Best World war two warships?

[Glider]

But they weren't 6" were they?

8)

Picky picky.

So the British Dido and American Atlanta cruisers with 5.25in and 5in forgetting the Japanese cruisers with 5.5in, are now destroyers.

And the German Destroyers with 5.9in are now cruisers, or are the German Cruisers with 5.9in now Destroyers.

I surrender, my Brain is Full.

 

[syscom3]

Picky picky.

So the British Dido and American Atlanta cruisers with 5.25in and 5in forgetting the Japanese cruisers with 5.5in, are now destroyers.

And the German Destroyers with 5.9in are now cruisers, or are the German Cruisers with 5.9in now Destroyers.

I surrender, my Brain is Full.

If its less than 6", then its a destroyer.

The Atlanta class "cruisers" were "class types" dead ends.

The exception.

The standard on what constitutes a destroyer-cruiser-battle cruiser-battleship was set by the USN in WW2. We built so many of them, by default we set the standards.

 

[mkloby]

It's ok to admit you made a mistake.

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

Fractions of an inch, when you are talking guns in the 5" range, is a lot. German 5.9" shells were double the weight the 4.7" shells used on British DD. Not to mention, 5.9" guns, nor the French 5.5" are 5" guns.

"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 specifically referred to the USN usage of the term, not RN, which I do not think was used by the US Navy at the time.

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.

DE are a wholly different class than DD. You just said all ships w/ 5" or less were DD, which is not true by any account. Furthermore, you have Torpedo boats, which were used by the Germans as DD substitutes, since they did not have an adequate number of DD for their operations. Later german TB were actually pushing the size of current DD. They were fleet ships, despite the term "torpedo boat." I think you might still be confusing these with motor boats.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. Are you referring to pre-dreadnought BB? WWI era dreadnoughts, many included in the list above, were still very active in all the major navies throughout the world. Many of them received refits throughout the 1930s to modernize them. That list only included those with guns smaller than 14" and if you include 14" WWI dreadnoughts, it gets even larger. The only active pre-dreadnoughts I can think of off the top of my head are the KM's old Deutschland class. By the way, the US offered to buy the WWI dreadnought Almirante Latorre from Chile - I don't think they would have made that offer if they saw no use in it. It's interesting to note that the British argued at London in 1930 for 12" guns and 25,000 ton limits for new BB construction. Lastly, there was also new construction in the 1930s of BB with sub 14" guns including the KMs Scharnhorst and Gneisenau with 11.1", as well as the French Dunkerque and Strasbourg with 13" guns.

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

Again, a mis-statement. I'm actually very interested as to what source are you drawing these from, because they are just flat our incorrect. See below for an example.

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.

Again, not true. The BC class was created to carry the guns of dreadnoughts and sacrifice armor in order to attain higher speeds. Armor is what separates the BB type from BC, not gun size, for they carried the the same gun size. You stated above 10"-12" guns were for BC, which is not true. HMS Renown and Repulse carried 15" guns, Hood as well (although her armor was about 32% displacement and in proportion with QE class and can be argued to be a BB). Japan's Kongos carried 14" guns and were BC until they received refits which increased their armor to 32%, and were reclassified as BB.

The only example where a type was strictly created around gun size was the CA/CL - they were defined by treaty limits, as they did not exist prior to then.

 

[syscom3]

Fractions of an inch, when you are talking guns in the 5" range, is a lot. German 5.9" shells were double the weight the 4.7" shells used on British DD. Not to mention, 5.9" guns, nor the French 5.5" are 5" guns.

5" weaponry has usually meant to be inclusive of 5.000" up to 5.999". You are basing your argument on semantics. Therefore to make it clear for you:
0.0 up through 5.999" are found on Destroyers
6.0 up through 7.999" are found on Light Cruisers
8.0 up through 9.999" are found on Heavy Cruisers
10.0 up through 13.999" are found on Battle Cruisers
14.0 and up are found on BB's

I specifically referred to the USN usage of the term, not RN, which I do not think was used by the US Navy at the time.

DE are a wholly different class than DD. You just said all ships w/ 5" or less were DD, which is not true by any account.

To simplfy things for you, any ship mounting a gun with a bore of less than 5.999" is either a destroyer of frigate (destroyer escort).

Furthermore, you have Torpedo boats, which were used by the Germans as DD substitutes, since they did not have an adequate number of DD for their operations. Later german TB were actually pushing the size of current DD.

If the ship was not designed for fleet use on the high sea's, it wasn't part of the classification. And if the TB was pushing the size of a DD, then it was a DD. Theres no mixing of words here.

They were fleet ships, despite the term "torpedo boat." I think you might still be confusing these with motor boats.

