term schnell boot. They were torpedo boats such as the the PT Boats and not frigates.

The other type of "schnell boot" was the Elbing Class, Raubtier Class, Type 1935 and Type 1937 class torpedo boats. They too however were all more like destroyers than frigates.


----------



## Glider (Oct 12, 2009)

iat_butcher said:


> Hi all I’m new here but I have been reading this and was thinking about my favored ships.
> 
> Battleship- nelson, I know it is not the best but if you look at the Hood you see that it sunk because it rushed in to the Bismarck and only could use it front turrets. An also only front turret means you have a smaller side to be hit on.)


A good choice for the best pre war battleship but not up to the later vessels.



> Aircraft carrier- Shinano, it may not have had the best crew but it was the first real super carrier.


Again a good choice but in the view of most comes second to the Essex, if only for their better AA.



> Heavy cruiser- panzerswift (is a pocket battleship I know) was considered a cruiser.)


Assuming that you are talking about the Pocket Battleship I would agree with you if we have to leave out AA guns.



> Light cruiser- kuma class, especially kitakami in the early days. It had 40 torpedo tubes. Made in 1920 and was active in the night raids (it is the ship I love the most of all ships.


Must dasagree totally. Too small, too fragile, too few guns and didn't achieve anything with that payload. She was if I remember correctly converted mid war to this configuration and by then the allies had a fair amount of radar which went a long way to evening up the odds. 



> Destroyer- shimikaza, it had good guns and torpedo’s.


Again a good choice if you leave out AA weapons and radars but in the real world you could not and the Fletcher was a better choice.



> Frigate- the germane snell boot. 2 torpedo launchers 2 turrets.


I admit you have me there as I cannot work out what you are talking about.


----------



## timshatz (Oct 12, 2009)

Somebody oughta PM Delc on this one. He'd be all over it. 

My understanding is the Hiei's armor was upgraded to BB standards between the wars. 

The three BCs that blew up at Jutland were all slugging it out with German BCs when they went bang. Not BBs. There were BBs in around but they had not yet gotten into the that fight. Well, not affecting the British BCs anyway. German BCs took down the British BCs at Jutland, not BBs. The British BCs blew because of poor ammo management and the volitility of their powerder. The Germans had had a similar problem but a fight after a BC raid on the British Coast (where the Seyditz lost a turret and almost the ship to the same problem) taught them Ammo Management ("Ordanance instructions are written in blood"). Their powder was less volitale from the start. 

The Hood had been upgraded in a few spots, but not continuously. Not sure of the details, but the round that put her under seems to have been a freak shot. In the parliance of sport, the round had eyes. It went on a somewhat ecclectic route to the the secondary battery magazines. They detonated and took the mains up. Given the route it took (past or around armor plate), it entirely possible that a round from the Prince Eugen could've done it. But the Hood had just been on the receiving end of a Bismark Salvo when she blew so the odds are very good it was the Bismark that fired the shot. 

Another point, the wreckage of the Hood is in such a manner that their is credible evidence that her forward magazines blew up also. The final shot, where the forward turret fired as the ship sank, could've been venting from that event instead of an actual salvo.


----------



## renrich (Oct 12, 2009)

Actually the German BCs at Jutland had the same size guns as the German BBs, 11 and 12 inch. However the Invincible might have gotten hit by BB guns. Hiei and Kirishima as well as Haruna and Kongo were all remodeled between wars but so was Hood. In another thread I mentioned how fate seemed to step in on Queen Mary at Jutland because the other "Cats" were hit many times but were still full of fight. Actually the German BCs had their fighting qualities diminished by the damage more than the British BCs, except for the ones that blew up. Just found my reference on Jutland. Von Der Tann was hit by 4 heavy shells and all of her main battery was out of action. Derrflinger was hit by 17 heavy and 9 medium and small shells and most of her guns were out of action. Seydlitz was hit by 21 heavy and 2 medium and light shells and a torpedo and was barely afloat. Lutzow was hit by 21 heavy shells and sank. Moltke was hit by 4 heavy shells and her fighting qualities were not diminished. Lion was hit by 12 heavy shells and her q turret was destroyed but she lost no speed. Tiger was hit by 17 heavy shells and 4 medium and light shells and her fighting qualities were undiminished. Princess Royal was hit by 9 heavy shells and her fighting qualities were undiminished and New Zealand was barely scratched because, I guess, of the Maori skirt.


----------



## timshatz (Oct 13, 2009)

renrich said:


> I guess, of the Maori skirt.



Ren, do you know if there are any pics out there of the Captian of the NZ wearing that skirt? Always wanted to see him the full regailia but never have.


----------



## renrich (Oct 13, 2009)

Tim, I believe I saw a photo of him with skirt on one time but can't remember where. It may have been in Life magazine.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 13, 2009)

He wore that shirt into combat??


----------



## parsifal (Oct 14, 2009)

There are two things that make the Kiwis unique....their skirts and their desire for sheep.....


----------



## renrich (Oct 14, 2009)

Absolutely he wore the skirt on the bridge of New Zealand at Jutland. The Maoris had bestowed the skirt on him and it was supposed to, I think, bring luck or protect the wearer and New Zealand came through almost unscathed, the only BC on either side to do so.


----------



## voldemort (Nov 18, 2009)

Carrier: Essex class CV
Battleship: Yamato class (Yamato and Musashi)
Battle Cruiser: Scharnhorst 
Heavy Cruiser: Norfolk
Light Cruiser: HMS Belfast
Destroyers: Fletcher Class USN Destroyers
Submarines: Type XXI U-Boote (even not in numbers)
MTB/Patrol: S-Boote (late types)


----------



## Amsel (Nov 18, 2009)

I like your choices.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 18, 2009)

Pretty dead on IMHO


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 19, 2009)

Germans would argue that Scharnhorst class ships are batteships, not battlecruisers. Sorry for nitpicking


----------



## parsifal (Nov 19, 2009)

Some sources I have read (particularly Frame) rate the Scharnhorst as the worst Battlecruisers fieded by any nation.

For example, the Japanese Kirishima Class were originally rated as Battleships, but after their final refits were rated as Battlecruisers. With thei 8 14 inch guns I think they would have easily overpowered the Scharnhorsts with their nine 11" guns. On the other the hand the Scharnhorsts were superior in sped and endurance, and were simply a more modern design

The Scharnhorsts were the lightest armed capital ships of any navy at that time 9unless one includes heavy cruisers). They were capable ships, with exceptionally high speed, and for their size were relatively well protected. But like all warship design they were a series of compromises, and suffered badly in that development process from political intervention 

I would even go so far as to argue the French Dunkerque class were superior, and wouild definately rate the Hood as superior, notwithstanding its lack of refit


----------



## Glider (Nov 20, 2009)

The Dunkerque and the Scharnhorst are and will always be an interesting match. The Schornhorst has the better protection but the Dunkerque has the better weapons. The unknown question would be if the 13in guns would be enough to seriously compromise the german armour.

My guess and it is only a guess is that the Scharnhorst would have the advantage as she was without doubt able to take damage. French ships had a reputation for being fragile.

What is certain is that if yu replace the 9 x 11in with 6 x 15in any questions go away.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 20, 2009)

afaik no battlecruiser there are after WWI, also the old BC, as Hood and Kongo, are no more considered BC but BB.
the concept of BC, a ship with around same weapon of a BB and around the speed of cruiser was passed when the new BB get high speed.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 20, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Some sources I have read (particularly Frame) rate the Scharnhorst as the worst Battlecruisers fieded by any nation.
> 
> 
> I would even go so far as to argue the French Dunkerque class were superior, and wouild definately rate the Hood as superior, notwithstanding its lack of refit




The crews of 4 RN battlecruisers that experienced wholesale explosions hull breaks would bitterly argue against rating Scharnhorst as a worst Battlecruiser.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 20, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> afaik no battlecruiser there are after WWI, also the old BC, as Hood and Kongo, are no more considered BC but BB.
> the concept of BC, a ship with around same weapon of a BB and around the speed of cruiser was passed when the new BB get high speed.



Agree.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 20, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> The crews of 4 RN battlecruisers that experienced wholesale explosions hull breaks would bitterly argue against rating Scharnhorst as a worst Battlecruiser.



What four British Battlecruisers were sunk in WWII???? considering thaqt they only fielded three for the whole war


The four BCs lost at Jutland were lost a much from Beatty's stupidity as anything to do with the design faults....but the issue is the title of the thread....best warships of WWII, not of all time


----------



## parsifal (Nov 20, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> afaik no battlecruiser there are after WWI, also the old BC, as Hood and Kongo, are no more considered BC but BB.
> the concept of BC, a ship with around same weapon of a BB and around the speed of cruiser was passed when the new BB get high speed.




Well according to both Janes and Conways, Hood was rated as a Battlecreuiser for her entire career. 

The Kongo Class were rated as BCs when built, but after reconstruction in the thirties were re-rated as fast Battleships. That much is true, but their design, protection, displacement all put them in the class of Battlecruiser. Their displacement is perhaps the best indication of what they were....they displaced a maximum of 31000 tons deep displacement, to the Scharnhorsts 38900. . It seems ilogical to rate the Scharnhorst as a Battlecruiser at nearly 40000 tons, when the Japanese ships are lighter but still rated as a Battleship

What the Battlecruiser description suggests to me for the Scharnhorst was that despite their relatively massive size they were still weak and unsatisfactory ships. What the label "fast battleships" for the Kongos suggests to me is that despite their obvious weaknesses as Battlecruisers, they could be half considered as Battleships because of their firepower, and overall design excellence. Thats notwithstanding their lossess to the US BBs in November 1942....


----------



## Glider (Nov 20, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Well according to both Janes and Conways, Hood was rated as a Battlecreuiser for her entire career.
> 
> The Kongo Class were rated as BCs when built, but after reconstruction in the thirties were re-rated as fast Battleships. That much is true, but their design, protection, displacement all put them in the class of Battlecruiser. Their displacement is perhaps the best indication of what they were....they displaced a maximum of 31000 tons deep displacement, to the Scharnhorsts 38900. . It seems ilogical to rate the Scharnhorst as a Battlecruiser at nearly 40000 tons, when the Japanese ships are lighter but still rated as a Battleship
> 
> What the Battlecruiser description suggests to me for the Scharnhorst was that despite their relatively massive size they were still weak and unsatisfactory ships. What the label "fast battleships" for the Kongos suggests to me is that despite their obvious weaknesses as Battlecruisers, they could be half considered as Battleships because of their firepower, and overall design excellence. Thats notwithstanding their lossess to the US BBs in November 1942....



I don't know why the Japanese re rated the Kongo's as fast battleships as the changes they had were similar to those made to the Renown. Modern engines, weight saving that was allocated to better protection to air attack and AA defence. However the Renown remained a Battle cruiser, one that I would prefer to the Kongo.

The Schornhorst has as far as I know never been called weak or unsatisfactory. True 6 x 15in would be better than 9 x 11in and that was being changed but that was the only problem.


----------



## Juha (Nov 20, 2009)

I agree with Glider on Renown, it was very useful ship for RN having respectable firepower in 6 * 15in and good heavy AA with 20*4.5in and enough speed to operate with fleet carriers, but still somewhat lacking in protection.

On Voldemort's list
I partly agree but
BB: Iowa class, they had speed to operate with fleet carriers and excellent AA, also the 16in/L50 was excellent 16in gun.
BC: Scharnhorst was not a bad design but it had a number of serious flaws: weak main armament, main armour deck was too low down because of the class was heavier than was designed, in fact at full load the main armoured deck was below waterline, also there was a discontinue over boiler rooms because of boilers were bigger than was thought and so the main armoured deck was heightened over boiler rooms but the vertical part of that was only 80mm thick and that proved to be a fatal weakness in Scharnhorst’s case, a 14in shell from DOY hit there and penetrated and did massive damage in No 1 boiler room and doomed the ship in the Battle of North Cape. Also the general weakness of horizontal protection was shown when they were hit by level bombers. And torpedo protection, while effective at mid-ship was too weak at ends as shown when HMS Acasta hit Scharnhorst with a torpedo in 1940.

CA: I prefer Baltimore class
CL: I have nothing against Belfast but maybe Clevelands were better

A/S vessel: Loch class frigates because of their 2 Squids

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Nov 20, 2009)

Glider said:


> I don't know why the Japanese re rated the Kongo's as fast battleships as the changes they had were similar to those made to the Renown. Modern engines, weight saving that was allocated to better protection to air attack and AA defence. However the Renown remained a Battle cruiser, one that I would prefer to the Kongo.
> 
> The Schornhorst has as far as I know never been called weak or unsatisfactory. True 6 x 15in would be better than 9 x 11in and that was being changed but that was the only problem.



Agree that both the Kongos and the Renown were very extensively rebuilt. 

There are quite a few authors that have commented on the unsatisfactory nature of the Scharnhorst. Tom Frame stands out as the most obvious to me. But consider this. They were built with 9 x 11 Guns fitted, which gave them a broadside weight 2970 kg per salvo. By comparison, the Renown could deliver 5274 kg per salvo and th kongos 5378 kg. I would hazard a guess and argue that the AP capabilities of the 15 and 14 inch guns was also superior. The only thing the german ship has an advantage, is that with a larger number of tubes shipped, they have a statistically higher chance of a hit per salvo.

In terms of ROF, the German gun is rated as having a an rof of 3 rpm.The 15 and 14 in guns had a nominal firing rates of 2 rpm. This means that the weight of ordinance delivered per minute by Scharnhorst was 8910 kg, compared to 10756 for the Kongo, and 10548 for the Renown.

Range is not as important as people imagine, since the longest ranged shot of the war did not exceed 27000 yards. All three guns were potentially lethal at that range. Neither was armour penetration, since Battlecruisers genenerally were underarmoured, and could not withstand heavy calibre hits. Mind you, the 11inch shells of the German ship are going to have some difficulty in some areas of the Renowns defensive armour scheme
And remember this, both Renown and Kongo were 20 years older than the Scharnhorst. If you want to compre aples to apples, the Scharnhorst on the displacement she draws, should be compared to the KGVs or the North Carolinas. Thats why she was an unsatisfactory and weak design


----------



## Juha (Nov 20, 2009)

Also Scharnhorsts were wet forward, partly because they were heavier than planned. There was a marked difference here between Scharnhorsts and Renown when they met off Norway in 40. After Renown got a hit onto Gneisenau's foretop Scharnhorsts tried to disengage in which they succeeded in the end by running against strong headwind, but during the chase Scharnhorst's A turret was disabled and B turret suffered time to time from water cascaded over her bows while Renown could keep steady fire from her forward turrets.

Juha

ADDITION: I read the British descriptions on the 9th April 1940 action Renown vs Scharnhorts. According to Raven and Roberts also Renown run into difficulties with its forward turrets while sailing at full speed to the gale force sea. Maybe Germans didn’t notice that or maybe they overstated their own technical problems in order to explain why they disengaged, Renown had ordered its DD screen away very early on and had pursuit alone the Scharnhorsts.


----------



## Glider (Nov 21, 2009)

I knew that the Scharnhorsts were originally wet forward but the bows were rebuilt to overcome this difficulty. The difference between the 9 x 11in and the 6 x 15 has already been commented on but generally all these BC's could penetrate each other.

I also agree that the Schornhorst was 20 years later and a better comparison would be the USS Alaska, a ship of similar size, simlar protection and with 12in guns.

Unfortunately I haven't read Tom Frames book on the Scharnhorst so cannot comment on his paper.


----------



## Amsel (Nov 21, 2009)

As a treaty ship in a incredibly outnumbered navy, playing the role of a BB against the RN ; it was doomed.


----------



## Juha (Nov 21, 2009)

Hello Glider
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had got the the "Atlantic" bow already in 1939, so that clearly didn't solve the problem.

Amsel
In the gunnerly duel Scharnhorst and Gneisenau vs Renown they clearly were not outnumbered, Renown was. Renown had with it IIRC 8 DDs but those had no chance to stay with her in stormy weather and so soon fell far behind. Germans recognized Renown almost immediately, officers in Renown thought that they had made contact to Scharnhorst and Hipper, ie a modern BC and a modern CA, but attacked without hesitation.

On Alaska class, they were as they were classified large cruisers and so didn't have any torpedo protection to speak of contrary to British, German and japanese BCs.

Juha


----------



## Amsel (Nov 21, 2009)

Juha, I'm well aware of the skirmish between the Renown and the S&G. The Scharnhorst was clearly outmatched, mostly due to the Renown's superior rifles and fire control. I'm just saying that the Scharnhorst was doomed. All the KM vessels were.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 21, 2009)

Glider said:


> I also agree that the Schornhorst was 20 years later and a better comparison would be the USS Alaska, a ship of similar size, simlar protection and with 12in guns.
> .



Just remember that the Alaskas managed to put 9x 12 in guns to sea on a displacement just over 30000 tons. I have to draw attention to the fact that the Scharnhorsts only managed to put 9x11 in guns to sea on 38000 tons. The armouring scheme of the Scharnhorsts was more extensive, but not greatly so, ....the turrets on the Alaskas for example had armour plate 11-13 inches thick, whilst the turerets in the Scharnhorsts were 14 inches on the front facings and only 6 inches elsewhere. . The main belt was 6-13 in the Scharnhorsts compared to 5-9 inches in the Alaskas

The Alaskas are some of the most misunderstood ships in History. They are often referred to as Battlecruisers in popular literature, but the USN never rated them as such. Conways describes them as the logical development of Heavy Cruisers, free of all treaty restrictions. They were never intended to fight in the US gunline, like Battlecuisewrs were designed to do


----------



## Juha (Nov 21, 2009)

Hello Parsifal
IMHO at least Renowns and the “big light cruisers”, Glorious, Courageous and Furious were designed to fight against cruisers not battleships. Renowns got more armour during their refits in 20s and 30s but I doubt that they were seen as suitable to battleline, probably their function was more like as fast carrier escorts and as back up scouting forces. Maybe not, any case the bigger Hood was sent against Bismarck and Repulse was sent to Singapore with PoW but her adversities were probably seen being Kongos and heavy cruisers. Repulse duelled with Schanhorsts and with Italian BBs at Spartivento but was forbidden to engage Bismarck alone.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Nov 21, 2009)

No doubt....the BC concept was flawed in that it usually sacrificed too much firepower for speed and gunpower. Scharnhorsts sacrificed less protection but a lot of gunpower and retained a lot of speed

I think that Battlecruisers can join the gunline, but would probably be knocked out with only a few hits. They really needed Battleships to protect them

The exception to this was in the Med, where the Renown could face one or even two Italian Battleships, with some hope of success. The Italian BBs simply lacked the firing accuracy, and the orders they were always constrained by made them easy meat most of the time


----------



## Glider (Nov 21, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Just remember that the Alaskas managed to put 9x 12 in guns to sea on a displacement just over 30000 tons. I have to draw attention to the fact that the Scharnhorsts only managed to put 9x11 in guns to sea on 38000 tons. The armouring scheme of the Scharnhorsts was more extensive, but not greatly so, ....the turrets on the Alaskas for example had armour plate 11-13 inches thick, whilst the turerets in the Scharnhorsts were 14 inches on the front facings and only 6 inches elsewhere. . The main belt was 6-13 in the Scharnhorsts compared to 5-9 inches in the Alaskas
> 
> The Alaskas are some of the most misunderstood ships in History. They are often referred to as Battlecruisers in popular literature, but the USN never rated them as such. Conways describes them as the logical development of Heavy Cruisers, free of all treaty restrictions. They were never intended to fight in the US gunline, like Battlecuisewrs were designed to do



I certainly agree that the Scharnhorst weighed more than the Alaska but I don't think the difference is as great as those mentioned in your posting. 


I have
Scharnhorst Standard 34,800 tons, full load 38,900 tons
Alaska Standard 29,800 tons Full Load 34,250 tons.

Against this the Scharnhorst had much better armour. As you mention the Scharnhorst had a much thicker main belt by a significant margin. The Main Turret Armour was very similar
Alaska 12.75 in Face, 5 to 6in on the other areas,
Scharnhorst 14 in face, 6 in to the others.

I am as sure as I can that the extra weight went into the armour and the secondary weapons. 12 x 5.9 and 14 x 4.1 will weigh a lot more than 20 x 5in.

As for the titles these are more or less meaningless. At the end of the day the Dunkerque was designed to face off against the Graff Spee as was the Alaska (source American Battleships, Carriers and Cruisers ISBN 35601511 4) and the Scharnhorst was designed to take on the Dunkerque, so they share a similar bloodline. That the USA decided to use an enhanced Cruiser design is a logical and effective approach to solve a problem and they ended up with a good solution. 

Juha
No battlecruiser was supposed to stand in the battleline and slug it out against a Battleship. To do so is asking for trouble.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 21, 2009)

parsifal said:


> No doubt....the BC concept was flawed in that it usually *sacrificed too much firepower for speed and gunpower*. Scharnhorsts sacrificed less protection but a lot of gunpower and retained a lot of speed



Was the marked part a typo?

BCs were the drednoughts that sacrificed armor to gain speed; their armament was in 90% cases same as BBs had.
Since Scharnhorst had a tick armour, it's not Battlecruiser.

As for the flawed concept: it was Royan Navy BC designs that were flawed. German ships were much better.


----------



## Glider (Nov 21, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Was the marked part a typo?
> 
> BCs were the drednoughts that sacrificed armor to gain speed; their armament was in 90% cases same as BBs had.
> Since Scharnhorst had a tick armour, it's not Battlecruiser.
> ...



