Best Pre-war Battleship/Battlecruiser

Best prewar battleship/batteship/armoured ship

  • Total voters
    51
  • Poll closed .

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

parsifal said:
Yes you are correct about the ship names. For some reqson I always get the two mixed up..... very embarrassing
Click to expand...

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

Anyways, back on topic....


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

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

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

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

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

Are we taking into account fire control here?

Absolutely, as well as all the other factors, like armour distibution, compartmentation, radar, etc etc[/QUOTE]
 
parsifal said:
There were a few additional exceptions to that. The Warspite was slightly faster at 24.5 knots, as was Malaya (I believe). The Ises and Fusos were even faster, at 24.9 knots.
Click to expand...

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

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


Not to mention the Italian ships had smaller main guns, and without radar. {+ no CV's}
 
The money put on the modernization of Renown was probably well spent. One main function of fast capital ships was the screening of carriers and in that work good heavy AA was essential. Of course Renown suffered from the fact that RN heavy AA fire control wasn't in par of that of the latest of USN, IJN and KM systems. But IIRC Scharnhorsts system, at least initially, had also its problems. And Renown's surface fire control was good as was shown during its duel with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau off Norwegian coast in 1940.

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

Juha
 
 

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

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

Haze Gray Underway World Battleship Lists
 
I mean speed can balance the other 2 parameters - and I guess the Scharnhorst and Dunkerque have the better hull from the list.
So I stand for Scharnhorst
 
Patoruzu said:
I mean speed can balance the other 2 parameters - and I guess the Scharnhorst and Dunkerque have the better hull from the list.
So I stand for Scharnhorst
Click to expand...

If she had bigger guns than 11" I might agree with you. As it was they were at a disadvantage facing the Renown {or other British Battlecruiser}, which is partly why they retired from the engagement with the Renown in April of 1940, even though it was 2 German BC's against 1 British BC.
 
The QE´s were originally designed to make 25.0 Kts @ 72.000 SHP. This figure most likely does include the design overload estimate for the machinery and was a bit on the optimistic side as trials showed. The Barham was tried over a measured mile on 6.7.1916 with approx. 79% of her maximum fuel, drawing 32ft6" forward and 33ft aft on an displacement of 32.250 t. The average figure in four runs at "utmost power" were 23.9 Kts and 70.790 SHP with the best run at 23.97 Kts and 71.370 SHP respectively. The Valiant was known to be slower by this time due to problems with turbine nozzles. During the Run to the North, when working up to overload conditions, the Barham is believed to have achieved revolutions for 25 Kts, translating into a speed of 23.8 Kts.
After their refits /rebuilds, all units differed substantially. Malaya and Barham never changed from their original machinery and likely were limited for engine wear reasons to less than 23 Kts. Warpsite, Valiant and Queen Elizabeth are reported to have achieved speeds slightly above 24.0 Kts with top speed figures around 24.5 for the Queen Elizabeth.
The "R"´s were much slower after their refits and there are credible sources suggesting that some have been limited to 19 Kts max.
 
I think the low freeboard of the "R" Class had a lot to do with their low sea speeds. Their theoretical maximum was in the order of 21-22 kts, but the effective maximums were less than that. Same applies to the US BBs mentioned
 
parsifal said:
I think the low freeboard of the "R" Class had a lot to do with their low sea speeds. Their theoretical maximum was in the order of 21-22 kts, but the effective maximums were less than that. Same applies to the US BBs mentioned
Click to expand...

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

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

Excluding this is of course the prerogative of the Poll.

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

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

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

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

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

The KGV was laid down in 1937, and Bismarck was laid down in '37 or '38
 
Do you think the Scharnhorst was harder to sink than the Hood?
Click to expand...

I believe so. Hood was larger and sheer size helps absorbing damage and it really had a good armour protection but Scharnhorst had a higher degree of compartimentation, a significantly superior margin of metacentric height, more complete arrangements of the pumping equipment and last but not least no trouble with volatile propellants. However, Scharnhorst was also a much newer design, so this really shouldn´t surprise us.
Applying Your definition to our thread would mean that the Schanrhorst class could not have participated here. Basically, these BB´s were still in a process of refitting the new atlantic bowsection by outbreak of the hostilities.
 
My choice is Hood with the Kongos in second place. Both classes had been up armored, still had good speed( enough to steam with the carriers) and formidable armament.
 
Whether one supports the battlecruiser concept, or the battleship concept is a difficut one, and the whole point of this thread. Does one emphasize the speed part of the three way equation, the protection part, or the firepower part. The ships included fall roughly into those completed before the outbreak of the war (Scharnhorst is a bit of a strech, but was sufficiently completed as to qualify IMO). The ships excluded are the super dreadnoughts, because they encompassed a much more complete solution to the gun/armour/speed equation and introduced certain new technologies like radar control etc (which were also fitted in these earlier ships as well, I know.

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

With regard to Scharnhorst, she possessed two of the ingredients, speed and protection. She lacked firepower, in relation to her opponents. She is, incidentally my favourite german capital ship.
 
Mine as well, even though the Bismarcks are meaner, tougher in every possible way, the Scharnhorsts, with their display of the classic German-style Battlecruiser merits - regardless whatever they were called during their career - were always a lot more interesting, and more tactical ships to me.
 
Its intersting to specualte if the germans had not built the Bismarcks, they could have built roughly 8 Pocket Battleships, or four more Scharhorsts (roughly) and not be in breach of the anglo-german naval treaty. They could not build additional U-Boats,without breaking the tonnage limits (which would have brought a swift reaction from the british). My opinion is that 8 Pocket Battleships (to a more modern design) instead of two Bismarcks would represent a far better investment. And this was the decision posed before the "Z" plan was finally adopted
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
924
Vahe Demirjian
  • Poll
Best Lookin' Spitfire Mark?
Replies
4
Views
2K
CatTheCool
  • Poll
Best Biplane fighter ww2
Replies
1
Views
4K
wlewisiii
Menu
Log in
Register