# 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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)


----------