BC's were capital ships that made a sacrifice for speed. Generally British ones sacrificed armour, German one sacrificed firpower. Even in WW1 German BC's tended to have 12 in guns instead of British 13.5in or 11 in against British 12 in.
It is well known that German WW1 BC's had thicker protection than RN BC's it was a trend that continued into WW2. There was nothing new about this trend.

People was lyrical about the Kongo, it should be remembered that she was a British design based on a British WW1 BC with the same flaws as late RN BC's namely thinner armour.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 21, 2009)

Glider said:


> BC's were capital ships that made a sacrifice for speed. Generally British ones sacrificed armour, German one sacrificed firpower. Even in WW1 German BC's tended to have 12 in guns instead of British 13.5in or 11 in against British 12 in.
> 
> *Most of the German WW1 battleships had either 11 or 12 inch guns. Since that was also a calibre of their battlecruisers, I'd say the firepower wasn't reduced.*
> 
> ...



.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 21, 2009)

On a more affirmative note, Ive just googled out this nice illustration:

ships of the kriegsmarine - Warbird Photo Album

Posted on our very own forum, nevertheless


----------



## Soren (Nov 21, 2009)

Was reading about the Scharnhorst and surprisingly it seems like its armament was able to outrange that of many other battleships with a maximum range of 41 km. Only the Bismarck Tirpitz could shoot further at 42 to 55 km according to what I've read so far.

Max range of the Yamato's massive 46cm guns was 42 km.


----------



## Glider (Nov 21, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Originally Posted by Glider
> BC's were capital ships that made a sacrifice for speed. Generally British ones sacrificed armour, German one sacrificed firpower. Even in WW1 German BC's tended to have 12 in guns instead of British 13.5in or 11 in against British 12 in.
> 
> *Most of the German WW1 battleships had either 11 or 12 inch guns. Since that was also a calibre of their battlecruisers, I'd say the firepower wasn't reduced.*
> ...



Taking your points one at a time
The first RN BC's had 12 in Guns, the first German BC's had 11 in guns. However the armour on these vessels were different. RN vessels having a belt of around 6 in, the German vessels 11 in.
The second wave of British BC's had 13.5in guns and the belt armour was about 9in. The equivalent German Vessels had 12in guns and the belt armour was about 12 in.
The RN then went to 15in Guns but the German Navy didn't build any more BC. The trend is clear, ship for ship the german BC had less firepower but better protection.

The Sharnhorst was a continuation of the general theme, better protection less armour. As for the RN, she abandoned the BC as a class and concentrated on the KGV and Lion Class BB's. 

As for your fav designs from WW1 I would agree with you, the QE and Seyditz were excellent designs.


----------



## Glider (Nov 21, 2009)

Soren said:


> Was reading about the Scharnhorst and surprisingly it seems like its armament was able to outrange that of many other battleships with a maximum range of 41 km. Only the Bismarck Tirpitz could shoot further at 42 to 55 km according to what I've read so far.
> 
> Max range of the Yamato's massive 46cm guns was 42 km.



True but these are only theoretical ranges in the sense that all you would do is use up your ammunition and wear the guns out. You would never hit anything at that range.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 21, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Was the marked part a typo?
> 
> BCs were the drednoughts that sacrificed armor to gain speed; their armament was in 90% cases same as BBs had.
> Since Scharnhorst had a tick armour, it's not Battlecruiser.
> ...



Yes

I meant sacrifices in protection


----------



## Juha (Nov 21, 2009)

Hello Soren
I wonder what are your sources for the range of the 15in on Bismarck and Tirpitz?
Germany 38 cm/52 (14.96") SK C/34 gives max 36 520m with AP shell, which is the same figure that for ex Garzke Dulin give.
In coastal artillery installation the gun had max range of 42 000m with AP because of higher elevation available and max 54,900m for much lighter HE shell. But you are talking on Bismarck and Tirpitz and compared it to range of 11in and 18in firing AP shell.

Juha


----------



## DonL (Nov 21, 2009)

Hi Guys,

some comments to the last posts.



> The Scharnhorst has the better protection but the Dunkerque has the better weapons. The unknown question would be if the 13in guns would be enough to seriously compromise the german armour.



Thats not the truth. Dunkerque is better protected than SH and has had much more worse weapons.
The french guns were to closely spaced together and suffered from problems with excessive dispersion. Also they were to short with L50 for there high muzzle velocity.
On the other hand the 11in/54.5 SK C/34 was to my opinion the best balanced german heavy naval gun ever built and it was very accurate. SH made the longest gunfire hit ever on a moving target (Glorious) at 26,465 yds. 
The weak point at the SH protection is the upper belt with 45mm and the low main deck with 80mm. At a range up from 18000-19000m a projectile can go directly from the upper belt to the main deck and that isn't a good protection. There was the overall protection from Dunkerque with 220mm inclined main belt and 130mm main deck (high) much better.
But at a 1 on 1 straight battle at 1940 or 1941 i will bet on SH/GS because of the much better guns and I'm 
a big fan of the french battleship design of WWII, but the guns of the Dunkerque- and Richellieu-Class were **** with the excessive dispersion problems. 



> The four BCs lost at Jutland were lost a much from Beatty's stupidity as anything to do with the design faults



Sorry parsifal but that is nonsens. The german BC's from WWI (Jutland) were much better protected than there british counterparts and the "security system" for the propellant charge in the turrents was much better by the germans (after the battle of doggerbank) than the british. The only very good and balanced british BC at Jutland was HMS Tiger. SMS Lützow took 24 heavy hits up from 12 inch at Jutland before sinking, therefrom 6 heavy hits in the bow and there was a design problem with the torpedoroom at the bow.



> BC: Scharnhorst was not a bad design but it had a number of serious flaws: weak main armament, main armour deck was too low down because of the class was heavier than was designed, in fact at full load the main armoured deck was below waterline, also there was a discontinue over boiler rooms because of boilers were bigger than was thought and so the main armoured deck was heightened over boiler rooms but the vertical part of that was only 80mm thick and that proved to be a fatal weakness in Scharnhorst’s case, a 14in shell from DOY hit there and penetrated and did massive damage in No 1 boiler room and doomed the ship in the Battle of North Cape. Also the general weakness of horizontal protection was shown when they were hit by level bombers. And torpedo protection, while effective at mid-ship was too weak at ends as shown when HMS Acasta hit Scharnhorst with a torpedo in 1940.



This hit from DOY isn't prooved. SH was 5 knots faster plotted from DOY at Nordcap by a wind strength of 9 (that's an Orkan) and that could be an argument for an extreme overpowering of the SH boilers. One shock impact from a 14inch projectile can release the lower speed of 22kn after this hit from DOY. The lower speed of 12 kn was after the first torpedo hit. For my opinion a real 14 inch hit to the boilers had a much higher impact than a loss of speed to 22kn.



> I wonder what are your sources for the range of the 15in on Bismarck and Tirpitz?
> Germany 38 cm/52 (14.96") SK C/34 gives max 36 520m with AP shell, which is the same figure that for ex Garzke Dulin give.



That's totally correct because BS/TP had only an elevation of 30 degrees.
The coastal version was up to 55 degrees.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 21, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Well according to both Janes and Conways, Hood was rated as a Battlecreuiser for her entire career.
> 
> The Kongo Class were rated as BCs when built, but after reconstruction in the thirties were re-rated as fast Battleships. That much is true, but their design, protection, displacement all put them in the class of Battlecruiser. Their displacement is perhaps the best indication of what they were....they displaced a maximum of 31000 tons deep displacement, to the Scharnhorsts 38900. . It seems ilogical to rate the Scharnhorst as a Battlecruiser at nearly 40000 tons, when the Japanese ships are lighter but still rated as a Battleship
> 
> What the Battlecruiser description suggests to me for the Scharnhorst was that despite their relatively massive size they were still weak and unsatisfactory ships. What the label "fast battleships" for the Kongos suggests to me is that despite their obvious weaknesses as Battlecruisers, they could be half considered as Battleships because of their firepower, and overall design excellence. Thats notwithstanding their lossess to the US BBs in November 1942....



RN called they old BC as BC for tradition but there was not more different use in WWII, near all time BB and "BC " was used like same ship. afaik no other navy used the battle cruiser name in WWII, but the name is not important as the doctrine of use, there was not more a doctrine particular for BC in WWII


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 21, 2009)

voldemort said:


> Carrier: Essex class CV
> Battleship: Yamato class (Yamato and Musashi)
> Heavy Cruiser: Norfolk
> Light Cruiser: HMS Belfast



Why the Yamato class? Aside from the 18" guns, the Iowa class BB's were superior in every single category.

Heavy cruiser? The Baltimore class CA's turned out to be excellent designs, serving well into the 1970's.

Light cruiser? The Cleveland class CL's were some fine designs.


----------



## Soren (Nov 22, 2009)

Parsifal,

I must have been looking at the data for the coastal gun cause what you're saying makes more sense to me. 

As for the Scharnhorst, it had one very sweet armament package! Those 28cm guns were excellent! With a RoF of 3.5 rounds pr. min and a 41 km range, and the record for longest ever obtained gunfire hit, thats impressive!


----------



## Juha (Nov 22, 2009)

Hello Don
Quote: ” that could be an argument for an extreme overpowering of the SH boilers. One shock impact from a 14inch projectile can release the lower speed of 22kn after this hit from DOY.”

Interesting, I must admit that I haven’t read any monographs on the Battle of North Cape but Garzke and Dulin in their Battleships Axis and Neutral Battleships in WWII (1986) write that one 14in exploded in No 1 Boiler Room after which SH’s speed dropped to 8kts but fast damage control actions allowed soon the speed increase to 22 kts. They also claimed the burst in the boiler room in their Allied Battleships,1990 edition, also Humble in his old Hitler’s high seas fleet (1972) claimed the same.

Hello Soren
IMHO even if the 11in gun was very good for 11in I’d not call Scharnhorst’s armament even sweet, simply weak. German 28cm/L54 was typical German heavy naval gun with high MV but light shell, only 330kg AP shell, when compared to for ex the US 12in in Large Cruiser Alaska, which had 517kg AP shell. Renown’s old 15in guns had 879kg AP shell. I didn’t bother to check the weight of the AP shell of the IJN 14in. How effective German 28cm would have been against heavily armoured target we don’t know because I don’t recall any effective hit on those targets. IIRC DOY got two duds through its mast legs, Renown got one dud through mast and other dud through the ship far aft. That all were duds means nothing because the shells hit nothing very substantial so there was nothing to activate the fuzes. Glorious or cruisers at La Plata (Graf Spee) were not heavily armoured.

Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 22, 2009)

Glider said:


> Taking your points one at a time
> The first RN BC's had 12 in Guns, the first German BC's had 11 in guns. However the armour on these vessels were different. RN vessels having a belt of around 6 in, the German vessels 11 in.
> The second wave of British BC's had 13.5in guns and the belt armour was about 9in. The equivalent German Vessels had 12in guns and the belt armour was about 12 in.
> The RN then went to 15in Guns but the German Navy didn't build any more BC. The trend is clear, ship for ship the german BC had less firepower but better protection.
> ...



.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 22, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Yes
> 
> I meant sacrifices in protection


Therefore, since Scharnhorst design put a great emphasis for armor protection, that collides with a definition of a Battlecruiser ( = BCs had reduced armor protection).


----------



## Glider (Nov 22, 2009)

> Originally Posted by Glider
> Taking your points one at a time
> The first RN BC's had 12 in Guns, the first German BC's had 11 in guns. However the armour on these vessels were different. RN vessels having a belt of around 6 in, the German vessels 11 in.
> The second wave of British BC's had 13.5in guns and the belt armour was about 9in. The equivalent German Vessels had 12in guns and the belt armour was about 12 in.
> ...



So despite the fact that the German Navy called them Battlecruisers, you are saying that the German Navy didn't have any Battlecruisers in WW1 because they had similar armour and firepower as the Battleships? 




> The Sharnhorst was a continuation of the general theme, better protection less armour.
> 
> *Typo*?


No quite deliberate. Compared to new Capital Ships of the late 30's and early 40's the Sharnhorst clearly sacrificed guns not armour. After all the Bismark had 15in.




> As for the RN, she abandoned the BC as a class and concentrated on the KGV and Lion Class BB's.
> 
> *My point exactly: there was no comparison between interwar BCs of RN and KM simply because there was no new BCs to compare*.


The RN didn't need any new Batlecruisers as they already had three which were scheduled for major rebuilds similar to the Renown. Also as mentioned earlier they were concentrating on fast battleships. 




tomo pauk said:


> Therefore, since Scharnhorst design put a great emphasis for armor protection, that collides with a definition of a Battlecruiser ( = BCs had reduced armor protection).


An interesting definition I will admit, one that I have not mentioned before.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 22, 2009)

Glider said:


> So despite the fact that the German Navy called them Battlecruisers, you are saying that the German Navy didn't have any Battlecruisers in WW1 because they had similar armour and firepower as the Battleships?
> 
> *When I said that German BCs of WW1 had similar armor as their BBs? I haven't said that WW1 German Navy had no BCs either.*
> 
> ...


.


----------



## Soren (Nov 22, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Soren
> IMHO even if the 11in gun was very good for 11in I’d not call Scharnhorst’s armament even sweet, simply weak. German 28cm/L54 was typical German heavy naval gun with high MV but light shell, only 330kg AP shell, when compared to for ex the US 12in in Large Cruiser Alaska, which had 517kg AP shell. Renown’s old 15in guns had 879kg AP shell. I didn’t bother to check the weight of the AP shell of the IJN 14in. How effective German 28cm would have been against heavily armoured target we don’t know because I don’t recall any effective hit on those targets. IIRC DOY got two duds through its mast legs, Renown got one dud through mast and other dud through the ship far aft. That all were duds means nothing because the shells hit nothing very substantial so there was nothing to activate the fuzes. Glorious or cruisers at La Plata (Graf Spee) were not heavily armoured.
> 
> Juha



Weak? With 9x 28cm guns shooting 3.5 rounds a minute? You're being very onesided right now.

Also 330 kg wasn't light for a 28cm gun, it was normal Juha, look it up.

As for their power, they were plenty powerful enough to threaten a ship like the Hood.


----------



## Juha (Nov 22, 2009)

Hello Soren
Yes, IMHO weak/light for 31 500 tons standard displacement capital ship, look all other comparable ships. Also KM knew that, that's why they planned to rearm them with 6*15in. 330kg was light for capital ship, even the main armament of Large Cruiser Alaska had 517kg shell. But as I wrote even KM didn't think 11in was adequate.

Juha


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 22, 2009)

Well the big guns/weak armor vs. strong armor/medium guns fast capital ship debate was already 'discussed', I would say rather decisively at Skagerrak, so I don't quite get it why it needs to be re-examined again. 

That argument against 11" guns was lost in 1916 already... the choice of 11" guns was largely political, and obviously 15" guns would be better. There are two decisive arguements in favour of the 11" guns, however. 

Firstly, using them, as they were available while the 15" armament would meant delays, and rushing the construction of these capital ships meant that _they were available when they were needed_. Secondly, the 11", despite its size, punched a big enough hole to be perfectly sufficient against the most likely adversaries (Dunkerque and Renown classes), which were much more lightly armored. At the same time, 11" guns were probably better choices against a numerous cruiser attack.


----------



## DonL (Nov 22, 2009)

Hello Juha,



> Interesting, I must admit that I haven’t read any monographs on the Battle of North Cape but Garzke and Dulin in their Battleships Axis and Neutral Battleships in WWII (1986) write that one 14in exploded in No 1 Boiler Room after which SH’s speed dropped to 8kts but fast damage control actions allowed soon the speed increase to 22 kts. They also claimed the burst in the boiler room in their Allied Battleships,1990 edition, also Humble in his old Hitler’s high seas fleet (1972) claimed the same.



I know that. Everyone is looking to an explanation for the the loss of speed to 8kn and than 22kn.
But no survivor from SH could confirm this hit with an explosion in the boiler room only a hit with a large shock.
I think this hit was going through the upper belt and was stopped from the main deck and came to an explosion with a large shock impact. A striking hit to the boiler rooms under the main deck has had much more impact on the vessel. So i think the SH machinery was very much overpowered at the moment of the hit from DOY because SH was 5 knots faster than DOY plotted from DOY and the shock of this hit was the reason for the loss of sppeed.



> Yes, IMHO weak/light for 31 500 tons standard displacement capital ship, look all other comparable ships. Also KM knew that, that's why they planned to rearm them with 6*15in. 330kg was light for capital ship, even the main armament of Large Cruiser Alaska had 517kg shell. But as I wrote even KM didn't think 11in was adequate.



I agree. But the 11in/54.5 SK C/34 gun was a very good gun and very accurate. I good belt penetrator 335mm at 15000m and 291mm at 18000m but a very poor deck penetrator but overall to weak for a real Battleship.

The small guns, the old armoured shema with the upper belt and the low main deck and the politics were the big problems of SH and GS.

With no politics and a "K-Amt" that would be much more innovative like the french and the italian there could be a very "nice" vessel that could match with most of the capital ships other nations.

For exampel i had worked on an alternative design for SH/GS with the same weight .

Displacement: 38000 ts maximun
Length: 245m
Beam: 30 m
Draught: 9.8m
Propulsion: 16 MAN-Typ M12Z42/58 (Diesel engines) with 4 shafts 
144000 SHP

Speed: 30 knots (service)
31,5 knots (trials)

Armament: 6 × 15 inch/52 SK C/34 (2x3) Trippleturrents
otherwise like the original

Armour: Belt: 350 mm inclined
main Deck (high) 130 mm

The Zitadelle would be 135-140m against the original of 170m and the airkraft and Hangar would be on the stern. The only weak point of this design is the small expansion room for torpedo hits because of the drippleturrents and the small beam of 30m



.


----------



## Juha (Nov 22, 2009)

Hello Kurfürst
Yes, the choice of 11in was largely political and was forced on KM, the other point was the timetable but that didn’t chance the fact that end result wasn’t very good. Look on deck penetrated ability of 28cm and you see why KM wanted replace them with 15in.

Juha


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 22, 2009)

It would have been interesting if the 15"' had been fitted to her.


----------



## Juha (Nov 22, 2009)

Hello Don
on 14in hit, interesting and possible.
On Your Scharnhorst, looked good, even if as a bit conservative person I like more the 3*2 15in solution. The armour scheme looks good, probably fuel and 45mm torpedo bulkhead would have contained splinters from any shell deflected by sloped belt into torpedo defence system, what you think?

I'm in complete agreement with your analyze on 28cm gun.

Juha

ADDITION: On 14in hit, I recall that Garzke and Dulin claimed that some sharpnels from that hit penetrated the bottom of the boiler room and flood water from those holes rose up to foot boards. On 28cm gun, it seems to have been typical german gun optimized to medium range engagements, ie very good agains belts not so good against decks when British heavy guns were optimized for long range engagements, "deck penetrators". Now all Scharnhorsts combats against capital ships were medium range affairs but on the other hand they could use 28cm gun great range and accuracy against Glorious.


----------



## DonL (Nov 24, 2009)

Hello Juha,



> On Your Scharnhorst, looked good, even if as a bit conservative person I like more the 3*2 15in solution.



I know what you think, but the design of a Battleship is one huge compromise.
All german designs of WWII suffer on a very large citadel and that is one of the reason for their poor horizontal protection and their very heavy armour compared to their limited protection. Bismack has an armour weight of 19006 ts and Iowa 19.400 ts. But Iowa has the much much better armoured scheme and one turrent less. German BS weren't compact like South Dakota, Richellieu or Yamato and I'm a huge fan of compact citadells so I prefer as less turrents as possible. If I would design a "new" Bismarck she will have two quad turrents one front and one on the heck. So i prefer a short citadel and this is a lot easier with two turrents than three.



> The armour scheme looks good, probably fuel and 45mm torpedo bulkhead would have contained splinters from any shell deflected by sloped belt into torpedo defence system, what you think?



You are right. But this is an other compromise. The outer inclined Belt of the italian BB's VV class is my favorite but no german concept. The inline inclined belt is on the poketbattleships and the heavy cruisers so it's ok. The fuel is under the machinery rooms. So if splinters make holes it is not good for sea keeping but for a good and compact armoured scheme to my opinion you need an inclined belt.


----------



## Juha (Nov 24, 2009)

Hello Don
My favourites among late BBs are Iowas and SDs, Iowas partly because of speed and looks but SDs because of compactness and effectiveness of its design. Even if US torpedo protection in North Caroline, which itself was a bit different than that in SDs, didn’t work as well as was predicted when hit. But that seems to be almost universal, all big navies seemed to have suffered from this phenomenon. And I notice the French influence on your Scharnhorst, IIRC the next French BB would has had one quad turret forward and one rear. My inclination towards 3 twin turrets is based on fact that then loss of one turret would have been less important and SDs were compact design even if they had 3 turrets. On SDs, one thing which I don’t like was the internal belt, but as you wrote, designs are compromise.

On inclined belt, yes, they saved weight and all but British and Germans adopted it for their BBs in 30s nad 40s.

Juha


----------



## DonL (Nov 24, 2009)

Hello Juha



> And I notice the French influence on your Scharnhorst,



Lol yes I'm a huge fan fan of french designs only their guns were very bad.



> On inclined belt, yes, they saved weight and all but British and Germans adopted it for their BBs in 30s nad 40s.



Sorry but i don't understand this. All BBs from german and the KGV class have no inclined belt.
And the KGV is very vulnerable against all 15inch and more guns. In our german naval forum we calculate with Natan Okuns formula about armoured schemes and guns that KGV is vulnerable against all european 15 inch till 20000m through her main belt. So a straight main belt can only function like the german concect with the slops behind the belt and this is to my opinion not efficient.
So were did the german and the british adopted the inclined belt for their BBs?


