Best World war two warships?

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

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

If I had to pick a prewar Heavy Cruiser then I would go for the German Graf Spee. In a straight fight I believe that it would have won over the Jap vessels.
 
Chicago was hit by torpedo as well as shell fire at Savo Island and returned into action in less than a year. The Alaska class may have been called large cruisers by the US Navy but they in fact meet the definition of battle cruisers. Heavy guns much larger than cruisers but with cruiser like armor.
 
The QE class of BB could on no account be called fast battleships. It is doubtful they could even reach their designed speed of 25 knots during WW2.
 
My vote for best treaty cruiser that actually stayed within limits would go to the French Algerie. 10,000 tons, 8"/50 x 8, 3.9"/45 DP Gun x 12, 21.7" Torp x 6, 3 scouts, 31 knots, 8,700nm@15 knots. Armor was about 20% displacement, when many other nation's treaty CA's were a paltry 8-10%. Japan's Mogami class, after receiving their 8" guns in 1939, may have been the best overall pre-war CA.

German classification of the Deutschlands was "panzerschiff" I believe.
 
Interesting call on the Algerie. She was indeed almost a throwback to the armored cruiser. Her sea keeping properties might be in question. Carried 1900 tons fuel but only had 5000 mile radius of action because of inefficent boilers. 8-8 inch guns whereas a contemporary Augusta class carried 9-8 inch and on 1500 tons fuel had 13000 miles radius. Algerie probably designed for the Med.
 
The Northampton class suffered the same deficiency as the vast majority of treaty CA - no protection. Her armor was similar to the Pensacolas, at only 547 tons or so (I understand the problem of comparing armor, as different navies did have different methods for calculating armor percentage). That would come out to about 6% armor. She did carry an extra 8 incher, but her armor was terrible. I'm showing her best range at 10,000 miles on a couple sources, too. They had to be modified for their poor roll behavior as well. The first American CA to carry adequate armor was the New Orleans class, which tiptoed the 10,000 ton limit (sources seem to say 10,050 or so), and I believe commissioned in 1939 - five years after the Algiere.

Algiere was definitely designed with the Italian threat in mind. She packed upwards of 1720 tons of armor - three times what the Northamptons carried! What source do you have about the decreased range to 5,000nm? I couldn't find that anywhere.
 
The Pocket battleships were termed "Panzerschiff" only because the Versailles text limited large ships ("Panzerschiffe") to be 10000t.
Shortly before outbreak of ww2 all pocket Battleships were officially reclassified as "schwere Kreuzer" (Heavy Cruiser). However, if You follow my battlecruiser classification they indeed are type C battlecruisers.
Just like Couragious and Glorious.
I mentioned them in the as designed and commissioned condition:
Image:HMS Glorious (1917) profile drawing.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The Queen Elizabeth class is no fast battleship. It wasn´t a "true" fast battleship in ww1 (the squadron top speed was limited to a practical 23.4 Kts and the highest recorded top speed on the trial was 24.55 Kts) and struggled to make 22 Kts in ww2 due to the added bulges...
 
I am getting my figures on Algerie from an original of "Janes 42" that I am fortunate enough to have. They say that her armour was 2000 tons so that fits with your earlier post. I don't doubt her range figures as they jibe with other French and for that matter British cruisers of thet era. Also have a copy (not original) of "Janes 44-45"which shows the range of Augusta of 13000 radius. It seems that most cruisers of that vintage and all nationalities needed some modifications after launch. By the way, same uncle that served on CA25 was in Augusta when she was flagship of Asiatic fleet. Told me once of a drinking contest between Augusta ncos and Russians at Vladivostok and the aftermath. No question that CA36 and later had better armor. CAs 24 and 25 gave great service in some of the hottest fighting of the war but guess they were just lucky as they were "tin clads" CA25 fought Nachi and Maya to a draw almost singlehandedly in March 43 at the Kormandorskis( the American CL, Richmond's guns were outranged) SLC fired 800 rds of AP shot and was reduced to using HC at the last. They were manhandling projectiles and powder from the forward magazines aft as the after magazines were empty. Imagine, 800 rds equal 80 ten gun salvos. The movement of shell was done at 28 knots in sub freezing temps except when SLC's boilers went out and her speed was 0.
 
By the way the "Janes Fighting Ships 1942" has a beautiful photograph of Exeter taken after the River Plate but(obviously) before her service in the Dutch East Indies. She was a handsome ship. The caption under the photograph compares her service and subsequent fate off Java with the service of a British "64" also named Exeter in February 1862 at he Battle of Sadras. HMS Exeter, flying the broad pennant of Commodore Richard King was engaged by five French ships and reduced to a wreck. As a sixth French ship approached King was asked what to do next. His reply was"fight her till she sinks." In a recent book about the fate of the USS Houston, one of the Houston survivors recalled that when the ABDA task force steamed out to engage the IJN invasion fleet in the Java sea, one of the Commonwealth cruisers, either Exeter or Perth(I can't remember which) had her band mustered on deck and was playing "A Hunting We Will Go." Gave me a lump in my throat. Not exactly the same behavior of some of the members of the same service today.
 
Many of the "treaty cruisers" of the 1930's became top heavy during the war from all the AA and electronics installed.

Many of them became marginally unstable in high sea's (and also if flooded by battle damage).
 
renrich said:
The Graf Spee by definition was not a CA as CAs could have no more than 8 inch guns. Graf Spee had 11 inch guns.
Click to expand...

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

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

Algerie is a good choice.
 
syscom3 said:
Many of the "treaty cruisers" of the 1930's became top heavy during the war from all the AA and electronics installed.

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

Some war built designs had this problem in particular the Cleveland class. These were designed to have aluminium deckhouses but were built with steel, throw in extra AA guns not allowed for in the design plus radars and extra directors and you have a problem.
 
By definition a heavy cruiser has 8 inch guns a light cruiser has 6 inch guns (during the period before and during WW2) It has nothing to do with how much the ship displaced. All cruisers were not to exceed 10000 tons each according to the several naval treaties agreed on and ignored by the Japanese and the Germans. There were also total tonnage limits on the different navies. There were a number of CLs that were larger than some of the CAs. For instance the Mogami, originally a CL was substantially larger than the Furataka a CA( one of the few classes where the Japanese stayed within the limits.)
 

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

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

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

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

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

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

85 years ago today, Sept 1 1939, the second world war began.
Replies
1
Views
454
MIflyer
M
Favorite "obscure" theater or World War II to research?
Replies
9
Views
1K
EwenS
E
Season’s Greetings from Air War Publications.
Replies
0
Views
165
Snautzer01
Z
Best tank engines of WWII
15 16 17
Replies
335
Views
22K
Reluctant Poster
R
From WW2 Bachem's Ba 349 Natter (Viper), to the cold war
Replies
1
Views
516
Gnomey
Menu
Log in
Register