I'm not. The TB's were small destroyers in all aspects.

I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. Are you referring to pre-dreadnought BB? WWI era dreadnoughts, many included in the list above, were still very active in all the major navies throughout the world.

And few of them played a significant role in the conflict. In the 30's, they were all nearing the end of their lifetimes, and no amount of refits could change that fact. Everyone knew it and werent bothered by it.

.... 1930 for 12" guns and 25,000 ton limits for new BB construction. Lastly, there was also new construction in the 1930s BB of sub 14" guns included the KMs Scharnhorst and Gneisenau with 11.1", as well as the French Dunkerque and Strasbourg with 13" guns.

The Brits didnt want to get into an expensive ship building program, therefore wanted to impose an irrational and unacceptable limit on the designs on the new BB's being designed.

Again, a mis-statement. I'm actually very interested as to what source are you drawing these from, because they are just flat our incorrect. See below for an example.

Why is that incorrect? The early US carriers had a pair of 8" turrets on them. Did that make them a cruiser? And your examples are suspect, and again deal with exemptions. They were modernizations of old warships that moved them from one type of classifications to another. The main effort of the treaty was to deal with new warships that would have been built from the keel up to carry specific calibers of guns with armor protection consistent with displacement. The Alaska class BC's are an example of that. All capital ships launched in the 30's carried specific sized guns that put them exactly in the sorting classification that designated them as cruisers, battle cruisers of battleships.

 

[Glider]

If its less than 6", then its a destroyer.

The Atlanta class "cruisers" were "class types" dead ends.

The exception.

The standard on what constitutes a destroyer-cruiser-battle cruiser-battleship was set by the USN in WW2. We built so many of them, by default we set the standards.

So the Dido is a destroyer. Interesting as I have never read that in any book, description, or any other reference anywhere, ever.
And the Jap 5.5 in cruisers are also destroyers, similar comments to the Dido.

The standards for definitions were set by the USN. Where on earth did you get that one from?
The British built the first Battleship and the first Battlecruiser setting the definition.
Heavy and Light Cruisers were a definition set by treaties signed by many nations.
The British also built the first Destroyer, a term originally known as the Torpedo Boat Destroyer and then shortened to destroyer.

Can I ask where you got your information?

 

[syscom3]

So the Dido is a destroyer. Interesting as I have never read that in any book, description, or any other reference anywhere, ever.
And the Jap 5.5 in cruisers are also destroyers, similar comments to the Dido.

The standards for definitions were set by the USN. Where on earth did you get that one from?
The British built the first Battleship and the first Battlecruiser setting the definition.
Heavy and Light Cruisers were a definition set by treaties signed by many nations.
The British also built the first Destroyer, a term originally known as the Torpedo Boat Destroyer and then shortened to destroyer.

Can I ask where you got your information?

Whomever has the dominating marketshare determines the specs.

Who cares if you built the first battleship. We built 10 far more modern types of them in less than five years (and two partially built that were scrapped), not to mention the scores of cruisers and destroyers. Sheer dominance gives you that right.

The USN convention of 5.999" or smaller is a destroyer, 6" for CL, 8" for CL, 10" and 12" for CB and 14" and higher for BB stands.

 

[mkloby]

Syscom - this game is frustrating, and I'm done. Almost every single aspect of your last several posts is without question historically incorrect, and I don't know what source you are getting this information from, if any at all. I have used actual historical facts and specific ships to show you the inaccuracies of your statements, but for some reason you dismiss them and claim they're suspect. Please get some reputable books on naval fleets in WWII. Until then, in the interests of educational integrity, please stop putting out bad info out on this site. I'm begging you.

Everyone knows the severe problems that were facing designers when confronted with the treaty cruiser and the treaty battleship. What specific traits and ships do you think made best use of the allotted tonnage?

BB - I don't think that there was a single treaty BB that stayed under 35,000 tons standard displacement. I am going with the USS North Carolina (36,600 tons, 16"/45 Gun x 9, 5"/38 DP Gun x 20, Armor 40% displacement, AC x 3, 27 knots, Range 16,000nm@15 knots, 1941).

CA - France Algiere (10,000 tons, 8"/50 Gun x 8, 3.9"/45 DP Gun x 12, 21.7" TT x 6, Armor 20% displacement, AC x 3, 31 knots, range 8,700nm@15 knots, 1934). Renrich has an old Janes listing range about 5,000nm, listing inefficient boilers as degrading range - any other sources verify this? All sources I have list 8700@15. This treaty CA actually stayed faithful to treaty limits, acheiving a level of protection that tripled most nation's treaty cruisers.