----------



## Juha (Nov 25, 2009)

Hello Don
by writing "all but British and Germans adopted it " I tied to say that all others adopted it, only British and Germans used vertical belt in their 30s and 40s BBs.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2009)

One 11" shell is still enough to sink any of the Battleships deployed during the war, and considering how accurate and far reaching Sharnhorst's guns were that made her a very lethal opponent to even the heaviest of adversaries.


----------



## Glider (Nov 25, 2009)

Soren said:


> One 11" shell is still enough to sink any of the Battleships deployed during the war, and considering how accurate and far reaching Sharnhorst's guns were that made her a very lethal opponent to even the heaviest of adversaries.



Not even the Germans believed that, which is why they were equipping them with 6 x 15in. Only a fluke shot would achieve what you say.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2009)

But they didn't Glider, and a penetration of 335mm at 15.1 km is sufficient to be very lethal against even a ship like the Iowa whose belt was 305mm thick.

In an engagement taking place at for example 12 km distance, the Sharnhorst with 9 gun firing 3.5 rounds a min will have a significantly higher chance of a hit than the opposing ship. And a hit at 12 km was going to be devastating if it hit directly on the broadside.


----------



## Juha (Nov 25, 2009)

Hello Soren
remember that the belt in Iowas inclined, so that increased its effectiveness and how you thing that Sch could get so near to Iowa, Iowa was marginally faster and would be able to keep the distance long, which suited it.

Juha


----------



## DonL (Nov 25, 2009)

> ut they didn't Glider, and a penetration of 335mm at 15.1 km is sufficient to be very lethal against even a ship like the Iowa whose belt was 305mm thick.



Sorry Soren but that is completlely nonsens.
335mm at 15km is for a straight belt not an inclined belt. Iowas Belt is as thick 420-450mm straight belt!



> One 11" shell is still enough to sink any of the Battleships deployed during the war, and considering how accurate and far reaching Sharnhorst's guns were that made her a very lethal opponent to even the heaviest of adversaries.



No!
SH could only fight at short ranges 15000-18000m against thin armoured vessels like Hood, Dunkerque, Repulse, Renown etc.. All other Ships are save. And the range of 15000-18000m is WWI range not the average range for WWII. SHs armoured scheme is for short ranges and her guns too because of their "little" punch compare to all other capital ships and that is her big problem.
For example KGV has 385mm straight belt and nothing behind, from all european BBs in the 30er the worst vertical protection but SH has no chance to penetrate this belt with her 11in guns.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2009)

Wait a minute, the Hood was destroyed after being hit by the Bismarck at a range of about 15km, so why was this uncommon ?

Also a round coming in from 15 km away is definitely not going in a straight line, so unless the Iowa's armour belt was inclined by some 45 or so degrees then how is it going to take a direct hit coming from the Sharnhorst without taking any damage ?


----------



## Glider (Nov 25, 2009)

Soren said:


> Wait a minute, the Hood was destroyed after being hit by the Bismarck at a range of about 15km, so why was this uncommon ?
> 
> Also a round coming in from 15 km away is definitely not going in a straight line, so unless the Iowa's armour belt was inclined by some 45 or so degrees then how is it going to take a direct hit coming from the Sharnhorst without taking any damage ?



First of all and most obviously, the Hood wasn't hit by an 11in shell.
Secondly as you have pointed out the Scharnhorst hit a British Heavy Cruiser with at least two shells and she was able to continue with the battle
Thirdly the Graf Spee hit three fairly small British Cruisers with a number of shells and only the Exeter was knocked out after she was hit I think by four 11 in shells.
*The question is*, if RN cruisers can take a number of hits and continue the action, why should one hit be devistating to a BB which is designed to take hits from larger shells than that carried by the Scharnhorst?

*The unanswered question is*, if the 11in was so good then why were the germans trying to rearm the ships with 6 x 15in guns?


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2009)

Glider,

I'm not saying that a single 28cm shell will always prove devastating, I'm saying that it 'could' prove devastating, just as well as a 38 or 40cm 'could' prove devastating. It all depends on where the hit is made.

The point however being that if the weapon in question is capable of defeating the opponents armour, then it is also a lethal weapon versus that opponent. It's that simple.

And as to why the the German wanted 38cm gun instead, well obviously because they would've been even better in some respects, namely armour penetration. So if the max gun elevation angle was to have remained the same 40 degrees as with the original 28cm guns on the SH, then the 38cm guns would've proven even more useful.

The problem with the Bismarck it seems was that its guns couldn't be elevated past 30 degrees, cause otherwise they actually reached out futher than most other guns.


----------



## Juha (Nov 25, 2009)

Hello Soren
Quote:"Wait a minute, the Hood was destroyed after being hit by the Bismarck at a range of about 15km, so why was this uncommon ?"

most of us probably know this but as explanation, the British commander Holland wanted to decrease range as fast as possible because of the weak deck armour of Hood. Why Germans allowed the decrease, difficult to say but the were 2 RN heavy cruisers shadowing Germans and maybe Germans wanted keep them away of the battle as long as possible, or maybe Germans calculated that shorter range suited also to them or it is true that after the ships aproaching from SE were identified as capital ships Lütjens seemed to "paralyzied" and didn't gave any orders for a while or...

Quote: "Also a round coming in from 15 km away is definitely not going in a straight line, so unless the Iowa's armour belt was inclined by some 45 or so degrees then how is it going to take a direct hit coming from the Sharnhorst without taking any damage ?"

Ohm, have you looked the "imaginary Schanhorst" armour scheme, inclined armour was inclined so that its lower end was more inward, so the shell was coming "downhill" and the inclined armour, in Iowa's case to 19deg, combined to form the strike/hit angle.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Nov 26, 2009)

Yes Juha, so that means that at 15km the 28cm shells will be hitting at a 29 degree angle on the Iowa's side armour, at which range the 28cm shell was expected to slam through 335mm of armour IIRC, some 30mm more than what the Iowa was packing. So that in my book would make the 28cm guns quite lethal against the ship.


----------



## Glider (Nov 26, 2009)

Soren said:


> Yes Juha, so that means that at 15km the 28cm shells will be hitting at a 29 degree angle on the Iowa's side armour, at which range the 28cm shell was expected to slam through 335mm of armour IIRC, some 30mm more than what the Iowa was packing. So that in my book would make the 28cm guns quite lethal against the ship.



If the 11in didn't prove lethal in any of the actions it was used in, why should it be lethal against a BB?

The only change the Scharhorst would have is a fluke shot.

PS you can include the sinking of the Glorious in this. The escort of 2 small destroyers were sunk but closed to within torpedo range. 2 hours to sink 1 carrier and 2 destroyers with 2 Battlecruisers is hardly impressive.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 26, 2009)

In real life the angles could be some what off.

Computing the angle these penetrations based on a most favorable condition seems like asking for a lot of luck.

As in ships steaming on exact parallel course. instead of converging or diverging by even 5 or 10 degrees. 

Ships being exactly abeam of each other instead of one ship leading or following the other. AS in ship "A" being 20,000yds away but 1,000yd ahead steaming a roughly parallel course. Yes they are broadside to broadside but the impact is not going to be 90 degress in horizontal plane.

Ships are rolling, THis averages out but means that any one shot could hit more sloped armour (or less) in the vertical plane.

The firing rate for the Scharhorst seems just a bit high. At what angle of elevation did the Scharnhorst achieve the 3.5rpm rate? While it might get to 3.5rpm in a short range blast fest at medium to long range I would think that things would low down a bit. at 16-18Degrees of elevation the Scharhorst is going to spend 14 seconds out of every minute just lowering and raising the guns from shooting postion to loading position and back. 

While the Bismark's guns couldn't elevate past 30^ this may not have been that much of a disadvantage.
At that elevation they could reach 35,500 meters which is a good way beyond the longest hit scored in combat. At these extreme ranges a hit on a moving ship was almost pure luck. Time of flight for a German 15in shell was almost 14 seconds longer from 30,000meters to 35,000 meters. A 30kt ship could move about 700ft further in those 14seconds than the amount it moved for the shell to reach 30,000yds. Total time of flight to 35,000meters is given as 69.9 seconds. Obviously longer ranges involve even more flight time. Time of flight For the American 16"/50 was 79.96 sec to 36,580 meters. 

This also points out another problem with firing at long range. How many salvos do you want in the air at one time before one lands so it can be spotted and corrections made?
Waiting for one salvo to land before firing the next means a very slow rate of fire and lots of opertunity for the target to change course/speed between shoots. 
Shooting as quickly as possiable means much more rapid feed back but also means some salvoes will be wasted on empty ocean. 
Firing "half salvoes" at rapid rate does give prompt feed back and save ammo but cuts down on the chances of a hit.
Long range naval gunnery was a bit like duck hunting with buckshot. You fire a group of projectiles at the projected future path of the target. the smaller the area the group covers the better the chances of a hit if the path has been correctly predicted. The more shells in the group the the better the chance of a hit. Too few shells in the group and the target could very well be centered but unhit. If the group is too tight and the path prediction isn't good enough the entire group misses. 
THe longer the range the larger the area the group covers again lowering the chances of a hit.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 26, 2009)

only usefull info, that i've, it's the rate of elevation of Scharnhorst it's 8°/second and loading angle it's +2 so from 18° (already high for real battle) need 2 second for down and 2 second for up

...same you tell


----------



## Juha (Nov 26, 2009)

Soren, Soren
As an engineer, you must have heard trigonometry. 335mm from 15km for 28cm is against vertical belt, and again Iowa’s 12.1in on 0.875in belt was/is inclined 19deg, so it’s thickness is just enough, at least in theory and using simply LOS analyze. Of course armour penetration isn’t wholly exact science.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Nov 27, 2009)

Juha said:


> Soren, Soren
> As an engineer, you must have heard trigonometry. 335mm from 15km for 28cm is against vertical belt, and again Iowa’s 12.1in on 0.875in belt was/is inclined 19deg, so it’s thickness is just enough, at least in theory and using simply LOS analyze. Of course armour penetration isn’t wholly exact science.
> 
> Juha



Ah, back to your good old snide remarks Juha. I'm glad to see how you've grown as a person these past few years 

1st. The 28cm shells achieved a penetration performance of 335mm of armour at an impact angle of 30 degrees AFAIK, seeing that this was std. practice for German gunnery tests, heck US British too. Also AFAIK for naval gunnery tests the Germans even had their targets stand a side angle of 20 degree's on top of this to simulate the uncertainty of impact angles in actual combat. 

2nd. Oh yes I know trigonometry quite well Juha, I believe most peolpe past the age of 12 do. And you said yourself that the Iowa's armour was inclined inwards by 19 degrees, right? Well then taking into consideration that at a range of 15km the 28cm shell is coming in at an angle of 10 degrees then that equates to an impact angle of exactly 29 degree's on the belt armour. In short, the Iowa's armour should be quite vulnerable at that range then.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 27, 2009)

These are the characteristics of the 28cm gun which I recently posted on a rel;ated thread in this forum:

Range
. 
Elevation With 727.5 lbs. (330 kg) APC L4,4 Striking Velocity Angle of Fall 
2.0 degrees 5,470 yards (5,000 m) 2,513 fps (766 mps) 2.5 
4.3 degrees 10,940 yards (10,000 m) 2,139 fps (652 mps) 5.7 
7.4 degrees 16,400 yards (15,000 m) 1,824 fps (556 mps) 10.3 
11.3 degrees 21,870 yards (20,000 m) 1,578 fps (481 mps) 17.2 
16.2 degrees 27,340 yards (25,000 m) 1,430 fps (436 mps) 25.7 
22.0 degrees 32,810 yards (30,000 m) 1,371 fps (418 mps) 35.3 
29.2 degrees 38,280 yards (35,000 m) 1,404 fps (428 mps) 44.0 
38.2 degrees 43,740 yards (40,000 m) 1,509 fps (460 mps) 52.0 

Armor Penetration with 727.5 lbs. (330 kg) APC L4,4 Shell
. 
Range Side Armor Deck Armor 
0 yards (0 m) 23.79" (604 mm) --- 
8,640 yards (7,900 m) 18.09" (460 mm) 0.76" (19 mm) 
16,514 yards (15,100 m) 13.18" (335 mm) 1.63" (41 mm) 
20,013 yards (18,288 m) 11.47" (291 mm) 1.87" (48 mm) 
30,000 yards (27,432 m) 8.08" (205 mm) 2.99" (76 mm) 
Note: The above information is from "Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War Two" for a muzzle velocity of 2,920 fps (890 mps) and is based upon the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration. 

. 
Range Side Armor Deck Armor 
10,936 yards (10,000 m) 13.70" (348 mm) --- 
16,404 yards (15,000 m) 11.02" (280 mm) --- 
21,872 yards (20,000 m) 8.86" (225 mm) --- 
27,340 yards (25,000 m) 7.64" (194 mm) --- 
Note: The above information is from "German Capital Ships of World War Two." The data is based upon the pre-war Krupp test shoots on their range in Meppen with L/4,4 APC projectiles using RPC/32 propellant against KC-type armor at an impact angle of 70 degrees. 

I copied all of this data from the site German 28 cm/54.5 (11") SK C/34

The Iowas had the following armouring scheme

Main Belt 12.1 case hardened steel on ).875 STS (Special Tensile Steel)
Deck: 6 in and 1.5 weather deck, on 0.625 STS
Bulkheads: 11.3 in 

The Nav weapons data shows that the Iowas deck protection scheme was more or less completely immune to damage at any practical eange. To penetrate the side armour, the 28cm round would need to close to somewhere between 12-15000 metres to ahave any hope of a main belt penetration. For a Battleship, this is extremely close range, essentially point blank range in fact.

In comparison the USN 16/50 Mk VII has the following characteristics:

Range
. 
Elevation With 2,700 lbs. (1,224.7 kg) AP Mark 8 (new gun) With 1,900 lbs. (861.8 kg) HC Mark 13 (new gun) 
10 degrees 17,650 yards (16,139 m) 18,200 yards (16,642 m) 
15 degrees 23,900 yards (21,854 m) 24,100 yards (22,037 m) 
20 degrees 29,000 yards (26,518 m) 28,800 yards (26,335 m) 
25 degrees 33,300 yards (30,450 m) 32,700 yards (29,901 m) 
30 degrees 36,700 yards (33,558 m) 36,000 yards (32,918 m) 
35 degrees 39,500 yards (36,119 m) 38,650 yards (35,342 m) 
40 degrees 41,430 yards (37,884 m) 40,600 yards (37,163 m) 
45 degrees 42,345 yards (38,720 m) 41,622 yards (38,059 m) 
Notes: 
1) With reduced charges, the AP Mark 8 had a maximum range of 24,180 yards (22,110 m) while the HC Mark 13 had a maximum range of 27,350 yards (25,010 m). 

2) Time of flight for AP Shell with MV = 2,500 fps (762 mps) 
10,000 yards (9,140 m): 13.2 seconds 
20,000 yards (18,290 m): 29.6 seconds 
30,000 yards (27,430 m): 50.3 seconds 
36,000 yards (32,920 m): 66.1 seconds 
40,000 yards (36,580 m): 80.0 seconds 

3) Time of flight for HC Shell with MV = 2,615 fps (797 mps) 
10,000 yards (9,140 m): 13.1 seconds 
20,000 yards (18,290 m): 30.3 seconds 
30,000 yards (27,430 m): 53.2 seconds 
35,000 yards (32,000 m): 70.3 seconds 
39,500 yards (36,120 m): 86.0 seconds 

4) The maximum range with the originally planned 2,240 lbs. (1,016 kg) AP Mark 5 was 47,000 yards (42,980 m). Muzzle velocity would have been 2,700 fps (823 mps) with a charge of 640 lbs. (290 kg) SPD. 

5) At an "average gun" MV of 2,425 fps (1,739 mps), the maximum range with AP Mark 8 at a 40 degree elevation was 40,185 yards (36,745 m

Armor Penetration with 2,700 lbs. (1,224.5 kg) AP Mark 8
. 
Range Side Armor Deck Armor Striking Velocity Angle of Fall 
0 yards (0 m) 32.62" (829 mm) --- 2,500 fps (762 mps) 0 
5,000 yards (4,572 m) 29.39" (747 mm) 0.67" (17 mm) 2,280 fps (695 mps) 2.5 
10,000 yards (9,144 m) 26.16" (664 mm) 1.71" (43 mm) 2,074 fps (632 mps) 5.7 
15,000 yards (13,716 m) 23.04" (585 mm) 2.79" (71 mm) 1,893 fps (577 mps) 9.8 
20,000 yards (18,288 m) 20.04" (509 mm) 3.90" (99 mm) 1,740 fps (530 mps) 14.9 
25,000 yards (22,860 m) 17.36" (441 mm) 5.17" (131 mm) 1,632 fps (497 mps) 21.1 
30,000 yards (27,432 m) 14.97" (380 mm) 6.65" (169 mm) 1,567 fps (478 mps) 28.25 
35,000 yards (32,004 m) 12.97" (329 mm) 8.48" (215 mm) 1,555 fps (474 mps) 36.0 
40,000 yards (36,576 m) 11.02" (280 mm) 11.26" (286 mm) 1,607 fps (490 mps) 45.47 
42,345 yards (38,720 m) 9.51" (241 mm) 14.05" (357 mm) 1,686 fps (514 mps) 53.25 
Note: The above information is from "Battleships: United States Battleships 1935-1992" for a muzzle velocity of 2,500 fps (762 mps) and is based upon the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration. These values are in substantial agreement with armor penetration curves published in 1942. 


This means that the Mk VII guns could start to engage the Scharnhorst from a massive 35000. Scharnhorst would need to close over 20000 yards relative range before she could effectively return fire. If the closure rate is say 2 knots (4000 yds per hour), it would take 5 hours of continous closure before the Scharnhorst could effectively return fire. Essentially, impossible I am afraid


----------



## Juha (Nov 27, 2009)

Hello Soren
the 335mm penetration for 11in at 15km isn’t test result but is from "Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War Two" for a muzzle velocity of 2,920 fps (890 mps) and is based upon the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration.

The data based on the pre-war Krupp test shoots on their range in Meppen with L/4,4 APC projectiles using RPC/32 propellant against KC-type armor at an impact angle of 70 degrees gives 11in shell penetration at 15km as 11.02in / 280mm. But it should be noted that RPC/32 propellant was replaced by the more powerful RPC/38 type which was the only propellant used in World War II, so that is somewhat undervalue.

Juha

PS it seems Parsifal just beats me.


----------



## Soren (Nov 27, 2009)

Krupp would've fired the guns at a target laid back 30 degrees and standing at a side angle of 20 degrees AFAIK, as this was std. practice. Which means that actual penetration at a 30 degree angle was around 320mm. While with improved powders the MV was increased from 890 to 925 m/s, increasing armour penetration to 350mm against an armoured plate laid back 30 degrees.


----------



## Soren (Nov 27, 2009)

Parsifal,

In a straight match between the Scharnhorst Iowa I think there's no doubt that the SH is going down, and I never meant to insinuate otherwise. It would be like pitting a M26 Pershing against a Tiger Ausf.B in a long range shooting contest = no contest at all. But the SH's 28cm guns would still be lethal if they were allowed to get within 15km, such as on a very foggy day in very lively sea. But mostly on a normal day that was never gonna happen ofcourse, the Iowa would sink the SH before it could close to 15km. 

The only point I was trying to make was that the guns on the SH were lethal, even at 15km, to the biggest BBs around. 

Also I'd lik to point out that the SH could return fire as soon as the Iowa would be able to engage it, and even at a 40km range the 28cm shells will be able to hurt the Iowa's superstructure and possible take out the fire control radar and other vital parts. And keep in mind that the SH fired some 3.5 round pr. min pr. gun, thats 31 28cm shells raining down towards the Iowa every minute, each one with the potential to damage the ship in important areas. On the same note however a single shell from the Iowa could brng the SH down even at that range, so like I said, in a one vs one the Iowa comes out on top by a wide margin.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 27, 2009)

Soren said:


> Parsifal,
> 
> In a straight match between the Scharnhorst Iowa I think there's no doubt that the SH is going down, and I never meant to insinuate otherwise. It would be like pitting a M26 Pershing against a Tiger Ausf.B in a long range shooting contest = no contest at all. But the SH's 28cm guns would still be lethal if they were allowed to get within 15km, such as on a very foggy day in very lively sea. But mostly on a normal day that was never gonna happen ofcourse, the Iowa would sink the SH before it could close to 15km.
> 
> ...




I know basically what you are saying. It is always possible for the Scharnhorst to defeat the Iowa, however, I think as a ballistics expert you know that the odds are extremely low. Even at your nominated range of 15000 yards only a fraction of the 28cm rounds are going to penetrate the belt, and those that do are going to do relatively small amounts of damage given the very heavy transverse bulkheads and other protection systems built into the Iowas design. The reverse is not true.....every hit achieved by the Iowa is almost certain to overpower the Scharnhorsts defences.....those big US late war 2700 lb charges are going to make a hell of a mess.

I agree that if somehow the Scharnhorst couldclose the range to less than 12000 yards, undamaged, and was able to pump a full salvo into the iowa, that might do the trick.....but this is highly unlikley, given the gunnery radar advantages the US ship would enjoy


----------



## Soren (Nov 27, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I know basically what you are saying. It is always possible for the Scharnhorst to defeat the Iowa, however, I think as a ballistics expert you know that the odds are extremely low. Even at your nominated range of 15000 yards only a fraction of the 28cm rounds are going to penetrate the belt, and those that do are going to do relatively small amounts of damage given the very heavy transverse bulkheads and other protection systems built into the Iowas design. The reverse is not true.....every hit achieved by the Iowa is almost certain to overpower the Scharnhorsts defences.....those big US late war 2700 lb charges are going to make a hell of a mess.
> 
> I agree that if somehow the Scharnhorst couldclose the range to less than 12000 yards, undamaged, and was able to pump a full salvo into the iowa, that might do the trick.....but this is highly unlikley, given the gunnery radar advantages the US ship would enjoy



Exactly, that's all I wanted to point out.


