Best World war two warships? (1 Viewer)

[renrich]

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

 

[Glider]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mkloby]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Glider]

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

 

[renrich]

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

 

[mkloby]

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

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

 

[Glider]

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

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

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

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

 

[delcyros]

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

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

 

[renrich]

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

 

[delcyros]

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

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

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

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

 

[mkloby]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[syscom3]

Traditionaly,

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

6" made them light cruisers.

8" made them heavy cruisers

10" - 12" was for battlecruisers

14" plus made them battleships.

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

 

[mkloby]

Traditionaly,

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

6" made them light cruisers.

8" made them heavy cruisers

10" - 12" was for battlecruisers

14" plus made them battleships.

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

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

 

[syscom3]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Glider]

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

Bang on

 

[Glider]

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

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

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

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

British Battlecruisers had 15in guns, Japanese 14in

Russian Cruisers had 7in guns

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

 

[mkloby]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[syscom3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Glider]

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

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

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

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

 

[syscom3]

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

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

But they weren't 6" were they?

8)