CL - Tough one, almost went with the USS Brooklyn, but instead I'm going with HMS Edinburgh (10,550 tons, 6"/50 Gun x 12, 4"/45 DP Gun x 12, 21" TT x 6, Armor 18% displacement, AC x 3, 32.5 knots, 13,300nm@12 knots, 1939). Not too sure as to the accuracy of the figure of range of 13,300nm@12 knots.

 

[Glider]

Mkloby,
If it helps I have the Algerie at 5,500 at 15kts which ties in pretty well with the Janes listing.
source French Warships of WW2 by Jean Labayle Couhat

Also Edinburgh had 12 x 4in DP, it was her sistership Belfast that had 4 x 4in removed during the war. Your probably aware that the Belfast is moored in London oposite the Tower of London and is open to the public. Well worth a visit.

As for Syscom I am afraid that you are wrong to go against every pubished work and historical expert re definitions on your own bat.

 

[Glider]

Syscom
I forgot to add that if you want to play the numbers game the British built far more warships of all types since the modern design started from around 1910 than the USA.
Without checking I would expect it to be around 3 to 1 in most types and around 7-8 to 1 in light cruisers.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well I am going to go and get an old destroyer and I am going to heavily modify it and structurally strengthen it and put a 14 in Cannon on it. Just one 14 in Cannon and call it a BB.

I can do that because gun size determines the classification of the ship, right syscom?

 

[Glider]

Well I am going to go and get an old destroyer and I am going to heavily modify it and structurally strengthen it and put a 14 in Cannon on it. Just one 14 in Cannon and call it a BB.

I can do that because gun size determines the classification of the ship, right syscom?

The French Sub the Surcouf had a twin 8in Turret and a seaplane so place your bets, Submarine, Heavy Cruiser or CVL?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well lets see it was certainly a Heavy Cruiser (using Syscoms system) and it was definatly an aircraft carrier. I think it was only a seconday submarine!

 

[mkloby]

Glider - what are your picks for best treaty BB, CA, and CL?

 

[Glider]

Nothing Original
BB - Iowa
CA - Baltimore
CL - Belfast

 

[syscom3]

Frigate:
"Modern frigates are only related to earlier frigates by name. 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. The frigate was designed and built to the same mercantile construction standards (scantlings) as the corvette - allowing manufacture by yards unused to warship construction. The first frigates of the River class (1941) were essentially two sets of corvette machinery in one larger hull, armed with the latest Hedgehog anti-submarine weapon. The frigate possessed less offensive firepower and speed than a destroyer, but such qualities were not requisite in anti-submarine warfare (for instance, ASDIC sets did not operate effectively at speeds of over 20 knots). Rather, the frigate was an austere and weatherly vessel suitable for mass-construction and fitted with the latest innovations in anti-submarine warfare. As the frigate was intended purely for convoy duties, and not to deploy with the fleet, it had limited range and speed."

Destroyers:
"In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet or battle group and defend them against smaller, short-range but powerful attackers (originally torpedo boats, later submarines and aircraft). Before World War II destroyers were light vessels without the endurance for unattended ocean operations; typically a number of destroyers and a single destroyer tender operated together."

"While destroyers would be able to hold off an attack by torpedo boats (which did not carry heavy guns), they would be easy targets for other warships when operating away from the fleet. Thus they were often given torpedoes of their own. While torpedo boats were short-ranged and cheap, destroyers had to operate as a screen for the fleet wherever it was. This required them to have the range of the ships they were protecting, requiring destroyers to be much larger than the boats they were designed to counter."

Light Cruisers:
"The term light cruiser was given a definition by the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921. The treaty, which sought to limit an arms race in warships, restricted the construction by nations of all large warships. Among its terms, cruisers could displace no more than 10,000 tons standard and light cruisers could be armed with guns of a calibre not exceeding 6.1 inches (155 mm) guns."

Heavy Cruisers:
"Heavy cruisers evolved from the light cruisers of World War I. The first heavy cruisers were the British Hawkins class (1915) of 9,750 tons that made 30 knots and were armed with seven 7.5 inch guns. These ships were directly descended from the preceding Birmingham (1911) group of Town class 5,440 ton light cruisers and at the time were referred to as "improved light cruisers". They remained the largest and most powerful cruisers in the world for several years."