----------



## renrich (Nov 27, 2009)

It is interesting to look at real results of naval gunfire in real battles. The Graf Spee with 11 inch guns in a fairly long battle eventually put Exeter out of action but could not sink her. Her 5.9s and 11 inchers could only damage the pair of small CLs. Bismarck may have blown up Hood with only a few hits. Hiei was so beat up by 5 inch and 8 inch bullets that she was almost out of action the next day. Her sister ship Kirishima, if memory serves, took 30 hits from 16 inch guns at 9000 yards and eventually sank but only grudgingly. Pretty hard to predict what will happen based on size of guns although if one's guns practically have no chance to penetrate the opponents armor one is likely to be in trouble. The British BCs at Jutland looked pretty fragile but Tiger and Lion took a lot of 11 inch and 12 inch hits and were still full of fight. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau took a lot of 12 inch bullets before finally sinking.


----------



## Juha (Nov 27, 2009)

Hello Soren

Quote:” …such as on a very foggy day in very lively sea…”

At least that didn’t work in stormy weather in Arctic at the darkest time of year as the Battle of North Cape showed.

Quote: “Krupp would've fired the guns at a target laid back 30 degrees and standing at a side angle of 20 degrees AFAIK, as this was std. practice. Which means that actual penetration at a 30 degree angle was around 320mm. While with improved powders the MV was increased from 890 to 925 m/s, increasing armour penetration to 350mm against an armoured plate laid back 30 degrees.”

The site clearly stated 70deg impact angle, and persons, Nathan Okun and Co, behind the site are pretty famous in naval armament and armour circles. But of course mistakes may happen. Maybe you should contact the site if you think that they give wrong/misleading info. 

Also your result is clearly better than what Dulin and Garzke give in their Battleship series for Sch's 11in. According to their figure side protection of Iowas (and SDs) were very narrowly capable to keep German 11in shells out in side by side engagement at 15km distance, if one uses rundimentally LOS analyze..

Juha


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2009)

70 deg? That's very steep. 

Ofcourse it could also be refering to the 20 degree side angle, assuming a 90 degree starting point. Usually however the Germans measured from 0 as vertical and then onwards.


----------



## Juha (Nov 28, 2009)

H


----------



## delcyros (Dec 20, 2009)

Some points to consider:

(A) IOWA has a general advantage in larger calibre shells but a disadvantage in volume of fire (15km is almost on the very edge of effective range for the 5in/38 while inside effective range of 5.9in/55 secondary guns and even in within the range for the 4.1in/65 tertiary guns). IOWA probably also has a serious advantage in firecontroll and enjois the larger hull (better in absorbing damage)

(B) At the specified range, deck hits are unlikely. Most hits would involve the exposed vitals and the side protection system of both ships.

(B) The side protection system of IOWA is barely able to keep out 11 in APC at the specified range. The Meppen trials are with slightly less powerful propellent but more importantly against face hardened plates with superior resistence power to those installed into IOWA. 11in Krupp APC are not going to be decapped by IOWA´s outer hull shell (so called decapping plate).*

(C) At the specified range, IOWA´s shells are unlikely to penetrate SCHARNHORSTS side protection system (it was the most powerful side protection system ever installed into a battleship. Much better than YAMATO´s for the embedded vitals of the hull)

(D) While IOWA´s embedded vitals are not yet exposed -and SCHARNHORSTS are pretty safe- the exposed vitals (superstructures, barbettes, CT, turrets) of SCHARNHORST are exposed to IOWA´s guns while IOWA on it´s own is pretty safe from 11in.

It wouldn´t be wise to engage SCHARNHORST one to one at the specified range of 15km or partcularely at closer distances. Altough 15km (ca. 16.400 yards) wouldn´t be untypical for bb fighting distance in ww2, IOWA better keeps a distance of 25km+ (stay under 30.000 yards, as the hit probability closes to nil -guessing from real world results) and can lob shells into SCHARNHORST with impunity. This makes best use of IOWA´s strengths (large cal. shells, firecontroll), while still exploiting SCHARNHORSTS weaknesses (upper side belt and deck protection).

*)
Nathan Okuns facehardv. 6.2. gives us the minimum striking velocity to achieve full penetration against 12.1in US class A +0.75in STS backing for 16.400 yards (= 29 deg. netto obliquity with inclination and angle of fall) for the 727.5lbs 11in Krupp L4.4 APC:
~2042 fps.
Striking velocity however, is more closer to 1900 fps with RP/C 38.
Note that this is still in within the zone of "mixed" results as defined by Nathan Okun, so You may experience some penetrations at this range!
On the other hand, while the 16in will pass the 13.8in belt of SCHANRHORST, it cannot pass the slope behind not the deck after belt penetration at the specified range and thus will be unable to damage machinery or magazine spaces.


----------



## Juha (Dec 21, 2009)

Hello Delcyros
the discussion was on the lower limit of Iowa's immunity zone against German 11in, I completely agree with you that it would have been strongly recommended that Iowa would have kept the engagement distance at least over 20km, which it was capable to do being a bit faster with excellent radar suite.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 21, 2009)

i'm agree that iowa it's a best and larger BB of scharnhorst, but i've two consideration
1) imho the best warship of WW II it's a carrier, now idk what but sure a carrier
2) if i need choice within scharnhorst and iowa (hipotetical) i choice scharnhorst because it's more rapresentative of WWII of iowa, scharnhorst also in inferior of iowa it's best for 4 and half years and came take over from iowa only in the last 1 and half year of war. (i know my english it's so bad and maybe this is not clear sorry)


----------



## Juha (Dec 22, 2009)

Hello Vincenzo
I think we all agree that carriers were more important than BBs during WWII but the discussion is lately concentrated on BBs, how one compare to other BB.

IMHO for ex Tirpitz was better than Scharnhorst, it was more balanced, if slower, design even if the twins were clearly more active.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 22, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Vincenzo
> I think we all agree that carriers were more important than BBs during WWII but the discussion is lately concentrated on BBs, how one compare to other BB.
> 
> IMHO for ex Tirpitz was better than Scharnhorst, it was more balanced, if slower, design even if the twins were clearly more active.
> ...



my example was take: there are only iowa and scharnhorst, not a real world situation. the important point was that a ship that fightning for all the war (or near all, or can fight but unlucky was sunk) it's more rapresentative for WWII that one used only in the last 1/4


----------



## renrich (Dec 22, 2009)

Vincenzo, there was a situation and I am hazy about the exact situation and ships involved where in 1940 or early1941, a US force was sent to intercept a German raiding force. I think the German force was Scheer and Lutzow and the US force was Texas and New York. The intercept did not take place because one of the the German ships had engine trouble and the German raid was cancelled. Would have been interesting if it had taken place.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 22, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Delcyros
> the discussion was on the lower limit of Iowa's immunity zone against German 11in, I completely agree with you that it would have been strongly recommended that Iowa would have kept the engagement distance at least over 20km, which it was capable to do being a bit faster with excellent radar suite.
> 
> Juha



I am not quite convinced that IOWA in 1943 was capable of doing this under normal conditions. She was fast, altough we don´t know exactly how fast. We know that the IOWA-class had very fine hulls with a long, sleek bow section and powerful propulsion to allow for such high speed. IOWA itselfe was recorded to be good enough for 31.8 kts in 1943, altough we hardly know the conditions, displacement and powerload associated with this record. Other ships of the class claimed 32.5 kts and even 33+ kts. Unfortunately, this long narrow bow section in the same time didn´t displaced much water and thus was prone to dig itselfe in the sea much sooner than other designs at anything worser than Beaufort 3-5. It was fast but unless the seastate was calm, the fine lines made the turrets wet and produced a lively gunplatform. I don´t expect fine conditions to prevail in the northern Atlantic, after all I know, the DKM sortied preferably at poor weather conditions due tothe limitations for enemy flight ops caused by poor weather conditions. We know that SCHARNHORST was recorded in the british radartracks of the North Cape engagement to sustain 30+ kts at force 10 with gale during it´s run to the South (top speed recorded for a brief period was 32+kts). 
I am also not sure what exactly the RADAR capabilities of SCHARNHORST and IOWA in late 1943 were. I understand that both ships had RADAR sets efficient enough to track an enemy BB-sized target and develop gunlaying solutions for the firecontroll using RADAR. I also understand that the US later build in a radarset to track gunsplashes which the DKM sets could not. I am not sure if this holds true for late 1943 as well. If so it would create a notable advantage for IOWA.
Finally, in late 1943 IOWA was a new ship with a lot of bugs to be worked out (faulty propellent range tables f.e.), while SCHARNHORSTs crew was already experienced and most technical issues hardened out. Some of her problems (boiler room No.1 constantly made problems) remained through her final sortie, however.

That beeing said, I just wanted to underline that a surprise one on one engagement at close range in mediocre or poor north atlantic weather is not a simple work over for IOWA as the stats may imply.
IOWA is the better ship and has lots of advantages but people often underestimate the threat factor created by SCHARNHORST judging on her performance against DUKE OF YORK or the paper statistics. After all, her guns are potentially dangerous and at 16000 yards or less may punch through any modern battleship if the conditions of the fight allow such a distance to happen.
IOWA can easily win this fight with clever tactics on focussing on distance. However, remember that this couldn´t have been known by then.


----------



## Juha (Dec 22, 2009)

Hello Delcyros
I judge Scharnhorst on its specs and on its performance against DoY, Renown and Glorious. IIRC Sch. had problems with its gunnery during the Spitsberg raid earlier in 43. On belt, one could always improve protection of one's belt simply trying not to show full broadside to enemy so that the hit angle has also horizontal component in it. And I know that in gunnery duel there was always a "luck" component present. That was shown for ex. during the engagement between the Twins and Renown on 9 Apr 40. The one 15in hit the Renown got on Gneis. had clear impact on how the Germans continued the engagement. Also the 4.5in hit on A turret of Gneis. had effect not easily predictable from specs.

Iowas were not great seaboats for the reason you mentioned, I have known that for decades, but also the Twins were wet forward. If tactical situation demanded one simply took risks of weather damages, on 9 Apr 40 engagement both Twins lost the use of A turret becauseof the amount of water they took over the bows but the Germans were ready to pay that price for disengagement.

On radar, I don't have time to check that, Christmas preparations take too much of my time just now, You know. But you might well be right on that.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Dec 22, 2009)

Hi Del

Most of what you have written I agree with, but there are some issues that you raise that I dont

_Finally, in late 1943 IOWA was a new ship with a lot of bugs to be worked out (faulty propellent range tables f.e.), while SCHARNHORSTs crew was already experienced and most technical issues hardened out. Some of her problems (boiler room No.1 constantly made problems) remained through her final sortie, however._

I agree that the Scharnhorst had a fully trained and worked up crew, and that early on in 1943 the Iowa had teething troubles whilst working up in European waters. However, her crew was fully worked up and most of the problems with the ship worked out by the time she was transferred to the pacific, which from memory was late '43.

You could argue the same about the Scharnhorsts crew, with long periods in port, no safe training havens, long stretches between proper overhauls. There is no way of telling which ship might suffer catastrophic breakdowns

_That beeing said, I just wanted to underline that a surprise one on one engagement at close range in mediocre or poor north atlantic weather is not a simple work over for IOWA as the stats may imply_.

I agree, the stats tell only half the story, a committment to battle can always have unknown effects. In naval battles luck is as important a factor as the tactics. However a ship of the calibre of the Iowa has far less reliance on luck than Scharnhorst would as her opponent. Scharnhorst would be relying on not being detected, being able to close to relatively point blank range, and then being able to hit with a lot of shells, and achieve penetrations before the Iowa could react. Thats a tall order

_IOWA is the better ship and has lots of advantages but people often underestimate the threat factor created by SCHARNHORST judging on her performance against DUKE OF YORK or the paper statistics. After all, her guns are potentially dangerous and at 16000 yards or less may punch through any modern battleship if the conditions of the fight allow such a distance to happen._

The Iowa went to the Pacific with perhaps the best radar fit of any warship to that point. It was at least equal to that in the DoY Decmber 1943. And the DOYs gunnery at North Cape demonstrates the effectiveness of her systems....are you saying that Iowas radar fit would be leess effective than that? Whilst it is plausibke that the Iowa could be caught napping, it is highly unlikley. In contrast, whilst the Scharnhorst may have a quite good radar fit (I am in debate about that in another thread at the moment) KM operational policy was to keep radar off until battle had commenced. The chances of the Scharnhorst beiung surprised using that policy are relatively high I would think, whilst the active use of radar policy used by the allies tended to lessen that risk, as the DoYs use of Radar at North cape demonstrates 


_IOWA can easily win this fight with clever tactics on focussing on distance. However, remember that this couldn´t have been known by then._

Why not? The basic characteristics of the skc 34 and the Scharnhorst were known to the allies from prewar, added to which the British had ben gathering mountains of information on the ship throughout the war, and freely passing that technical intellignece onto the Americans. 

The same could not be said for the KM concerning such a new ship as the Iowa (i dont think.....). Given the general lines and appearance of the ship as a battlecruiser, the Scharnhorst may well attempt to engage at range, which would lengthen the odds even further. 

Regarding the armouring scheme of the scharnhorst, I agree that she was very heavily protected behind thick armour that was well designed. But it is illogical to argue that she would be substantially immune from 16 inch fire (in the sense of being knocked out as an effective unit), when as a battle worthy unit she was first disabled, and then sunk by fire from a 14 inch armed ship, albeit with a lot of assistance. 

It took an enormous effort to sink the bismarck as well, yet I would just point out that the effort needed to remove that ship as an effective fighting unit took only a relatively short space of time. I acknowledge that the bismarck was labouring under enormous difficulties, but German defensive schemes, whilst very good, and certainly able to keep ships afloat long after they had ceased to be viable fighting units, could not prevent those same ships from being knocked out as such.


----------



## renrich (Dec 23, 2009)

A point that, IMO, needs to be made during this discussion is that modern capital ships were very difficult to sink, failing an unlucky hit that causes a magazine explosion, by gunfire alone. At Jutland Warspite took 13 hits from eleven and twelve inch guns and was not sunk or even seriously disabled. Even BCs could absorb a lot of damage from shellfire without being sunk. Lion-12 hits, Tiger-17 hits, Princess Royal-9 hits, Derfflinger-17 hits, Seydlitz-21 hits, all from major caliber shells and none sunk. Kirishima took many 16 inch hits, perhaps more than 20 and only eventually sank. However, those ships could be substantially put out of action without being sunk by gunfire. Bismarck, Hiei, Kirishima and Scharnhorst were essentially defenseless before finally sinking, often put out of their misery by torpedoes. To me, in a a gun fight an Iowa would probably put a Scharnhorst out of action before the relatively puny eleven inch guns of the Scharnhorst could do much damage. None of the British BCs above were put out of action by the numerous hits from German 11 and 12 inch shells.


----------



## Glider (Dec 23, 2009)

The only way the Scharnhorst could defeat the Iowa is dumb luck. The 16in is a far more powerful weapon and the Iowa had the most up to date fire control available. Her armour was to the latest layout and she lacked nothing, the only ships to match her are the Japanese Yamato class. 

The next debate is likely to be can the Scharnhorst take on the Yamoto!!


----------



## vinnye (Jan 1, 2010)

The Scharnhorst was a fine ship - but she did not have a killer punch! This is shown by the fact that she engaged RN Cruisers and did not do serious damage to them (or even hit them?) whilst they did hit and damage her. see - 
Battle of North Cape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The now unescorted Scharnhorst encountered Burnett's cruisers shortly after 09:00 hours. At a distance of nearly 13,000 yards (12 km), the British cruisers opened fire and Scharnhorst responded with her own salvoes. While no hits were scored on the cruisers, the German battleship was struck twice, one shell destroying the radar controls, leaving Scharnhorst virtually blind in a mounting snowstorm. Without radar, gunners aboard the battlecruiser were forced to aim at the enemy's muzzle flashes. This was made more difficult because two of the British cruisers were using a new flashless propellant, leaving Norfolk the relatively easier target. Bey, now outgunned and believing he had engaged a battleship, turned south in an attempt to distance himself from the pursuers."

"At 16:48, Belfast fired starshell to illuminate Scharnhorst. The battlecruiser, with her turrets trained fore and aft, was clearly visible from Duke of York. Duke of York opened fire at a range of 11,920 yards (10.90 km) and scored a hit on the first salvo.[1] Scharnhorst's foremost turret ("Anton") was disabled after a while, and another salvo destroyed the ship's aeroplane hangar. Bey turned north, but was engaged by the cruisers Norfolk and Belfast, and turned east at a high speed of 31 knots.

Bey was able to put some more distance between Scharnhorst and the British ships to increase his prospects of success. He had also scored two hits on the Duke of York. However, his ship's fortunes took a dramatic turn for the worse at 18:20 hours when a shell fired by Duke of York, at extreme range, pierced her armour belt and destroyed the no. 1 boiler room. Scharnhorst's speed dropped to only 22 knots, though immediate repair work allowed it to regain to 26 knots. She was now vulnerable to the attacks of the destroyers. Five minutes later, Bey sent his final radio message to the German naval command: "We will fight on until the last shell is fired." [2]"

I think this along with other accounts of 11 inch shells not incapacitating Cruisers indicates that they would have to be very close and very lucky to have anything like a chance against a Battle Cruiser or Battle Ship!


----------



## Wavelength (Jan 31, 2010)

Hi my first post here,

Having amassed a bit of knowledge about WWII radar and WWII warships perhaps I can be of some help here?

The Scharnhorst didn’t do much in the way of shooting back in the first battle at about 0900 because it had been caught by surprise and was just trying to get clear. It was caught by surprise because its radars had not been switched on. Previously it had detected the British radars with its radar detectors. This was why the Scharnhorst had turned around and altered its course to the southwest. The fact that the British passed by at only 12,000 yards unnoticed, proves that its active radar had not been switched on. During this engagement its forward radar set was destroyed by a direct hit.

In the second engagement at about 12:30 the Scharnhorst had the advantage of an artic twilight compensating to a degree its lost forward radar. This time the Scharnhorst was not hit, but scored hits on the British cruiser Norfolk. Norfolk’s X turret was knocked out and an engine room damaged, as well as several radars on Norfolk knocked out. The SH would have used HE or semi armour peircing ammo vs a cruiser, because AP ammo may pass completely through without exploding.

The third engagement came to pass when the DoY detected the SH with Type 273Q search radar at about 16:17 hours from a range of about 42km. The Scharnhorst could not locate the DoY without active radar that could scan the forward sectors, although it had previously picked up the DoY’s radar signals with its radar detection gear. SH was once again caught by surprise after Fraser had allowed SH to close to 11km battle range. Fraser ordered SH illuminated with star shell and DoY opened fire. Over the next approx. 90 minutes the SH slowly opened the range out to 19.5km. During this 90 minutes the DoY managed about 4 direct hits with its main battery. As the range increased, the DoY was forced to rely more and more on its 50cm Type 284M gunlaying radar. However it became increasingly more difficult to spot the fall of shot for line as the range increased. At one point the DoY gunners broke over the radio requesting any other British ship to help spot the fall of shot. Finally with the range at about 19.5km it was forced to cease fire because it could not spot the fall of shot. The SH ceased fire soon afterward. 

The SH forward turret was hit early on and the forward magazine was flooded as a precaution. This meant that B turret was also unusable for a considerable period of time. The SH could only reply with the 3 guns from the aft turret until B turret came back on line. After B turret was useable again the SH adopted the tactic of suddenly turning to the south and firing a six gun broadside and then turning back onto it’s escape path to the east at intervals. The SH only fired a fraction of the salvoes that DoY did overall. 

The SH was equipped with special night optics, separate from the regular optics, and it fired star shell to illuminate its targets early during the engagement, along with radar ranging from the aft radar set. The SH seems to have followed the standard German shooting drill. This was to fire a first salvo disregarding exact range, just to warm up the guns and check the bearing track. Cold guns were not expected to range accurately. Then to fire two quick salvoes just short andjust long to confirm the firing solution for range. The Scharnhorst’s 3rd salvo reportedly was a very close near miss right off DoY’s bow. As the range increased beyond the effective range of the night optics, the SH was forced to rely on its aft radar set and it ceased to fire star shell. This was when the SH shooting became uncomfortably accurate. From approx. 17km battle range to 19.5km battle range, the SH consistently straddled the DoY. This was very impressive radar directed shooting considering the conditions. Indeed a case could be made that it was better than DoY’s radar directed shooting.

I personally doubt that SH was slowed by a hit penetrating a boiler room, because of the chronology. Nearly 15 minutes had passed after the DoY was forced to cease fire and before Adm Fraser called off the pursuit. It was further several minutes after Adm Fraser called off the pursuit before the British radar operators began to call off decreasing ranges, and they knew that SH had been delivered into their hands. Some of the German engine room personal later stated that the loss of speed was because of a broken steam line to one of the turbines. This is plausible considering that the Scharnhorst had its machinery pushed beyond proper limits for many hours at that point.


----------



## Wavelength (Jan 31, 2010)

delcyros said:


> I
> I am also not sure what exactly the RADAR capabilities of SCHARNHORST and IOWA in late 1943 were. I understand that both ships had RADAR sets efficient enough to track an enemy BB-sized target and develop gunlaying solutions for the firecontroll using RADAR. I also understand that the US later build in a radarset to track gunsplashes which the DKM sets could not. I am not sure if this holds true for late 1943 as well. If so it would create a notable advantage for IOWA.
> .



