Best World war two warships?

Hi sharp, welcome to this board!

Sharp said:

Hi guys.


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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

She was of course HMS Warspite.

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Click to expand...

wholeheartedly agreed.

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

hope, this helps,
delc

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Dear Renrich,

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

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

best regards,
delc

Thank you delcyros, will do!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.) Battleships:

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

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

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

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

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

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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