"The Washington Naval Treaty of 1921 sought to stop an arms race in warships. It restricted the construction of warships of more than 10,000 tons standard displacement or with armament greater than 8-inch (203 mm) guns. The major naval powers then started to build cruisers up to those limits. These were usually between 9,000 and 10,000 tons and were typically armed with eight to ten 8-inch guns. In 1930 the Washington Naval Treaty was extended by the London Naval Treaty which split the treaty definition of a cruiser into Heavy Cruiser with guns larger than 6.1 inch (155 mm) and "light cruiser" with smaller caliber guns, creating the heavy cruiser as a category of warship. The upper limit of 10,000 tons displacement still applied to both"

"In the 1930s several navies began to secretly flout the tonnage limits. The Japanese who were planning on withdrawing from the treaty built the Mogami class with a displacement of over 12,000 tons. She was designed so that her five 6.1-inch gun triple turrets could be replaced with twin 8-inch gun turrets and the ships of the class were rearmed in that way shortly before World War II. Japan withdrew from the Washington Naval Treaty in 1936, after which there was no effective regulation."

Battle Cruisers:
"Battlecruisers were large warships of the first half of the 20th century first introduced by the British Royal Navy. They evolved from armoured cruisers and in terms of ship classification they occupy a grey area between cruisers and battleships. Generally, battlecruisers were similar in layout and armament to battleships but with significantly less armour allowing for gains in speed.

"The German pocket battleships (Germananzerschiffe - armored ship: Deutschland, Admiral Scheer, and Admiral Graf Spee), built to meet the 10,000 ton displacement limit of the Treaty of Versailles, were another attempt at a cruiser-battleship concept. Rather than construct a lightweight battleship which sacrificed protection in order to attain high speed, the pocket battleships were relatively small vessels with only six 11 inch (280 mm) guns — essentially large heavy cruisers. They attained fairly high speeds of 26 knots (52 km/h), and reasonable protection, while (allegedly!) staying close to the displacement limit, by using welded rather than riveted construction, triple main armament turrets, and replacing the normal steam turbine power with a pair of massive 9 cylinder diesel engines driving each propeller shaft (an ironic reversion from turbine to reciprocating engines). They were later reclassified as "heavy cruisers", having heavier guns and armour than regular heavy cruisers at the cost of speed. Unfortunately, they were outclassed by British WW1-era true battlecruisers in speed, weaponry, and protection. (They in fact had basic cruiser armour, except for the turrets.)

Two more ships were built later in the 1930s, the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, which were considerably more powerful. At 38,900 tons full load they were somewhat larger than the French Dunkerque class and very well armoured. As built, they had three triple 11-inch gun turrets, but the mounts were designed to accept twin 15-inch turrets (six guns total) when enough became available. However, circumstances and the fates of the two ships - Scharnhorst sunk by gunfire, Gneisenau heavily damaged by bombs and her repair sacrificed to higher priorities - meant that this plan was abandoned. At the time, treaty requirements allowed the production of 12+ inch guns at 1 a year, which along with the very time consuming production of naval guns, kept these two ships with 11-inch guns. The Royal Navy categorised them as battlecruisers since they followed the Imperial German Navy design lineage of trading off gun size for protection and speed. The German Navy nonetheless categorised them as battleships."

Although technical specifications varied, all battlecruisers shared a similar role specification. They were designed to hunt down and outgun smaller warships (or merchant ships in the case of the pocket battleships), and outrun larger warships that they could not outgun."

 

[Lucky13]

1.) Battleship: USS West Virginia
2.) Battlecruiser: Gneisenau
3.) Heavy cruiser/Armored cruiser: USS San Francisco
4.) Light cruiser: ?
5.) Destroyer: Fletcher class
6.) Submarine: Type XXI
7.) Patrol Boat or MBT: The ELCO 80' PT BOAT
8.) Aircraft Carrier: USS Yorktown CV-5

 

[syscom3]

1.) Battleship: USS West Virginia

Better than the North Carolina class? S Dakota class, Iowa class......?

3.) Heavy cruiser/Armored cruiser: USS San Francisco

Better than the Baltimore class?

8.) Aircraft Carrier: USS Yorktown CV-5

Better than the Essex class?

 

[Lucky13]

Better than the North Carolina class? S Dakota class, Iowa class......?


Better than the Baltimore class?



Better than the Essex class?

West Virginia came back didn't she? Fully modernized and kicked some serious ass at the Battle of Surigao Strait...
San Fransisco saw through the whole war. Baltimore was comissioned in 15 April 1943.
USS Yorktown CV-5 took alot of beating before she went down, bombs and torpedoes. Hadn't the Japanese sub showed up, she'd probably been towed back to Pearl Harbor for repairs and modernisation....

USS West Virginia (BB-48) Action Report: Leyte Gulf/Surigao Straits

As you can see she fired 93 shots in 16 salvos, more than any of the other battleships.

 

[mkloby]

If USS West Virginia found itself opposing an Iowa class, theoretically, she'd likely be completely wrecked. But then again, she could have gotten lucky - and it's always better to be lucky than good

 

[Lucky13]

I'd guess that they both had the same radar installations. Iowa 9 against 8 16' guns.