Understanding the comparative capabilities between the Iowa’s WWII firecontrol radars and the late war German equipment may be better attained by first understanding the problems the Americans had with their earlier 40cm Mk3 firecontrol radars introduced in 1942. 

The Mk3 was hampered by poor resolution for both range and also for bearing. Accuracy and resolution are not quite the same things. The accuracy for range and bearing of the Mk3 were actually very good. Resolution is however, the ability to resolve from among two or more closely grouped targets. The resolution for range is in most cases the function of the pulse duration. Radar pulses travel at a speed of 300 meters per microsecond (one/millionth second). Therefore a pulse of 1ms covers 300 meters distance. Since the leading edge of the pulse will have already rebounded off the target before the trailing edge of the pulse arrives, the range resolution will be ½ the pulse distance. A 1ms pulse gives a range resolution of 150 meters. A 2ms pulse gives a range resolution of 300 meters and so forth. The German GEMA radars were not strictly bound by these limitations because they utilized a different principle for processing range data. The range resolution of the Mk3 was 400 yards. It therefore had problems resolving shell splashes from the target itself and could not be used to correct the MPI (mean point of impact) of straddling salvoes or even if the salvo was a straddle or not.

The bearing resolution was also poor. This was because when lobe switching, which is necessary to attain a bearing fix accurate to fractions of a degree as required for gun laying, the Mk3’s beam width became as wide as 15* . The bearing resolution is equal to the beam width. The beam width can be calculated by dividing the wave length by the effective size of the antenna. Therefore good bearing resolution comes from using shorter wavelengths, or larger antennas, or both. 

When the Mk8 firecontrol radar began replacing the Mk3 during 1943 the Americans looked at Mk8 as something of a miracle device. Such advances often leads to the assumption that you have a capability nobody else has though. It operated on 10cm wave length and had a beam width of 2*. Its pulse duration was also decreased to about 0.4ms so its resolution for range was drastically improved from the Mk3’s 400 yards, to about 70 yards. Another important improvement over Mk3 was the ability to lobe switch by manipulating the phase of the individual antenna elements or phased array techniques. The data was presented on a B-scope which was much like looking through rifle scope with the cross hairs on the target and splashes off line showing as such.

However, a type of presentation of bearing data similar to the B-scope and phased array techniques had already been in use on the German naval radars for years. The German sets were always quite capable of spotting the fall of shot. The German Seetakt radars were multirole radar sets, in that they were used for both surface, and air warning (The famous Freya air warning radars were actually a long wavelength version of Seetakt), as well as being very well suited for gunlaying. As mentioned above, they utilized a different principle for processing range data and could achieve excellent range resolution regardless of pulse duration, hence the ability to spot the fall of shot relative to the target for range. The bearing resolution was about 5-6* for the early sets. By 1943 they were developed to the point that the common problem of the reliability of vacuum tube electronics aboard warships was manageable, and they were well integrated into the advanced firecontrol systems of German warships. Their accuracy was also very good. The Germans didn’t have a pressing need to replace these radars with more modern equipment like the Americans had with Mk3. They did however want to improve the performance over existing levels. In 1943 they introduced improved models with huge 3x6 meter antennas. These large antennas provided a beam width of about 3 degrees, and significant improvement in range to target attainment. These models also had improved signal processing circuitry which improved the range accuracy to 25 meters regardless of the range.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 31, 2010)

Welcome aboard Wave, excellent post.


----------



## Wavelength (Jan 31, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Soren
> the 335mm penetration for 11in at 15km isn’t test result but is from "Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War Two" for a muzzle velocity of 2,920 fps (890 mps) and is based upon the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration.
> 
> The data based on the pre-war Krupp test shoots on their range in Meppen with L/4,4 APC projectiles using RPC/32 propellant against KC-type armor at an impact angle of 70 degrees gives 11in shell penetration at 15km as 11.02in / 280mm. But it should be noted that RPC/32 propellant was replaced by the more powerful RPC/38 type which was the only propellant used in World War II, so that is somewhat undervalue.
> ...



In these tests they were testing to see how well the shells performed against sloped armor. The plates were 70* errect, so it would be like shooting at a belt sloped 20* These tests should not be confused with the so called proofing angle. The German proofing tests were entiely different. They tested at 30* from the normal, then 45* from the normal, then 60* from the normal. The German shells performed very well during oblique attack (the fuses were another matter). In the sloped belt tests the Bismarck classe's 38cm could defeat a 20* sloped belt 12.2" thick all the way out to 25km (27,340 yards). 

I don't recall the SH 's 28cm performance but it really won't be too far behind. This is because penetration of cemented armour by large caliber shells is mainly a matter of velocity rather than caliber or weight. The American 16" doesn't have much better belt penetration because of its relative low velocity. It hardly matters anyway because of the belt plus slope design of the German ships can't be dfeated at virtually any range. 

The German guns belt penetration will probably result in a German victory at battle ranges inside of 27,000 yards, and that's not taking into consideration the very poor quality of American Class-A armor. This armor typically had only about 75% the ballistic resistance it should have against large caliber shells.


----------



## DonL (Feb 1, 2010)

Hi Wavelength,

welcome and thank you for you very excellent posts.



> I personally doubt that SH was slowed by a hit penetrating a boiler room, because of the chronology. Nearly 15 minutes had passed after the DoY was forced to cease fire and before Adm Fraser called off the pursuit. It was further several minutes after Adm Fraser called off the pursuit before the British radar operators began to call off decreasing ranges, and they knew that SH had been delivered into their hands. Some of the German engine room personal later stated that the loss of speed was because of a broken steam line to one of the turbines. This is plausible considering that the Scharnhorst had its machinery pushed beyond proper limits for many hours at that point.



I agree. I think a 14 inch shell from DOY hit through the upper belt (possible up from 18500m) and exploded on the main deck with a huge shock impact and the always fragile Boiler Room1 was out of action. If DOY had a striking hit through the main deck, i don't think it's possible for SH to go back to 26kn 15-20min later.
Also a striking hit was never confirmed from the survivors of SH and Boiler Room1 was out of action or with problems at every mission of SH and SH was plotted 3-5 kn faster as DOY by a wind strenght of 9, so the machinery was very much owerpowered.



> I don't recall the SH 's 28cm performance but it really won't be too far behind. This is because penetration of cemented armour by large caliber shells is mainly a matter of velocity rather than caliber or weight. The American 16" doesn't have much better belt penetration because of its relative low velocity. It hardly matters anyway because of the belt plus slope design of the German ships can't be dfeated at virtually any range.



But SH had a major problem with it's thin 45mm upper Belt, up from 18500-19000m, because every huge (up from 11-12inch) shell can strike through the upper belt and go directly to the main deck, which is also thin with 80mm.
SH had the best immune zone under 18000m from all Battleships ever build (accept her turrets) but up from 18000m it's fragile and SH isn't a balanced design because the battle range at WWII was 15000m-25000m.

Also the the german naval weapons were all designed for belt penetration (huge muzzle velocity; light shell) rather than deck penetration, so to fight against an other battleship SH must go to an infight (under 18000m) to play it's good parts (belt penetration power and belt plus slope design).

For the radar equipment on SH for my opinion it was not a radar *fire control* equipment. By radar you can find ranges and integrate them in the gunnery solution but you couldn't opperate the SA of SH only by it's radar equipment.
For my understanding the MK 8 and the british fire radar equipment could opperate their SA only by radar and for the battle of Nordcap it was the key to win because there was any daylight and the british ships were equiped with flashless powder.


----------



## Glider (Feb 1, 2010)

Wavelength
Excellent posts, welcome


----------



## Wavelength (Feb 1, 2010)

Thank you to all for your gracious welcome.


----------



## Wavelength (Feb 1, 2010)

DonL said:


> But SH had a major problem with it's thin 45mm upper Belt, up from 18500-19000m, because every huge (up from 11-12inch) shell can strike through the upper belt and go directly to the main deck, which is also thin with 80mm.
> SH had the best immune zone under 18000m from all Battleships ever build (accept her turrets) but up from 18000m it's fragile and SH isn't a balanced design because the battle range at WWII was 15000m-25000m.
> 
> Also the the german naval weapons were all designed for belt penetration (huge muzzle velocity; light shell) rather than deck penetration, so to fight against an other battleship SH must go to an infight (under 18000m) to play it's good parts (belt penetration power and belt plus slope design).
> ...



The German designers also found the SH upper belt, if it can be called such, a major flaw. They always considered the Bismarck’s upper belt of 145mm KC a major improvement.

It was not realistic to attempt to provide complete protection to turrets and barbets at battle ranges below about 20km. In most cases the turrets were designed to provide protection from 20km-30km battle range. It’s no surprise that the Bismarck’s B turret could be knocked out by a 16” shell from Rodney at ranges of slightly less than 20km, or SH’s A- turret being knocked out at 11km by a 14” shell.

The Germans did not use light shells per caliber to enhance MV, although it did, but to concentrate the shells center of gravity in the head and to retain a center of gravity near the shell head should the hard penetrating cap become removed. This greatly enhanced the shells ability to penetrate intact during oblique attack. They therefore used relatively short body shells with medium sized burster cavities. This concept can be illustrated by British tests of their battleship AP shells postwar. The short body Nelson class 16” shells always penetrated intact striking at 30*. But the longer per caliber 14” and 15” shells usually did not. If the shells center gravity is too far away from the head it would likely become broken up during oblique penetration. Removing the cap shifts the center gravity away from the head of the projectile in heavier per caliber shells that have relatively long shell bodies. This was good reason to use a deck protection system that always de-caps. This is also why in the case of heavy shells against the German de-capping deck systems it gets very complex, and is not any kind of a slam dunk for the heavy shells to defeat the German deck system intact at realistic battleranges.

I agree that the SH 28cm gun was just too weak to take on WWII battleships in most cases. The Tirpitz’s 38cm gun was far more capable. The ballistics of the 38cm gun is most interesting. It has a flat trajectory and great terminal velocity at ranges where it will likely strike an enemy’s belt. But because of its relative lightness and the lesser amount of momentum it carries down range compared to a heavier shell, it begins to obtain steeper final trajectories at the battle ranges that it more likely to strike decks. Compared to the heavier French 38cm with an angle fall of 25*, and 115mm deck penetration at 30km, the German 38cm has a 31* angle of fall and 128mm deck penetration at 30km. The Iowa’s 140mm effective deck protection could be defeated by the German 38cm by about 31km battle range. I don’t know if the SH 28cm gun can defeat the Iowa’s deck protection at any realistic battle range? 

The German radars could be used to direct fire blind after about 1941-mid 1942. In a 1944 Naval Conference there is some concern about the increasing dependence on radar alone directed fire. Radar direction is so much easier to use and master. The concern was, that the proficiency with more traditional methods may become inadequate should the radar become disabled or non functional-as was the case with the Scharnhorst’s forward radar at North Cape.


----------



## Juha (Feb 2, 2010)

Hello Wavelenght
Quote:” The SH forward turret was hit early on and the forward magazine was flooded as a precaution”

Are you sure that it was only a precaution. According to Garzke and Dulin. “At 1655, a 356mm shell struck the Scharnhorst’s starboard side abreast of turret Anton. The turret jammed, with the training and elevating gears out of action. The magazines caught fire from incandescent splinters, which also penerated the fireproof bulkhead into magazines for turret Bruno…”

Also boatswain Gödde tells in Nauroth’s Scharnhorst book on thick smoke after that hit and that he later heard that fire and strong smokegeneration prevented rescue crews to enter into the turret.

On British heavy shells, at least those 15” shells which hit Dunkerque at Mers-el-Kébir worked OK, even that which hit the upper edge of 225mm inclined side armour or starboard edge of 115mm deck armour, depending on source, from appr. 17’500y penetrated and went deep into ship before exploding. I have heard the banana effect on British heavy shells when hitting an inclined armour plate, but cannot recall which stage of shell development was in question. On the other hand IIRC the banana effect was the key to the effectiveness of long penetration rods against well sloped frontal armour of tanks in 70s.

Juha


----------



## Wavelength (Feb 2, 2010)

G&D seem to find more detail oft times than the record can contain. For example, the idea of the final DoY hail mary shot before ceasing fire, having passed over the main belt and up against the boiler hump penetrating the panzer deck cannot be known. It's plausible, and I'm not saying it didn't happen that way, but nobody knows if it did happen that way. Of course concerning SH here, there is not any documentation about exactly what happened aboard the ship as far as hits go. There were only a handful of survivors, all of them ratings, with none of them having first hand knowledge of the exact details.

The Hood's 15" shells should have easly penetrated the Dunkerque's thin belt intact at that range. Its only about 28* from the normal, with its cap intact, and the velocity will be plenty sufficient. Where the longer body British shells had problems in their trials was at greater obliquities, such as typical in deck hits of 65* or more from the normal. Often distortion of the main body or base slap rendered the shell intert or broken. Interestingly the American shells they tested with smaller burster cavities actually did worse at staying intact in these cases, although the less massive American 14" shells had considerably better deck penetration than the British 14". In 40* tests of British 14" and 15" shells selected at random, they all failed. Specially selected shells from the Royal Ordnance Factory passed in some cases. During 30* tests they overlooked several failures of 14" and 15", but allowed this. The short body 16" passed in all cases.


----------



## DonL (Feb 2, 2010)

Hi Wavelength



> The German designers also found the SH upper belt, if it can be called such, a major flaw. They always considered the Bismarck’s upper belt of 145mm KC a major improvement.



Yes! But I think to build a BB with slope design, straight main belt and a good deck protection, it would be necessary to go 1 deck low with the upper deck and build without a upper belt, to take the free steel to put it in a thicker upper deck. That would be a compromise to the protected ship room but your upper deck is earlier in the overall protection in a gun fight. And for my opinion it would be very difficult to strike through a 70mm upper deck + a 80-95mm main deck.



> It was not realistic to attempt to provide complete protection to turrets and barbets at battle ranges below about 20km. In most cases the turrets were designed to provide protection from 20km-30km battle range. It’s no surprise that the Bismarck’s B turret could be knocked out by a 16” shell from Rodney at ranges of slightly less than 20km, or SH’s A- turret being knocked out at 11km by a 14” shell.



I agree because every turret from any BB at WWII would be out of action after a 14 inch hit from 11km.
But the german turrets weren't as good protected as many counterparts.



> The Germans did not use light shells per caliber to enhance MV, although it did, but to concentrate the shells center of gravity in the head and to retain a center of gravity near the shell head should the hard penetrating cap become removed. This greatly enhanced the shells ability to penetrate intact during oblique attack. They therefore used relatively short body shells with medium sized burster cavities. This concept can be illustrated by British tests of their battleship AP shells postwar. The short body Nelson class 16” shells always penetrated intact striking at 30*. But the longer per caliber 14” and 15” shells usually did not. If the shells center gravity is too far away from the head it would likely become broken up during oblique penetration. Removing the cap shifts the center gravity away from the head of the projectile in heavier per caliber shells that have relatively long shell bodies. This was good reason to use a deck protection system that always de-caps. This is also why in the case of heavy shells against the German de-capping deck systems it gets very complex, and is not any kind of a slam dunk for the heavy shells to defeat the German deck system intact at realistic battleranges.
> 
> I agree that the SH 28cm gun was just too weak to take on WWII battleships in most cases. The Tirpitz’s 38cm gun was far more capable. The ballistics of the 38cm gun is most interesting. It has a flat trajectory and great terminal velocity at ranges where it will likely strike an enemy’s belt. But because of its relative lightness and the lesser amount of momentum it carries down range compared to a heavier shell, it begins to obtain steeper final trajectories at the battle ranges that it more likely to strike decks. Compared to the heavier French 38cm with an angle fall of 25*, and 115mm deck penetration at 30km, the German 38cm has a 31* angle of fall and 128mm deck penetration at 30km. The Iowa’s 140mm effective deck protection could be defeated by the German 38cm by about 31km battle range.



Very interesting statement with the shell body.
We had a huge discussion in a german maritim forum about the interaction between shell weight, bore lenght, muzzle velocity and accurately.
For example the french 15 inch wants all, huge muzzle velocity + heavy shell but only 45 bore lenghts.
The effect was a gun that that wasn't accurate it was very poor in this discipline.
The german 11inch gun for my opinion was a great gun for 11inch with a medium shell and a very huge muzzle velocity, but a long bore lenght 54,5 and very accurate. 
The german 15 inch gun was a bit conservative design because the first 15 inch gun from the Bayern Class had massive problems with the accurately in it's first design. A muzzle velocity of 900m/s, a shell weight of 750 kg and a bore length of 45. So the muzzle velocity was reduced to 800m/s and than the gun was accurate.
So I think the designer were very conservative with the 15 inch SK 34 because with a bore lenght of 52 their would be of chance of more muzzle velocity then 820m/s by a shell weight of 800kg. But accurately had priority.



> I don’t know if the SH 28cm gun can defeat the Iowa’s deck protection at any realistic battle range?



No, the 11inch 54,5 was a very poor deck penetrator because of the huge muzzle velocity (angle of fall).


----------



## Wavelength (Feb 2, 2010)

That’s an interesting idea Don. It avoids what the Germans considered to be a real sin, of many other contemporary designs, of positioning the main armored deck where its tonnage could not do any good in terms of backing up the main belt ballistics wise or by containing plate debris. If the Dunkerque had had such an arrangement, the Hood’s belt penetrating15” would have been kept out of the vitals. 

The French had a similar layout to this idea, but they concentrated the main deck armor above and put a thin 40mm splinter deck with slopes, but with the slopes at rather non-optimal angle, below. This thickness of steel below and behind the belt really does very little good. In that case: 150mm + 40mm = 155mm effective. That is an inefficient use of armor tonnage.

The German ballistics engineers would have objected strongly to reducing the distance between the ober deck and the panzer deck by ½, however. The distance between the two armored decks was of crucial importance to the proper functioning of a spaced armor setup. 

The amount of inter-space is important because there must be sufficient space for such things as completely removing the cap and yaw induction, to become more manifest. For example, a blunt head shape, such as used by American APC, results in a slower rate of precession. The distance between the two armored decks as built is exactly the right distance for the maximal amount of yaw to become manifest. This can increase the necessary velocity required to penetrate the panzer deck by as much 30%. This would essentially increases the effective thickness of the panzer deck by 30% in such a case.

It would take fusing out of the equation too. For example, if a large caliber shell or bomb strikes the upper deck it would penetrate, but its fuse would also become activated. The upper armored deck would also slow it down some. If the fuse delay was 0.035 seconds and its residual velocity was 300 m/s it would explode after traveling 10.5 meters. Given an angle across the inter-space of 25*, the distance is ~12.5 meters on the original design (if I remember correctly), and the shell would explode before it could reach the panzer deck. This principle is most important when it comes to protecting the ship’s vitals from aircraft delivered bombs. Bombs can strike the decks at nearly the normal, but their typical terminal velocity is much less than those typical of artillery shells. A Luftwaffe study of the system, determined that the upper deck would reduce the velocity of large caliber armored piercing bombs 5-10%. The greatest distance possible needed to be maintained, to keep this principle fully in play. A thicker upper deck would reduce the velocity more, but this introduces other trade offs.

The Germans observed that if the thickness of their Wh armor penetrated was 50% the diameter of the shell, then the post penetration trajectory was shifted about 4* toward the normal. This would mean that it would strike the next deck in the series at more advantageous angle, reducing the velocity required to penetrate the next deck. The German knew that there was an optimal thickness ratio and ballistic resistance ratio between the two decks. The thickness they used resulted in a thickness that was about 13% the diameter of large caliber shells, and the resultant trajectory shift toward the normal was relatively insignificant. They wanted to concentrate as much armor as possible into the main plate from the sum total, but leave just enough armor thickness in the upper deck to be effective. By using a thickness for the upper deck that was still thick enough to cause de-capping, velocity reduction, and yaw, they could build a spaced armor system that could equal or exceed the effective thickness of a single plate of the same total thickness.

Finally, there are structural engineering considerations. Generally, the upper deck or the weather deck is the primary strength deck in the overall structural system. This is why the British used a laminate of D-steel (high tensile structural steel) for this deck. The German approach of using 50-80mm of armor grade steel (tensile strength of 80kg/mm2) for the upper deck, allowed the same tonnage expenditure to address both structural and ballistic considerations. It was also more weight efficient. They could use a low weight expenditure of only 6mm thick for the non-ballistic deck in between.


----------



## Juha (Feb 5, 2010)

Hello Wavelenght
On the other hand their description of what happened to A-turret and magazine is in line of the Gödde’s story, whose battle-position was, if we can believe his interview in The Scharnhorst double-DVD, alongside and inside the conning tower.

On Hood’s 15” shells hitting on Dunkerque, the one which hit on the 150mm roof of the13” Turret II, even if hit angle was shallow, gouged deep into the armour plating before exploding, most of the shell ricocheted but pieces of armour or of shell struck the loading platform and started a cordite fire which killed the entire gun crew of the starboard half turret. The hole in the roof armour was something like 1,5m x 20-30cm. 

Juha


----------



## R Pope (Feb 5, 2010)

If I was searching for the "best" ships, I wouldn't be looking on the bottom of the oceans!


----------



## parsifal (Feb 5, 2010)

Thats funny, but there is a serious side to the statement. With all these advantages, and accuracy in their gunnery systems, particularly in the alleged improvements after 1943, were there any tangible improvements in the gunnery for the germans? In the same vein were there any improvements for the allies? Who showed the greatest level of improvement? If the germans had all this wunderbar equipment, and they did not show any great improvement in accuracy, or even a decrease in accuracy, why did this happen?


----------



## Wavelength (Feb 6, 2010)

I'm not following what your trying to say here parsifal. Can you provide any examples to make your point(s) clearer??


----------



## Wavelength (Feb 6, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Wavelenght
> On the other hand their description of what happened to A-turret and magazine is in line of the Gödde’s story, whose battle-position was, if we can believe his interview in The Scharnhorst double-DVD, alongside and inside the conning tower.
> 
> On Hood’s 15” shells hitting on Dunkerque, the one which hit on the 150mm roof of the13” Turret II, even if hit angle was shallow, gouged deep into the armour plating before exploding, most of the shell ricocheted but pieces of armour or of shell struck the loading platform and started a cordite fire which killed the entire gun crew of the starboard half turret. The hole in the roof armour was something like 1,5m x 20-30cm.
> ...



Hello Juha,

Penetration of SH's A turret probably would have started fires and heavy smoke from several possible sources, particulary ready use ammunition in the turret. A conflagaration into the forward magazines would probably result in B-turret being out of operation from that point on. But it came back on line. 

The German ammo storage was not as dangerous as British bagged cordite. The German charges was much more stable, cooler burning, and in metal cartridges, themselves within armoured lockers, within the magazine. So any magazine fires are much more managable though.

The Hood hit against the turret roof on Dunkerque is not really remarkable. The roof was of face hardened material, not homogenous material and sloped downward about 9*. Plugging in the true striking angle and velocity for FH armorthe result is a shell that almost penetrates but breaks up. Exactly what happened.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 6, 2010)

Wavelength said:


> I'm not following what your trying to say here parsifal. Can you provide any examples to make your point(s) clearer??



Wasnt trying to say anything really, was posing a question. Did the standard of gunnery in the German navy improve as its technology was improved, or did it fall away as the war progressed. Similarly, did the Allies improve or deteriorate in terms of accuracy as the war progressed. Comparing the two, who progressed, or deteriorated the most over time. And what were the factors that influenced that progress or deterioration over time, what in your opinion caused those changes?


----------



## Wavelength (Feb 6, 2010)

The basic centralized firecontrol equipment such as the gyros, computers, remote power control…ect.. for most everybody during WWII were fully developed prior to the war itself. The German central firecontrol system (C/38) as used by their cruisers and battleships was very similar in design and capabilities to that used by the USN, such as in the new construction fast battleships. There could be no comparative fall off or improvement based on basic systemic technical capabilities, but there may be based on human skill in operating the firecontrol systems.

What needs to be clearly understood, and forgive me please if this is overly elementary, is that in naval gunnery one shoots to straddle the target. Once one is straddling the target, one is actually shooting as accurately as one can. Hitting the target during a straddle becomes a matter of probability and ballistics. There is a saying among naval gunners: “Good shooting gets you straddles, but only God gives you hits.” This can be illustrated by the experience of the American battleships Washington and South Dakota at Guadalcanal. Radar can help you determine the exact range bearing of the target, possibly helping one to straddle sooner and more often, but other than perhaps allowing minor corrections to the mean point of impact, it does not improve the probability of hits from a straddle. 

The American battleships unloaded at least 14 radar directed broadsides against a Japanese light cruiser and two destroyers at ranges between 11,000 and 18,000 yards. They scored no hits. Later the Washington scored several hits on the Japanese battle cruiser Kirishima at a range of 8,400 yards. This also illustrates the problem of comparing accuracy of different events. The range, and the target size, as well its orientation, has much to do with hit probabilities from straddles. Luck is always a factor of course.

Comparing Allied to German accuracy improvements, or fall offs, late war to early war, becomes a bit difficult, because the German Surface Navy was mostly confined to harbor by Hitler’s no risks policy after the sinking of the Bismarck. There are only really two major battles after Bismarck to examine, so late war comparisons can be difficult to make.

About 45 days after the American battleships went into action near Savo Island the Germans and the British were involved in a surface battle in the Barents Sea. Although the outcome was bad for the Germans, because of Hitler’s reaction to it, their actual shooting performance demonstrated a significant improvement in accuracy, rather than a fall off, despite the German crews being rusty. This had to be because of upgrades in their firecontrol radar capabilities allowing them to straddle more quickly and more often. 

British Adm. Tovey wrote in his post action report that the extremely cold weather rendered optical equipment useless, forcing a reliance on RDF for firecontrol and ranging. These climatic and weather conditions effected both sides. The visibility was at most 7 miles, and there was fog, snow storms, and the artic darkness to contend with too. The British were laying smoke screens as well. Despite the conditions, the German cruiser Hipper scored a first salvo straddle and hit against the destroyer Achates from 14,000 meters, followed by 4 -8-inch hits out of 36 rounds expended against the destroyer Onslow. Later on, the Hipper re-engaged the Achates at a range exceeding 18,000 meters and scored a first salvo straddle and multiple hits once again. The Achates would sink. This was unprecedented and astonishing, long range (for a cruiser), shooting against relatively small destroyers. 

After Barents Sea, the Germans put increased emphasis on radar directed shooting. The Scharnhorst had the latest model radar installed at its foretop position in Oct 1943. Its new captain put the SH through a series of radar directed shooting exercises and accuracy tests during Nov 1943- within the confines of the Alta Fiord complex. However, this radar set was the one destroyed in the first skirmish.

Despite loosing its best radar, the Scharnhorst consistently straddled the Duke of York at ranges from 17,000 meters to 19,500 meters. This would have been impossible without effective radar control from the remaining set. Remember if you’re straddling, you’re already shooting as accurately as you can. The Duke of York scored only about 4 hits over a period of about 90 minutes at ranges from 11,000 meters to 19,500 meters and many more rounds expended. This doesn’t indicate a comparative accuracy disparity.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 6, 2010)

Thanks for Your inputs, wavelength and welcome on board.

I may add that the armoured weatherdeck received a slightly different chemical treatment than the lower ballistic armoured deck in SCHARNHORST, BISMARCK-; and HINDENBURG-class ships. According to post war shooting trials carried out by the british on captured plates from TIRPITZ, the BHN level was about 10% higher for the 50mm thick plates. This had benefitting effects against cruiser fire but also helped to decap enemy projectile caps under difficult conditions. Scaling effects caused by these hard plates prevented the utiliztion of 250 BHN+ plates for the main armour deck. While homogenious, the KM was reluctant to use these treatment for any plates over 50mm thickness, when toughness becomes a more important aspect than hardness.

I think that thickness of the plates generally has a lot to do with plate resistence. The germans, italiens and british were reluctant to use 360mm+ plates for any shipboard application. The japanese and americans were not but their plates suffer from poor scaling effects.

best regards,


----------



## parsifal (Feb 7, 2010)

Thankyou for the answer, and very comprehensive and informative. However, whilst i agree that the number of times the German surface Navy was engaged in combat are very limited I think that limited dataset is being even more restricted by the approach you are adopting. For example, at Barents Sea there was more to the action than the Hippers shooting. Hipper represents the successful element of the german plan, what about those ships less successful, like the Lutzow and the destroyers?

"_To compound Kummetz’s dilemma, Admiral Burnett’s cruisers Sheffield and Jamaica appeared seemingly out of nowhere. The Sheffield opened fire first, straddling Hipper with several salvos before getting her range and then scoring a damaging hit. Kummetz attempted to swing around and make smoke but before he could do so Hipper took two more hits. Again immobilized by Hitler’s restrictive orders, he decided he was already in deep trouble for taking what the Führer would consider an unacceptable risk, so he ordered a cease fire and a speedy withdrawal of all units. But Burnett suffered no such reluctance to engage. At 1133, the German destroyers Friedrich Eckholdt and Richard Beitzen mistook the Sheffield and the Jamaica for the Hipper and Lützow and attempted to link up with them. Before the German commanders could realize their error, every gun on the two British cruisers opened up.

Being closer in, the Friedrich Eckholdt was hit directly amidships and sunk within less than two minutes. The Richard Beitzen escaped unharmed. This distraction had taken the British cruisers to the north of the convoy and caused them to lose contact with the Hipper which was now hustling westward to join the Lützow . 

Meanwhile, Captain Stänge aboard the Lützow identified several possible targets in the convoy through the mist and smoke. The nearest was three miles away and the farthest seven. Though the range of his guns was 15 miles he fired 87 11-inch and 75 6-inch rounds without scoring a direct hit. Stänge had missed the sort of opportunity seldom presented to a naval commander_"

At North Cape I am certain the the DoY was achieving multiple straddles of the Scharnhorst the same as Scharnhorsts return fire. Despite Scharnhorsts being outnumbered in termsof tubes she could fire, her ROF was superior to the DoYs, so it would be interesting to see who was straddling who more often. 

As an ex-naval officer, having been involved in many training shoots, ive never heard of the saying you are quoting. I was wondering who exactly would make that statement. admittedly my experience is postwar, we considered it successful shooting to actually hit the target rather than attempt to straddle, and whilst my knowledge of radar is overshadowed by your own, I can assure you that we relied on radar heavily to achieve those hits as early as possible, and the radars we were using were direct developments of the wartime types (I served initially on a Daring Class destroyer, later I was on an Adams class DDG). And we trained according to the principals laid down in the 1954 US gunnery training manual, as updated, but which itself had been prepared on the basis of lessons learned during the war. Even though there was a world of difference between the environment I trained in and WWII, the links and experiences are still tangible I believe. Achieving a straddle was seen as a positive step, but we could and did make rapid corrections to our azimuth and bearing to achieve a hit as quickly as possible. Radar direction was crucial to achieving that firing solution, so I am at a loss in understanding where this idea that radar could only get you “near enough” or “somewhere near” the target. That is not how we were trained, and we were using essentially wartime technology to learn the traded. We were taught to adjust fire as quickly as possible, and to use the most appropriate target location devices that were available, which invariably meant we spent a lot of time peering at the radar scope to determine the firing solution as quickly as possible. Radar has its limitations, and ought not be relied on as the sole means to verify target position and speed, but it was our prime means of fire control. 

Straddles usually preceded hits, because it meant that the enemy's range/speed/course had been found, and there was a better chance of being able to predict its position for the next salvo. Radar (and computers), allowed that firing solution to be found very quickly, so i am at a bit of a loss as to why you would imply that radar does not help, or is of limited help, in achieving hits. That is just contrary to everything I ever saw learned or observed whilst in service


----------



## Wavelength (Feb 7, 2010)

I'm not saying that radar doesn't improve your shooting. The German Navy, along with The RN and USN proved that during WWII.

The Barents Sea outcome did not boil down to technical capabilities, it was the results of the errors in judgement and good judgement by humans. BTW, its not correct that Luetzow didn't score any hits. It damaged two frieghters and seriously damaged the destroyer Obdurate with radar directed salvoes from 16,000 meters range.


----------



## renrich (Feb 7, 2010)

The Washington scored more than "several" hits on Kirishima at Guadalcanal.


----------



## Wavelength (Feb 7, 2010)

I used the term several because nobody knows for sure how many were scored. The official report lists 9. At only 8,400 yards it certainly could have scored many.


----------



## Wavelength (Feb 7, 2010)

delcyros said:


> Thanks for Your inputs, wavelength and welcome on board.
> 
> I may add that the armoured weatherdeck received a slightly different chemical treatment than the lower ballistic armoured deck in SCHARNHORST, BISMARCK-; and HINDENBURG-class ships. According to post war shooting trials carried out by the british on captured plates from TIRPITZ, the BHN level was about 10% higher for the 50mm thick plates. This had benefitting effects against cruiser fire but also helped to decap enemy projectile caps under difficult conditions. Scaling effects caused by these hard plates prevented the utiliztion of 250 BHN+ plates for the main armour deck. While homogenious, the KM was reluctant to use these treatment for any plates over 50mm thickness, when toughness becomes a more important aspect than hardness.
> 
> ...



I have a copy of the Norwegian metallurgical tests of the Tirpitz plates. The 50mm plates averaged 230 brinell, while the 100mm, 80mm, and 120mm plates from the panzer deck averaged 250 brinell. This equates with a tensile strength of 80kg/mm2 (117,000 psi), for the upper deck, and 90kg/mm2 (130,000 psi) for the panzer deck. 

The chemical composition for Tirpitz’s Wh was:
C-0.29%
Cr-2.41%
Ni-1.81%
Mo-0.49%
Si-0.32%
Mn-0.0.26%
Cu-0.11%

An advantage of using such chrome/moly material for homogenous armor was that the ductility remained more or less constant (20% elongation) through the strength/hardness range typically used for deck armor. They could manipulate the ballistic resistance of the armor through a certain range without making the armor too brittle or too soft. For example, they could increase the ballistic resistance of the panzer deck slightly higher than standard, or compared to the upper deck, and this could ameliorate a loss of effective thickness by using two plates instead one plate. 

Another way to look at the trade off between ductility and strength is by the ratio of yield point to ultimate tensile strength. The yield point is the load that the metal starts to deform and the ultimate tensile strength is the point where it finally tears apart. If the elongation is 20% then the metal will have stretched 20%, before it breaks. If the UTS of Wh was 85kg/mm2 then its YTS was 50kg/mm2. This was by far the best ratio of any WWII homogenous armor. This is a good measure of armor toughness. Increasing tensile strength could result in greater ballistic resistance if the ductility wasn’t significantly decreased. For example ( an actual Krupp example provided to the British post war), if the armor’s UTS was 80kg/mm2, a projectile may require a velocity of 447 M/s for penetration, but if it was 84kg/mm2 it would require 460 M/s for penetration. There were limits to how much manipulation could be used. Another Krupp example revealed that increasing the strength to significantly more than 150kg/mm2 could result in a decrease of necessary velocity of about 8% compared to 80kg/mm2. Here the elongation would measure about 14% instead of about 20%. 

I have seen the British test data comparing the Tirpitz Wh plates to the British non cemented armor (NCA). The Wh required about 10% greater velocity for *’ and 15” shells to penetrate than did the British NCA. 

It’s generally agreed that very thick plates present intractable quality problems because they do not heat treat properly. The USN substituted 16-inch and 17 –inch Class B plates for Class A plates on the new battleships’ turret face plates. But they were still brittle. The Naval Research Lab studied the problem and found the heavy Class B plates’ ballistic resistance was sub par by about 20%. Krupp always found that thinner plates could be produced to higher quality levels than thicker plates. German practice was that Wh should not exceed 15cm by very much and that 320mm KC was the point of diminishing returns. 

After the war the British built a mockup of the Tirpitz deck system to test against and found that it always de-capped their shells. A de-capped 14" shell could defeat the panzer deck if its velocity exceeded 466 M/s. Of course it would never exceed 466 M/s after penetrating the upper deck.

Regards,


----------



## renrich (Feb 7, 2010)

Wavelength, the wreck of the Kirishima has been found and photos of the wreakage show around twenty major caliber hits. I saw the photo somewhere but can't remember where.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Feb 7, 2010)

According to combinedfleet.com the KIRISHIMA was hit by over forty (40) 5" shells in addition to nine 16" AP shells. 

TO


----------



## delcyros (Feb 7, 2010)

At ranges under 9000 yards such as were the case for the engagement KRISHIMA / WASHINGTON - the angle of fall for the US 16in/45 was at around 5 deg. Such low aof´s would return a high hit probability, once KRISHIMA is straddled. In addition to this, shells which would be counted as short on the observation (shellsplashes which were identified relying on optical instruments in this engagement), would rather deflect from the watersurface and may end as a hit on KRISHIMA´s side, depending on geometry and distance. Officially, they recognised only nine hits for splashes missing from the salvos. In fact it ws probably significantly higher given the specific circumstances of the action.

Wavelength, can You cite a source for the norwegian metal properties tests of TIRPITZ? I am well aware of the finds from Dave Saxton but have not run across an norwegian source so far.

Thanks in advance,


----------



## Wavelength (Feb 7, 2010)

Oslo Materialproavanstalt: Panzer fran sk Tirpitz, Oslo, den feb 20, 1948.


----------



## Juha (Feb 8, 2010)

Hello Wavelenght
According to Garzke Dulin, the 14" from DoY hit Scharnhorst's sbd side abreast of turret Anton not the turret itself. Did the German BB main armament turrets have ready use ammo during WWII? IHO, not being BB specialist, British turrets didn't have. IMHO if flooding was done promptly, some flaming charges would not developed into conflagaration, especially because German charges were more stable and in metal cartridges. So after pumping B magazine dry the firing could continue. It seems that in A magazines there was conflagaration but not in B-magazines, that is according to Garzke Dulin.

As I wrote in my message #670 "On British heavy shells, at least those 15” shells which hit Dunkerque at Mers-el-Kébir worked OK", I didn't claim that those 15" shells did something exeptional, only that they worked as advertised.

Juha


----------



## delcyros (Feb 8, 2010)

I take it that You have read parts or the whole document. Do You happen to have a copy of this source? I ask deliberately because I have my problems accepting the following issue:



> _The 50mm plates averaged 230 brinell, while the 100mm, 80mm, and 120mm plates from the panzer deck averaged 250 brinell. This equates with a tensile strength of 80kg/mm2 (117,000 psi), for the upper deck, and 90kg/mm2 (130,000 psi) for the panzer deck._



In fact, this result contradicts the UK tests of the same material which D. Saxton has come across so far. The UK test showed the upper deck to have avg. 250 Brinell (85 to 95 Kg/mm^2) while the lower Panzerdeck had 225 to 235 Brinell (80 kg/mm^2). This is a quite serious point of departure in both sources. From my understanding -and I might be wrong- german Wh if treated to a hardness of 255 Brinell had a strain of 20% (minimum acceptance limit = 18%) while the same material treated for only 225 Brinell got a strain of 25/6% (minimum acceptance limit = 23%).
For the thicker Panzerdeck a material with high strain is the preferable application. Thinner plates could be treated for higher hardness without a significant drop in strain. The 30mm samples from TIRPITZ in UK tests are much harder than the 50mm deck plates too (probably for splinter bulkheads).

best regards,


----------



## renrich (Feb 8, 2010)

There is a damage analysis online which shows that Kirishima took 20 major caliber shell hits and 17 smaller ones. This seems to correlate with two Japanese officer's who were aboard her reports. If the analysis is correct and Washington obtained 20 hits out of 75 shots fired, all at night, that is pretty good shooting


----------



## Wavelength (Feb 8, 2010)

delcyros said:


> I take it that You have read parts or the whole document. Do You happen to have a copy of this source? I ask deliberately because I have my problems accepting the following issue:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes I have read the Norwegian analysis. The 50cm plates are about 230 brn. The 100mm and 80cm plates are about 250 brn. This is also what D Saxton's sources indicate . Some how there's mix up there. It is also in keeping with the findings of Krupp's ballistics engineers. The Krupp people observed that if the armor UTS was less than 80kg/mm2 that a de-capped shell would actually have better penetration than a capped shell of equal mass. However, if the armor's UTS exceeded 80kg/mm2 then a decapped shell had significantly less penetration than a capped shell of equal mass. By removing the cap the mass is reduced, and an additional effective thickness gain is attained by presenting the de-capped shell with armor exceeding 80kg/mm2.


----------



## Wavelength (Feb 8, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Wavelenght
> According to Garzke Dulin, the 14" from DoY hit Scharnhorst's sbd side abreast of turret Anton not the turret itself. Did the German BB main armament turrets have ready use ammo during WWII? IHO, not being BB specialist, British turrets didn't have. IMHO if flooding was done promptly, some flaming charges would not developed into conflagaration, especially because German charges were more stable and in metal cartridges. So after pumping B magazine dry the firing could continue. It seems that in A magazines there was conflagaration but not in B-magazines, that is according to Garzke Dulin.
> 
> As I wrote in my message #670 "On British heavy shells, at least those 15” shells which hit Dunkerque at Mers-el-Kébir worked OK", I didn't claim that those 15" shells did something exeptional, only that they worked as advertised.
> ...



There may well have been a conflagaration in the forward magazines, but in my opinion probably not. I don't know for sure though. The Germans did have ready use ammo in the turrets, at least the Hippers did as outlined by Paul Schmalenbach. 

Reading up on the various accounts of the battle, it looks like there were possibly two hits forward at that time; one vs the turret and one to the forward section on the tween deck. This is just forward of A-turret The tween deck hit started a nasty cabling fire that was the main source of the smoke. A hull hit high up abreast A turret and passing over the belt, may have penetrated the barbet, because there was no upper belt to de-cap such a shell on the SH. Any penetration of the barbet would place the forward magazines in jeopardy, and probably taken out the turret too. It would have been standard procedure to flood the forward magazine(s).


----------



## parsifal (Feb 9, 2010)

Wavelength said:


> The Barents Sea outcome did not boil down to technical capabilities, it was the results of the errors in judgement and good judgement by humans. BTW, its not correct that Luetzow didn't score any hits. It damaged two frieghters and seriously damaged the destroyer Obdurate with radar directed salvoes from 16,000 meters range.



Agreed that the barents sea was the result of Human error, though the Germans were severely constrained by hitlers standing orders concerning avoiding escessive risk.

Concerning the attacks by Lutzow, there is no record of the Obdurate suffering "serious damage" . The records that I have access to indicate that she suffered slight splinter damage that had no impact on her fighting efficiency.

Regarding the damage to the two freighters, do you know which ones, and the extent of the damage sustained. I can then check the convoy manifests to determine the veracity of those claims. The general consensus in western histories is that the Luzow had no tangible effect on the battle, despite being given the opportunity to do so....and her gunnery, in contrast to that of the hipper, was quite poor in the engagement. and Hippers gunnery, despite being markedly better than Lutzows, was, in my opinion inferior to that achieved by the two British Light Cruisers also engaged. To me, and to the people that trained me, the measure of success is not the number straddles, but the number of hits over the total number of salvoes fired.


----------



## Wavelength (Feb 9, 2010)

Bekker working from both German and British primary sources (He was given full access by the Admiralty) wrote:

“at 11:40 hours Luetzow opened fire at last. An hour earlier she had a defenceless convoy right in front of her guns…..now the range had extended to 16 km….Above all when Luetzow opened fire at last the Hipper had already been hit and had disengaged. Though the formers 28-cm shells were seen to register, and the British destroyer Obdurate was in fact seriously damaged, at 12:03 hours as darkness began to fall, Admiral Kummetz finally ordered the Luetzow force to withdraw to the west.”

What seems at the heart of your questions seem to be the comparative performance of the radars though. An in depth West German study of this battle done by the West German Navy in 1983 is most instructive to this question. They relied on primary documents almost exclusively, but noted some of the popular western secondary sources such as Pope and Roskill. Another, important source on Luetzow’s performance was Hans Prager’s account that hardly deviates from the Luetzow KTB. 

The Luetzow had approached the battle zone from the south. It was following a practice of switching on its Seetakt radar and scanning for a few minutes at intervals. This practice was so that it would not give away its position to British radar detectors before it could come into radar detection range and thereby allow the British to effect evasive action. All radar transmissions can be detected at a greater range than the radar itself can locate targets. The visibility was 300 meters.

As Luetzow approached, its own radar detectors began picking up British radar transmissions. When at about 10:40 hours it had received several intercepted radar transmissions of higher signal strength and with PRFs of 500 and 3000, so Stange ordered the Seetakt switched on for good. The Seetakt located several ships from the convoy. The Luetzow’s gunnery officers begged Stange to open fire but Stange demurred. He could not be sure if the targets (that were hardly visible much less identifiable) were friend or foe. The radar transmissions of 500PRF had introduced serious doubts into his mind. Both the Germans and the British used radar with 500 PRF, and although the radar transmissions obviously came from British and German radar still quite some distance away, passive detectors can not determine range. The radar returns from the convoy ships would not give any indication of friend or foe because they would of course not be carrying German IFF transponders. With no IFF indication and PRFs of 500 being detected Stange was in a conundrum. When at 11:16 hours, the Luetzow and Hipper exchanged IFF signals at about 25km range, Stange realized his error.

Stange reversed course and sought redemption. The Luetzow’s radar located several targets. It tracked two firm targets to the North at an initial range of 29,000 meters. These were Sheffield and Jamaica, but Stange considered the range extreme and sought closer targets. Right after opening fire the target was shrouded in a snow storm but Luetzow continued accurate blind fire under full radar control. However, observing the fall of shot was difficult for the radar operator because of a faulty vacuum tube that caused the radar indication to jump every time Luetzow fired a 28cm salvo. They decided to shut the radar down and repair it. Without the radar, Luetzow had to cease fire after only firing 7 salvoes. A few minutes later with the radar back up and running, the Luetzow tracked shells being fired at it, but falling well short. These were from Obdurate. The radar ranged Obdurate at 15,400 meters and Stange ordered it brought under fire. Strikes were observed, but it was a crushing disappointment (noted as such by Stange) that after only firing a comparative handful of salvoes overall they received the order to disengage. Most British accounts credit the Hipper for the Obdurate damage, but it was Luetzow. 


this is getting bit long so I'll address the British performance below........

(I don't recall the names of the convoy ships damaged now although I was given them once and the British sources for that a few years ago.)


----------



## Wavelength (Feb 9, 2010)

The performance of the British radars during this battle was rather mixed. Tovey wrote in his official report that none of the British destroyer’s radars proved capable of detecting and tracking the German cruisers on their own. Only the type 271 radars on the destroyers were capable of holding the German cruisers after being “put on” the target after spotting visually the German gun flashes. It could not hold contact for long though, because the Hipper was operating at the extreme edge of 271’s detection range to cruisers. Kummetz was trying (successfully) to lure the British destroyers away to the north with episodic firing and then jinking away to the north. He achieved his objective of forcing the convoy to turn into the Luetzow group to the southward, while damaging multiple British destroyers, and also keeping his own group’s ships at a relatively safe distance.

Burnette first located the Hipper at about 11:05 hours from a range of 21km with the Sheffield’s Type 273 radar. WWII radar expert Louis Brown reports that the British 50 cm radars that equipped the British ships during this battle were not capable of blind fire, because these were the older model Types 284/5 without lobe switching and not the newer pattern Type 284/5M models with lobe switching. This seems to be why Burnette was obliged to wait until he closed range to 12,000 yards and obtained visual bearing data before opening fire on Hipper. Tovey noted that an experimental British IFF system failed completely to operate as well. This didn’t matter so much, because at the time of the British cruiser’s timely arrival, the Hipper was highlighted by the artic twilight on the southern horizon and clearly identifiable from seven miles, while they remained hidden in the artic gloom to the northward. The Hipper’s radar was preoccupied with the tasks of sinking the Achates and damaging the Obedient at the time.

The Jamaica’s 273 radar was knocked out by the shock of its opening salvo, but Tovey noted that the ranging by the Types 284/5 50 cm radars were crucial to the British shooting, despite their limitations in bearing accuracy. Radar ranging was required due to the extreme weather conditions that rendered the optics mostly useless. They scored two, perhaps three hits on the Hipper. The German destroyer was sunk at point blank range as it mistook the British cruiser for the Hipper in the soup, and tried to join the British formation. Burnette must have gasped with relief when the German destroyer didn’t launch torpedoes. In my opinion the German radar directed shooting was comparatively much more impressive thoughout. It had to perform in mostly blind conditions, at greater ranges, and against much more difficult to hit targets.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 9, 2010)

Interesting account on Barent Sea, thanks for the informative post, wavelength.

Regarding the Scharnhorst account, there was kind of an upper belt armour abreast the turrets. Even if it was only 45mm Wh, it was heavily contured (~20 to 30 deg abreast the forward turrets, depending locally) and thus it was in fact thick enough to decap typical US and RN major calibre shells. While not intended to do so (it would fail to decap german Krupp APC and italian APC as well) it is very likely to decap the RN 14in APC. With the shell decapped, the impact on the barbette would then result in full shatter, which might still cause significant local damage (up to including damage behind the barbette) but not a classical textbook penetration of the whole projectile in a condition fit to burst. 



> To me, and to the people that trained me, the measure of success is not the number straddles, but the number of hits over the total number of salvoes fired.


That´s explainable by the increased accuracy and the different environment of firecontroll post war. I can assure You that the closest you could come with ww2 era firecontroll is hitting at direct fire only (no FC required, only point blanc range) or -most usual- straddling at anything else involving FC. With a mean salvo deviation of +-200 yards and more in range (68% of all falls are in within this distance to the MPI), there is simply no possibility to ask for a hit. You either straddle a target or You adjust the MPI acordingly to straddle. The hit on the other hand is a random event in within the probability limits of the straddle itselve. You may manipulate the probabilities a bit (that´s why half salvos are preferable to full salvos), but You can´t tighten the dispersion pattern beyond the limits of the gun / turret / projectile / propellant combination. The dispersion pattern for major calibre projectiles at realistic fighting range, however, is always much larger than any ship buildt in ww2.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 9, 2010)

Bekkers account is seriously at odds with multiple sources. To cite just one HMS Obdurate, destroyer (prepared by Lcdr Mason RNVR), "_the Obdurate was Sighted German cruiser HIPPER and Armoured ship LUTZOW (Ex DEUTSCHLAND) and their escorting destroyers. Took part in action against German ships. Sustained slight splinter damage during this engagement_".

It is also hard to reconcile Bekkers account with Stanges diary entries, where he notes "_As we withdrew from the battle scene, it was hard to escape the feeling that, even though the situation appeared to be in our favor, we were unable to get at the convoy and scored no successes whatsoever_"......

I also managed to track down some source material on the composition of the convoy. It consisted of the following

_14 merchantmen: 
Empire Archer, (British), 141 vehicles, 18 tanks, 21 fighters, 4,376 tons general cargo; Commodore of Convoy Captain Melhuish 
Daldorch (British), 264 vehicles, 1,744 tons general cargo 
Empire Emerald (British), 2,580 tons oil fuel, 7,400 tons aviation fuel 
Pontfield (British), 5,500 tons oil fuel, 5,280 tons aviation fuel 
Chester Valley (US), 2 vehicles, 25 tanks, 10 fighters, 4 bombers, 250 tons fuel, 4,371 tons general cargo 
Puerto Rican (US), 14 vehicles, 23 tanks, 15 fighters, 8 bombers, 100 tons fuel, 5,345 tons general cargo 
Executive (US), 139 vehicles, 4 bombers, 450 tons fuel, 450 tons fuel, 4,210 tons general cargo 
R.W. Emerson, (US), 160 vehicles, 45 tanks, 13 fighters, 5 bombers, 780 tons fuel, general cargo 
Ballot (US), 115 vehicles, 25 tanks, 18 fighters, 0 tons fuel, 5,534 tons general cargo 
Jefferson Meyers (US), 376 vehicles, 4 bombers, 500 tons fuel, 5,336 tons general cargo 
Vermont (US), 299 vehicles, 4 bombers, 300 tons fuel, 4,048 tons general cargo 
Yorkmar (US), 188 vehicles, 150 tons fuel, 5,326 tons general cargo 
John H. LaTrobe (US), 191 vehicles, 58 tanks, 10 fighters, 4 bombers, 640 tons fuel, 4,397 tons general cargo 
Calobre (Panamanian), 166 vehicles, 8 tanks, 250 tons fuel, 4,534 tons general cargo 

Total cargo: 
2046 vehicles, 202 tanks, 87 fighters, 33 bombers, 11,500 tons fuel, 12,650 tons aviation fuel, 54,321 tons general cargo. 

Note: no rescue ship was provided, probably because the convoy was small, and equally possibly because none were available

From another source, None of the merchantmen were more than lightly damaged and all 14 reached Kola on the 3rd January. Because the damage was slight, this suggests to me it was the result of further near misses....._

The timeline of events for this battle in that critical 11 to 12 time period (author David Saxon Naval History Forums) was

_1106-Sheffield detects and begins tracking Hipper with Type 273 radar at 21,000 meters.
1109-Hipper turns southwest, leaving the scene of the Bramble sinking.
1116- Hipper and Luetzow exchange radar IFF signals. Kapt Stange realizes he has made a huge mistake by holding fire on radar located targets during the previous 1/2 hour.
1117-Hipper engages Achates from 18,000+ meters
1123- Hipper shifts fire to Obedient.
1125 -Obedient is hit and turns away. 
1125-Hipper and destroyers suddenly turn west by northwest (this must have been when the first British cruiser salvoes arrived) range from cruisers to Hipper was ~11,000 meters.
1125-Jamaica's 273 radar is knocked out by first salvo's shock.
1132-Luetzow has completed 180* turn and is increasing speed to 26 knots.
1133-Hipper is in high speed turn, turning first to north then to east.
1135-Luetzow has detected and began tracking Sheffield and Jamaica on radar at 29,000 meters. Kapt Stange considers the range too far.
~1136-Hipper opens fire on British cruisers but then stops per request from Eckoldt, which is being blown out of the water as it tries to join British formation confusing Sheffield for Hipper.
~1138-Kummetz recieves another "no unecessary risks" reminder.
1140-Hipper turns toward southwest.
1142-Luetzow opens fire on convoy, partially then fully, hidden in snow storm from 16,700 meters.
1147-Hipper turns west and Kummetz gives first orders to Stange to break off attack.
~1151- Luetzow ceases fire to re-set radar.
`1155-Luetzow recieves follow up order to withdraw.
1200-Obdurate opens fire on Luetzow (thinks its Hipper) but shots fall well short.
1202 -Luetzow tracks Obdurate on radar at 15,400 meters and Stange orders it brought under fire with nose fuse ammo. Obdurate thinks it has been hit by Hipper._
However Obdurate had previously been engaged from 0930 by the hippers escort, with no results.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 9, 2010)

delcyros said:


> That´s explainable by the increased accuracy and the different environment of firecontroll post war. I can assure You that the closest you could come with ww2 era firecontroll is hitting at direct fire only (no FC required, only point blanc range) or -most usual- straddling at anything else involving FC. With a mean salvo deviation of +-200 yards and more in range (68% of all falls are in within this distance to the MPI), there is simply no possibility to ask for a hit. You either straddle a target or You adjust the MPI acordingly to straddle. The hit on the other hand is a random event in within the probability limits of the straddle itselve. You may manipulate the probabilities a bit (that´s why half salvos are preferable to full salvos), but You can´t tighten the dispersion pattern beyond the limits of the gun / turret / projectile / propellant combination. The dispersion pattern for major calibre projectiles at realistic fighting range, however, is always much larger than any ship buildt in ww2.



Del

the differeneces are not that great, all of these variables you are talking about exist in the post war environment as they did during the war. that was not the point of my post. It was merely to point out that a straddle was not a hit, and should not be read as a hit. Moreover increasing the chances of a hit are connected to accurate FC. If the MPI is not estimated correctly, or it takes a long time to determine range speed and course, then the probability of a hit under those conditions will drop . 

Re-read my original post, and you will find the measure of success was not that a straddle was obtained, but the number of hits over the number of rounds fired. That we are arguing about how to measure success in gunnery surprises me to be honest A straddle was a step in the right direction, but is still not a hit. We incidentally still needed to determine the target range course and speed to achieve a hit, and this often resulted in a straddle before registering a hit. I dont think I communicated this addequately in my previous posts. I was merely reacting to the inference that a straddle or a near miss was "as good as" a hit. Its not, either statistically or operationally. 

The measure of accuracy in my opinion is how quickly a hit can be registered after fire is commenced. In Barents sea, Lutzow opened fire on Obdurate at just before noon, and the damage on the ship observed at 1204. though not a hit as such (splinter damage only) that suggests to me about 3 to four salvoes before any result was obtained. the range was 15400 metres, and visibility was reported at 14000 metres. I am unsure if there is an error in the range visibility reports, or if Lutzow was using radar to control her guns.

It would be interesting to compare that admittedly impressive effort with the RN cruisers efforts against the Eckoldt. I forget the details, but the time between the eckoldt being engaged and her sinking were very short.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 9, 2010)

Parsifal,

Eckoldt was sunk in an odd engagement. It basically resembled the 1880 -1910 era of fighting ships, not ww2. In this era you should view the QF guns as the main armament and high volume of fire would overpower eventually any opponent from close range. Both RN cruisers were firing from point blanc range and rapid, direct fire under local turret controll except for the first directed ranging salvo. This condition is not directly comparable with either HIPPER or LÜTZOW. It is not an indication for good firecontroll but demonstrates exzellent situtational awareness and the skill to exploit a tactically favourable condition.
Altough the measure of success often is called a hit, it gives a wrong impression about the accuracy and firecontroll ability. A hit is a random event in within certain limits of probability. You may get lucky (PoW was at Denmark Street, it got three hits our of three straddles, making each straddle a hit) or unlucky (Bismarck got one hit out of each two straddles in the same engagement). The number of hits compared to the number of shots fired is therefore not a useful description of how good firecontroll was in a comparative approach. In my example it makes PoW looking much better than she indeed was (regardless of the outcome of DS), criss crossing her target several times and unable to keep a good track of her target. Bismarck however, consistently straddled both her targets, even if she did not achieved the the high straddle to hit efficiency out of her many more opportunities to get hits. In within the range of probabilities of the small sample size, both conditions are "true". But to expect that in a prolonged action PoW would always enjoi such an amazing hit to straddle probability would be highly unrealistic.

You cannot exactly determine the correct position for the MPI in within a scatter of shots which may be placed randomly in within the dispersion pattern. You may get an idea where the MPI may be in prolonged actions but unless You are firing against immobile targets, You hardly can be sure of this due to a number of involved factors. Once You have straddled You are already right on target with ww2 FC. In within the operational doctrines a straddle in ww2 was a correct mark on target. A repeated straddle always marked the begin of effective fire. 

Also operationally, a straddle may result in a hit. The 11in base fuzed HE used by Lützow against the RN DD´s have a very large splinter radius. They don´t need to hit the soft skinned target physically to inflict damage. During River Plate, Ajax received a damaging near miss (actually from GRAF SPEE´s 11in HE straddling her), which put a turret our of action for the remainder of the action. Nathan Okun demonstrated once that even from 1000 Kal. miss distance (e.g. 283m or ~300 yards), the 11in HE still has chance to pierce the ships unarmoured hull due to splinter forces. The probability for such an event is remote but 300 yards +- is quite a distance in excess of salvo dispersion patterns of this period. Putting the hit closer to the ship increases the danger a DD (or for that matter a merchant as well) is exposed to.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 9, 2010)

I still have to respectfully disagree about the number of Hits being a poor measure of firing accuracy. Theoretically if all the known variables are accounted for, we would not need a probability model at all. We would know all the variables, and would achieve a hit with every shot. However the more unknown variables there are, the less we know about the problem, and therefore try to compensate for this by using innaccurate mathematics which we call "probability". The more that the unknown variables can be reduced, the greater the certainty of achieving the intended outcome. 

Applying this theory to the gunnery problem, the more accurate the information on the target, the higher the chance of achieving a hit. Therefore, despite what you describe a hit as a random event, in fact it is not a random event, its just an event that cannot be predicted with the tools at hand. However if the tools at hand are made more accurate, then the "Unknownness" (which you call randomness) of the hit event drops, until at some point it is not really an unknown variable anymore

Now the question is this, were the tools available during the war capable of eliminating a hit as an unknown outcome. I dont think they were, because in the post war environment, with superior methods and technology we still could not eliminate the randomness of achieving a hit. This part accords to what you are saying...

However the chances of achieving a hit can be increased, if the accuracy and precision of those tools can be improved. You mentioned the circumstances of the Eckoldts loss, which is very true (though I believe she was still some thousands of yards away from the british Cruisers when lost....her consort beitzen did escape....if it had beeen an 1880s style engagement, it was unlikley the beitzen would escape), nevertheless this was still part of the probability matrix for a successful hit for wwii gunnery....its just that the probability of a hit in those circumstances was so close to one, as to effectively render a hit at those ranges a certainty. At longer ranges the same could be achieved if the techniques the training and/or the technology could be improved so as to also increase that prob to 1. 

So what are the ingredients that can improve the probability of a hit. This is obviously a matter of opinion, but my belief is that the main elements in the probability matrix are not limited to those you mentioned, they include....

1) The standard of crew training if human errors creep into any part of the operation, this would have an overwhelming effect 
2) The speed that target data can be transferred from the point of data collection to the wepons platforms
3) The size speed and manouverability of the target
4) The target range
5) The visibility of the target This is where radar has its greatest effect
6) The sea state and the stability of the firing platform
7) The inherent accuracy of the guns firing
etc etc
My belief is that inherently in the latter part of the war, the British were more accurate than the Germans in their gunnery. I am sceptical that the Germans held some sort of technological advantage over their opponents, but even if they did, this is just one part of the equation. maybe, for example, German ships were less stable than the British counterparts, or their gunnery crews lacked proper training at the end of the war. I dont believe, however, that the Germans possessed as great a chance of hitting a target in the latter part of the war as their allied counterparts. Thats an opinion, its open to debate and disagreement of course


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 9, 2010)

Some of this may depend on the ranges being fought at. At long ranges with angles of fall being high the ships salvo is a pattern. All shots with in a circle (or perhaps oval) so may yards or meters across. it was often double or triple the length of a ship let alone the beam of a ship. With a steep angle of descent the width of a ship was a bigger target than the side of the ship. 
The size of the pattern was not adjustable. Once they had a straddle that was it. A few overs, a few unders and hopefully a hit or 2. A second straddle in a row showed they had the course and speed figured out. after that is a matter of luck or probabilities. All shells from a salvo fall in area XXX across for an area of YYY. target ship occupies ZZ% of area YYY. Firing 6 or 8 or 9 shells per salvo, what is the likely hood of one or more shells scoring a hit?

Better training or optics or radar cannot reduce the size of the pattern of dispersion at a given range. It may allow for figuring out ( or guessing) if 1 under and 8 overs means that the target ship, while straddled, is on the edge of the pattern and a correction needs to be made but if the number of overs and unders is fairly close that is as good a fire control solution as can be had. 

DO not confuse this with firing "ladders" or other techniques of firing groups of guns (less than a full salvo at times )at different ranges in close timing in order to confirm the range quickly. 

If the range is short to medium the size of the shot group's dispersion may be ship sized or close to it. In this case the number of hits should go way up if the salvo "straddles" the target but there is no way to tell if the 'shorts' or 'longs' are caused by differences in the shells or propelling charges, interference between shells in flight (reason a number of ships fitted delay coils to center gun in triple turrets), minute differences in ignition/barrel time or even (in combat) misalignment of the guns. Since the cause of the overs or unders is not known there is nothing the crew can do about it in action.


----------



## Juha (Feb 10, 2010)

Hello Wavelenght
Quote:” There may well have been a conflagaration in the forward magazines, but in my opinion probably not…”

Yes, it isn’t possible to say for sure, and to be exact, I meant a sort of conflagration in one of A-turret magazine, a total conflagration in A-turret magazines would probably have been fatal.

Quote: “Reading up on the various accounts of the battle, it looks like there were possibly two hits forward at that time; one vs the turret and one to the forward section on the tween deck. This is just forward of A-turret The tween deck hit started a nasty cabling fire that was the main source of the smoke.” 

Thanks for the info, That was new to me!

Quote: “A hull hit high up abreast A turret and passing over the belt, may have penetrated the barbet”

That is also my line of thinking.

Quote: “The Germans did have ready use ammo in the turrets…”

IMHO, not being BB specialist, especially main armament shells were so heavy that that would not be very practical. Of course the difference between 8” and 11” shells is clearly smaller than that between 8” and 14”-15” shells, especially when British 14” and 15” shells were heavy type. So in BBs the loading was wholly mechanical and having two ways to do it would made the system more complicated. After Jutland British were very careful with their ammo systems so it is entirely possible that RN didn’t have ready use ammo in their main armament turrets of BBs but KM had. 

BTW, on the British penetration tests, IIRC RN noticed that their heavy long body shells wobbled a bit when fired markedly lower MVs, in order to get right striking velocity for simulated long range hits, than that for which they were designed and because of that didn’t give too much attention to the results.

Hello Delcyros

Quote: “Regarding the Scharnhorst account...With the shell decapped, the impact on the barbette would then result in full shatter, which might still cause significant local damage (up to including damage behind the barbette) but not a classical textbook penetration of the whole projectile in a condition fit to burst.”

Entirely possible, but as Hood’s 15” hit on the Turret II of Dunkerque at Mers-el-Kebir shows, full penetration wasn’t necessary to produce substantial hole and cordite fire.

Juha


----------



## renrich (Feb 11, 2010)

Very fine and informative discussion. Please keep up the good work!


----------



## timshatz (Feb 11, 2010)

Parsifal, I think your arguement that "perfect data produces a perfect solution" is accurate but not viable to a naval engagement. Delc's point that straddles are desired as they increase the chances of a hit are a realistic interpetation of naval gunnery, especially in something so unpredictable as a sea battle in the far North Atlantic. 

Even an absolutely accurate weapon (if such a thing existed or exists) will miss due to the variables that are beyond the control of ship's crew. Sea state, scatter from the mounts/turrets firing, inefficiencies in the gunlaying equipment, haze, smoke, you name it. All of them would create problems with pinpoint accuracy to the level that a salvo straddle would be a viable and desired outcome.

Similar to artillery blanketing a target with rounds before an infantry attack, perfect information, perfect solutions, ect are almost impossible to obtain. Blanketing the target (in the methodical way a salvo does) is the best solution.

Again, IMHO.


----------



## Wavelength (Feb 11, 2010)

Radar does make possible quicker and more consistent straddling at longer ranges. The range accuracy of even the best optical range finders is typically 1% of the range. Radar is much more accurate. The American 40cm Mk3’s accuracy was 0.1% of the range give or take 40 yards. The British 50cm Type 284M’s range accuracy was 240 yards, or by using a corrective template to account for distortion toward the perimeter of the CRT; 120 yards. 

Another advantage of radar over optics is the ability to better determine errors in the MPI of the salvo patterns. This boiled down to the ability to discriminate between the target and the shell splashes. The range resolution of the Mk3 was 400 yards, so echoes of the target and splashes could not be readily determined if they were within 400 yards of each other . The Type 284M was markedly better than the Mk3 with a range resolution of 150 meters. It could be better determined if the MPI wasn’t squarely on the target, and correction could be made, improving the chances. Late war equipment with shorter pulse durations was better yet. Post war advances would have made possible fine corrections in MPI errors easier.

The German Seetakt radar was actually well suited to firecontrol because of its unique methods of measuring and displaying range data. In practice the operator held the pip on the null mark on the CRT and the correct range was continuously displayed, updated, and transmitted directly to the central firecontrol. The operator could zoom in on and closely examine any portion of the time base for observation purposes.


----------



## Wavelength (Feb 16, 2010)

delcyros said:


> For the thicker Panzerdeck a material with high strain is the preferable application. Thinner plates could be treated for higher hardness without a significant drop in strain. The 30mm samples from TIRPITZ in UK tests are much harder than the 50mm deck plates too (probably for splinter bulkheads).
> 
> best regards,



Looking into this interesting issue further, I find that too much emphasis is probably being placed on elongation as a reliable indicator of ballistic resistance and scaling effects by modern analysis. Most of the British ballistics tests of the Tirpitz Wh plates were done with 1900 lb+ 15-inch armor piercing capped projectiles. Yet the Wh plates still required slightly higher necessary velocities than the equal thickness British NCA in the same testing conditions. The British NCA was probably about 24% elongation, while the Wh would have been about 20% elongation. If the shells had been uncapped then the differential may have been greater yet. Krupp engineers stated that relatively minor variations in the elongation metric had a negligible effect on penetration of homogenous armor by capped projectiles. Another interesting finding by Krupp was that an equal weight of standard grade aluminum actually provided greater resistance to penetration by heavy projectiles than the same weight of steel homogenous armor. The elongation before fracture of aluminum is actually only 11-14%. The elongation of steel armor will be from 18% to 25%. Elongation % probably has some effects but I think some modern analysis greatly overstates it.

The Norwegian examinations also indicated that the splinter bulkheads were much harder up around 270brinell. Which would help them resist splinter perforation much better without resorting to greater thickness and increased weight expenditures.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 21, 2010)

I thought I understand quite a bit of this topic but let me express that I doff my hat for You, wavelength.
Thanks for Your inputs and sharing Your knowledge!

I reconsidered recently the RN tests of armour material coming from TIRPITZ and there are some interesting findings in them. Particularely if You compare the results with Nathan Okuns facehd series computation models. Did the norwegians also undertook ballistic tests with the samples or did they relied mainly on mechanical and chamical sampling and what were their findings on them? I am eager to learn more from this interesting source.

best regards,


----------



## Wavelength (Feb 21, 2010)

I'm learning a lot about WWII aircraft from you and many others on this site. It has always been a special interest of mine, but I have much to learn. 

As far as I know the Norwegians did not conduct any ballistics tests of the Tirpitz plates. The British tests of the Tirpitz plates are the definitive tests in my opinion. The Americans got different results from testing German armor and these are what I think Mr. Okun bases his calculations on. George Elder told me several years ago that the Americans tested a homogenous plate that was 437 mm thick. As you have stated, the quality of very thick plates is usually sub par compared to thinner plates. I would not expect this 437 mm plate to be representive of the Wh used on the warships at all. Also, late war, the Germans were forced to use ersatz homogenous armor in place of their earlier chromium/molybdenum based material. They were able to keep up the ballistic resistance within acceptable tolerances, by using vanadium in place of molybdenum, and greater carbon content, and so forth, but they never considered these ersatz materials to be as preferable as the original material.

The British always got different results from Americans in their tests, and I question some of the American testing procedures. Often the Americans were forced to test very limited supplies of enemy plates that may not have a large enough area to keep the impact far enough from the edge of the plate and so forth. 

In a related issue, the British did not find samples of Japanese armor to be of poor quality but the Americans did. The Japanese armor was actually almost identical to the British materials in terms of chemistry. British naval shells had sharper points than American naval shells and would interact with the armor differently depending on the testing conditions. This would mean that the British shells would require less penetration energy than the American shells if the striking angle was close to the normal (right angles) but the American shells would perform better at more oblique striking angles than the British shells. This could result in very different test results. 

The American Class-A armor will do better against smaller caliber soft capped shells comparative to the German KC, because of a thicker hard face portion. But the German KC will do much better than the American Class-A against larger caliber projectiles. In the British tests, the Tirpitz KC performed within about 3% of the British cemented armor. 

The Tirpitz Wh did even better against 8-inch uncapped comparative to British NCA, than it did against 15-inch capped projectiles comparative to NCA. Does this mean a greater scaling effect with Wh than with NCA? Perhaps so, however in my opinion, it is the result of the Wh exceeding 80kg/mm2 tensile and is to be expected based on the Krupp finding that it takes greater energy for uncapped shells to penetrate when the tensile strength of the homogenous armor exceeds 80kg/mm2. 

The German Wh armor seemed to be suited to a de-capping system. It would perform best in such systems. In a single plate system one may want to use a different material. Perhaps Ww, or the American class-B, or British NCA, would give better results against capped shells in a single plate system. I would almost bet they would. Comparing different armor materials among different systems can be very complex. It's just different ways of doing things, and one approach isn't always better than another.


----------



## Messy1 (May 11, 2010)

Thought this would be a photo of of interest to this topic, found this photo online. Gives a good idea of the size difference between the Iowa and Alaska classes!

_Battleship Missouri, battlecruiser Alaska, escort carrier Croatan, and destroyers at Norfolk Naval Base, Aug 1944
Source United States National Archives_


----------



## Tangopilot89 (Jul 16, 2011)

I'll throw in my preferences as well. The only ones I can talk about are the following (my warship knowledge is not that great). 

Battlecruiser - I've only heard about _Hood_, _Renown_ and _Repulse_. I'll put in a vote for _Hood_, only because of it's fame as a capital ship. 
Battleship - The greatest ones ever built, from what I know, I will say either the _Tirpitz_ or _Yamato_ because of what others have said on here - that they both withstood a tremendous amount of punishment from everything the Allies could throw at them. The sheer amount and size of the weaponry on _Yamato_ was just unbelievable.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 16, 2011)

what a fine discussion this was. I miss these guys. I learnt a LOT from them, plus they were great guys to boot.

Hats off guys


----------



## psteel (Jul 22, 2011)

Most WW-II tests of armor were useless by modern standards, which probably goes along way to explain why you get such wildly divergent results. I try not to take them too seriously and I don't think you should either.

Any formulation based on these results starts out on relatively thin ice and should be taken with large grain of salt. If the results reported do not include methodology of tests and decent standard deviations on results, then those results should not be trusted either.


----------



## Capt Spanky (Aug 1, 2011)

1.) Battleship - Iowa
2.) Battlecruiser - Kongo
3.) Heavy cruiser/Armored cruiser - Baltimore
4.) Light cruiser - Sendai
5.) Destroyer - Sumner
6.) Submarine - XX1
7.) Patrol Boat or MBT - Elco type
8.) Aircraft Carrier - Essex


----------



## parsifal (Aug 2, 2011)

The only questionable choice here has to be Sendai as the best Light Cruiser. Why would you pick that class over so many others, such as the british Belfasts, the Italian Ciano Classes, Soviet Kirovs or Chapaevs even the Clevelands. by comparison the Japanese cruisers were old, slow and undergunned and very lightly protected and constructed


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 2, 2011)

It might depend on wither you consider "british Belfasts, the Italian Ciano Classes, Soviet Kirovs or Chapaevs even the Clevelands' As true light cruisers or heavy cruisers armed with 6" guns to get around treaty restrictions. 

In any case the Sendai doesn't stack up all that well against the British Arethusa class which is only a little bit bigger in size, or even the later Agano class cruisers.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 2, 2011)

Well, the ships i mentioned (esxcept for the Kirovs) were all consistent with the treaty limits for a Light Cruiser. If the treaty limits were removed the ideal light cruiser becomes the US Worcesters, the ideal Heavy Cruiser is the Alaskas, or the modified Baltimores with automated 8in guns, depending on the role being envisaged for your cruiser force. If you are considering capital ships as your main targets, you would build Alaskas, if the main prey to be Destroyers, you would build fast firing Baltimores. Possibly the best cruiser combination would have been a combined Alaska/Worcester force so as to engage or shadow both heavy and light forces targets....


----------



## Glider (Aug 2, 2011)

I have to say that the USS Worcester is pushing the definition of WW2, she wasn't commisioned until 1948.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 2, 2011)

yes, true, but she and Alaskas, and the fast firing Baltimores (which I dont think were ever built) were all delayed (or not built) as a result of decisions made in 1940, to basically shut the door on the design department and order repeats of the latest treaty designs, upgunned and fitted out to the maximum. The results were repeat orders of the Clevelands, grossly overloaded and topheavy and the Baltimores - neither fish nor fowl, too light to fight on the gunline and too slow firing to take on DDs at night effectively. Not that there was anything inherently wrong with the Baltimores (less validly stated for the Clevelands) all treaty heavy cruisers with manual loading suffeed from a firing cycle too slow to engage destroyers effectively.....but if the Americans had accepted a delayed reinforcment of their fleet, they may have seen the arrival of significant numbers of Alaskas, fast firing Baltimores and/or Worcesters in 1945, but the war dragging on for another year or two because of the delays in new equipment for the USN.


----------



## Capt Spanky (Aug 3, 2011)

why the Sendai?

gotta love those torpedo cruisers

as for a light carrier the Colossus/Majestic class


----------



## Juha (Aug 3, 2011)

Hello
Parsifal, I think the fast firing Baltimore design evolved to Des Moines class (3 built post-war). IIRC Worcesters were not much liked by USN and retired early.

On Spanky’s list, IMHO HMS Renown was more useful BC than Kongos, mainly because of its clearly better AA suite. One main function of WWII fast heavy ships was the screening of CVs and in that job good AA armament was important.
Alaskas’ weak points were lack of decent torpedo protection and an AA armament not much better than that of Baltimores/Cleavlands.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Aug 3, 2011)

Sendai was not a Torpedo Cruiser as such. She carried some torpedoes, but then, so too did the much newer Agano class. Japanese viewed their Light cruisers as leaders rather than part of a back line in any engagement. I dont think however that except for the 24 in long lance armement, they were any better than say a J&K class DD, which had a broadsid of 10 x 21 in torps.

A more radical development of the torpedo cruiser was the Kitakami and Oi, that landed nearly all their guns and shipped from memory a broadside of over 40 torpedoes, all Long Lance


----------



## stug3 (Mar 19, 2013)

The destroyer HMS Forester had a very busy war, she participated in sinking U-boats in the Battle of the Atlantic and would soon move to escort duties with Arctic convoys.
Steamed 172,000 miles during the war up to 31st December, 1941, and was at sea for 601 days during that period.


----------



## Garyt (Sep 18, 2017)

stug3 said:


> The destroyer HMS Forester had a very busy war, she participated in sinking U-boats in the Battle of the Atlantic and would soon move to escort duties with Arctic convoys.
> Steamed 172,000 miles during the war up to 31st December, 1941, and was at sea for 601 days during that period.


----------



## Garyt (Sep 18, 2017)

Always a fun topic - what were the best warships of class in WW2.

However, you really have to ask is when were they built. Otherwise, it's like comparing a Panzer 3 with its 50mm gun against a late war panther. Both of these were arguably the best tank of their time, but one was built pre war and the other mid war. There were generations of tanks, and the following generation was usually better than what preceded it.

Warships are a bit different, due to both the cost and length of time it took to build. These warships because of these factors also received upgrades, while with tanks with their cheaper costs and production times, you just built new and better ones.

If you look at all warships of WW2, and which were the best from a performance standpoint, the US ships almost always come out best, the biggest reason is because the were built the latest, and most other countries only built a limited amount of ships after the start od the war, at least capitol ships.

You really need to compare warship with other ships of their generation or time. One easy way to break it down would be Ships in service at the start of the European war, and ships in service at the start of the Pacific war, vs. those that were not in service until after the start of the war.

Otherwise, almost every class of ship would have to go to the US, as they built far more 2nd and third genration warhips than any other nation. The only arguable class might be the Battleship, where the Iowa and Yamato are real close, and destroyers, which due to smaller size were made throughout the war by many nations.

Just to break it down for pre and post start of the pacific war, I'd do as follows:

Pre war battleships:

1) Yamato*
2) Bismarck
3) A few here, Nelson Class, Vittorio Veneto Class, North Carolina Class, Prince of Wales Class

* Was comissioned a week after the start of the War

Pre War Carriers
1) Shokaku Class (remarkably durable, the 5" Deck armor helped a lot. This was main deck armor though, not flight deck)
2) Yorktown Class

IMO, the Shokaku was a better carrier, but was limited a bit by carrying 72 planes instead of the 90 of Yorktown. This was due though to the fact that only the Kates of the Japanese planes had folding wings, while the on the US carriers the majority of the planes had folding wings. Hangar space was very similar on the two carriers. This is a real close comparison though, as the Shokaku had better speed but the Yorktown class had better DP weapons, the 5"/38 was probably the best dual purpose weapon of the war.

Oh well, Cruisers and Destroyers later!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 18, 2017)

Just an observation here, but the Yamato was not commisioned one week before the war, but before hostilities with the allies began. The war had been raging on for several years already.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Sep 18, 2017)

Bismark was also commissioned during the war

For all its faults the best battleship commisioned before the start of the war in Europe was the KGV
Best Battlecruiser Scharnhorst
Best Heavy Cruiser French Algerie
Best Destroyer British JK
Best escort British Black Swan


----------



## Garyt (Sep 24, 2017)

"Just an observation here, but the Yamato was not commisioned one week before the war, but before hostilities with the allies began. The war had been raging on for several years already."

I look at 2 periods largely, before the start of the war in Europe, and prior to the Japanese declaring war on the Allies. The Yamato gets comissioned right as the Japanese declare war on the Allies.

It's tough to say exactly when lessons learned from the war impacted ship development, but I try to use these dates. In all actuality, capitol ships are laid down months or longer prior to their completion, though there can be modifications as they are being constructed.

"For all its faults the best battleship commisioned before the start of the war in Europe was the KGV"

Well, the KG5 was comissioned AFTER the Bismarck.


----------



## Glider (Sep 25, 2017)

Garyt said:


> "
> 
> Well, the KG5 was comissioned AFTER the Bismarck.



Fair point, I should have known better. Any comments on the others?

I think the lessons learnt can be seen not so much in the design of the ships as in their equipment in particular radar and weapons. If you use the start of the war in Japan as the deadline then my choices alter but only a little.

The best Battleship was the KGV as she would have had the best Radar and AA defences and they were far more important than the limitations of the 14in Gun
Best Battlecruiser Scharnhorst
Best Heavy Cruiser French HMS Belfast again due to its AA and radar fit in Dec 1941. If you want to go with the traditional definition i.e. 8in guns substitute HMS London
Best Destroyer British LM class destroyers with 8 x 4in guns
Best escort British Black Swan


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 25, 2017)

Garyt said:


> It's tough to say exactly when lessons learned from the war impacted ship development, but I try to use these dates. In all actuality, capitol ships are laid down months or longer prior to their completion, though there can be modifications as they are being constructed.



If by months you mean 36-48 months (with exceptions) you are right.

Basically only very few capitol ships saw much development due to war experience with the exception of larger amounts of light AA and electronics and fire control. 

Even the HMS Vanguard kept what was pretty much the KGV secondary armament/heavy AA when it might be argued that shifting to 20/24 4.5/4in AA guns might well have been more effective for the BB primary role near the end of WW II.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Nov 18, 2017)

The Iowa's.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 19, 2017)

Define "best."

My vote? _Essex_ class carriers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 19, 2017)

The more I think about this thread 11+ years later, the more I think the question is to vague. 

Also, kind of hard to vote for any BB, since the Carrier pretty much doomed them. The Battleships day's were over.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Nov 19, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Define "best."
> 
> My vote? _Essex_ class carriers.



the Essex's are underrated. I agree. Some accounts call the Essex's the most successful warships in history. Well built, serving 30+ years. They had their faults, but they proved hard to sink.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Nov 20, 2017)

Glider said:


> I have to say that the USS Worcester is pushing the definition of WW2, she wasn't commisioned until 1948.


 the Worcesters and Newport News Classes were one of my favorites. FADM King urged completing the two classes to have a modern force for the post war period, but budget got in the way. There was a proposal to fit two auto loading 8 inch turrets to one of the Baltimore's to have the hope of getting at least one ship with the 8 inch turret to sea during the War. 

Can you imagine a couple Worcesters or a Newport News at Guadalcanal in '42.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 20, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> the more I think the question is too vague.



I agree. Different nations ships incorporated different approaches to the same requirements and good versus bad design features. Far too many variables.



pinehilljoe said:


> the Essex's are underrated.



You contradict yourself in your sentence, Pinehill Joe. Stating the Essexes are underrated, then pointing out they are regarded as the most successful ships is a contradiction. 

I don't agree about them being underrated, either. Being underrated means that they are not regarded as well as they should be; with the Essexes, that's not the case. They are very highly regarded today as they have been for years; They were an enormously successful design and proved able to absorb considerable damage, and proved adaptable to subsequent extensive modification post war.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 21, 2017)

pinehilljoe said:


> the Worcesters and Newport News Classes were one of my favorites. FADM King urged completing the two classes to have a modern force for the post war period, but budget got in the way. There was a proposal to fit two auto loading 8 inch turrets to one of the Baltimore's to have the hope of getting at least one ship with the 8 inch turret to sea during the War.
> 
> Can you imagine a couple Worcesters or a Newport News at Guadalcanal in '42.


Well, the Newport News had guns that actually worked.


----------



## Glider (Nov 21, 2017)

pinehilljoe said:


> the Worcesters and Newport News Classes were one of my favorites. FADM King urged completing the two classes to have a modern force for the post war period, but budget got in the way. There was a proposal to fit two auto loading 8 inch turrets to one of the Baltimore's to have the hope of getting at least one ship with the 8 inch turret to sea during the War.
> 
> Can you imagine a couple Worcesters or a Newport News at Guadalcanal in '42.



I can as I served on HMS Tiger with the fast firing 6in and 3in, pretty impressive I have to say.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Nov 21, 2017)

nuuumannn said:


> I agree. Different nations ships incorporated different approaches to the same requirements and good versus bad design features. Far too many variables.
> 
> 
> 
> You contradict yourself in your sentence, Pinehill Joe. Stating the Essexes are underrated, then pointing out they are regarded as the most successful ships is a contradiction. r.



better choice of words would have been "overlooked" when I think of the best WW2 Warship. 

Murder's Row (borrowed from the nickname of the 1927 Yankee Lineup)

http://www.navyhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/80-G-294131.jpg


----------

