Best World war two warships?

Glider · Jun 7, 2007

syscom3 said:
One advantage the wooden deck had over the armoured box type, was it was easier to build.

An important factor when you have to build many dozens of carriers quickly.

And harder to repair. Most armoured decks when hit dented which were fixed simply with quick drying cement. Light, easy to apply, almost self leveling and very effective.

With wooden decks you had a whacking great hole to sort out.

Glider · Jun 7, 2007

And I forgot cheap, the bean counters must have loved that

Captn javy Wilson · Jun 11, 2007

1.) Battleship

Yamato Class (Musashi)

2.) Battlecruiser

Alaska Class

3.) Heavy cruiser/Armored cruiser

Baltimore Class

4.) Light cruiser

Cleveland class (Detroit)

5.) Destroyer

Fletcher (Sands)

6.) Submarine

Nautilus

7.) Patrol Boat or MBT

hmmmm.... have to think about that

8.) Aircraft Carrier

Essex Class.
Although personally I like the Lexington

lesofprimus · Jun 11, 2007

What exactly is Unfrogiven????

trackend · Jun 12, 2007

A SEAL without a wet suit Les ?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 12, 2007

Captn javy Wilson said:
6.) Submarine

Nautilus

You wanna compare her to the Type XXI?

Gnomey · Jun 12, 2007

Nautilus in WW2? If you mean the Nuclear one that was some years after WW2...

lesofprimus said:
What exactly is Unfrogiven????

trackend said:
A SEAL without a wet suit Les ?

No idea but I doubt he will be here long...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 12, 2007

There was a Nautilus that served in WW2. She was actually Pre WW2 though having been laid down in 1927 and had to be modernized in 1941.

I think that the German Type VII and IX and especially the Type XXI were better than the Nautilus Class. Hell the US had better boats with the GATO Class than the Nautilus.

For comparison:

SS-168 USS Nautilus

Laid down: 10 May 1927
Launched: 15 March 1930
Commissioned: 1 July 1930
Decommissioned 30 June 1946
Fate: sold for scrap
General characteristics
Displacement: 2730 tons surfaced, 4050 tons submerged
Length: 349 ft (106.4 m) waterline, 371 ft (113 m) overall
Beam: 33 ft 3 in (10.1 m)
Draft: 15 ft 9 in (4.8 m)
Speed: 17 knots (31 km/h) surfaced, 8 knots (15 km/h) submerged
Complement: 88 officers and men
Propulsion: four 1350 hp (1MW) M.A.N. diesels; two 1270 hp (950 kW) Westinghouse electric motors (240-cell Exide batteries)
Armament: 6 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes (four forward, two aft; 24 torpedoes, 8 external); two 6-inch (152 mm)/53 cal guns; two 0.30 in (7.62 mm) machineguns

Type XXI

First Submarine designed to operate completely under water

Displacement: 1621 t/1819 t, 2100 t full load
Length: 76.7m (251ft 7.7in) overall, 60.5m (198ft 5.9in) pressure hull
Beam: 5.3m (17ft 4.7in) pressure hull, 8m (26ft 3in) overall
Draft: 6.3m (20ft 8in)
Height: 11.3m (37ft)
Propulsion: 4000 hp (3 MW)
Speed: surfaced = 15.6 kt (29 km/h), 4400 hp (3.3 MW) submerged = 17.2 kt (32 km/h)
Range: 15,500nm at 10 kt (28,675 km at 19 km/h) surfaced, 340 miles at 5 kt (630 km at 9 km/h) submerged
Crew: 57

Below are pics of the Nautilus and a Type XXI.

Gnomey · Jun 12, 2007

Cheers still is no contest between the two in my opinion - the XXI takes it.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 12, 2007

I agree. The Type XXI was the first "modern" submarine.

T4.H · Jun 15, 2007

You can also say:

The XXI class was the first submarine-class of the world.

All "submarins" (Unterseeboote) befor were "only" surface ships, which could also dive.
They were "diving boats" (Tauchboote).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Glider
06-03-2007, 02:31 PM
As to the old questionthe armoured flight deck is best. I don't know where you got your info about the Formidable being permanently maimed from one hit on the flight deck. As far as I am aware she was hit by two 2000lb bombs in the Med and survived plus a number of kamikaze hits in the pacific. She was seriously damaged when a sliver of the armoured flight deck penetrated the boiler rooms, but thats a lot better than a bomb penetrating the boiler rooms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You are right!
I think, I misunderstood my source.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Glider
06-07-2007, 09:54 PM
And harder to repair. Most armoured decks when hit dented which were fixed simply with quick drying cement. Light, easy to apply, almost self leveling and very effective.

With wooden decks you had a whacking great hole to sort out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I know, wooden decks were easy to repair.
They were build with bars.
Put out the destroyed ones, put in new ones.

Glider · Jun 15, 2007

T4.H said:
You can also say:

Glider
06-07-2007, 09:54 PM
And harder to repair. Most armoured decks when hit dented which were fixed simply with quick drying cement. Light, easy to apply, almost self leveling and very effective.

With wooden decks you had a whacking great hole to sort out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I know, wooden decks were easy to repair.
They were build with bars.
Put out the destroyed ones, put in new ones.

True but with space being at a premium on board ship where do you store the large quantities of wood to repair the deck at sea?

Cement is much easier

renrich · Jun 15, 2007

The Nautilus and her sister ship Narwhal were large and unwieldy subs that were only used for special duty like landing troops or carrying supplies. They were not very effective in sinking the Japanese merchant marine like the fleet boats were.

Lucky13 · Jun 16, 2007

Could this have been the best destroyer class of WWII? Anyone that knows what USS Charles Ausburne's claim to fame is?

T4.H · Jun 16, 2007

Hmm...

I would say: shimakaze class...
But only one was build...
So the shimakaze class is no class, only one ship.

Long Lancers
Shimakaze Class

Lucky13 · Jun 16, 2007

THAT is one hell of a destroyer, eh?

T4.H · Jun 16, 2007

Three quintuple torpedo mounts...Long Lances...

Look at this...

Japanese Torpedoes
The best torpedo of all time (each period)
20,000m @ 48 kts
32,000m @ 40 kts
40,000m @ 36 kts
1080 lbs. explosive charge

Mark 15 torpedo (destroyer torpedo of the US Navy)
5,500m @ 45 kts
9,150m @ 33 kts
13,700m @ 26 kts
825 lbs. explosive charge

All japanese destroyers have had some disadvantages.
slow turning rate of there main armament turrets (useless against aircrafts)
bad sonar systems.
realy bad AA guns.

Glider · Jun 17, 2007

Impressive but not the best. A destroyer has to be able to fight all enemys and whilst I certainly wouldn't want to fight her in a night surface combat she lacks AA guns and A/S abilities.

delcyros · Jun 18, 2007

The Shimakaze class is perfectly suited for the ASW and AA warfare. She fields 5"/50 DP guns in fully enclosed twin mounts. The mounts of Shimakaze and the Yugumo class DD´s (the only modified 5"/50´s) were given an elevation of 75 degrees and a more powerful training motor, which turns this gun into a true DP-gun. It outranged US 5" guns by almost 4000 yards and had decent ballistic perfromance with a very good AAA ceiling. The Shimakaze also had 18 DC´s with two depth charge throwers. Not overly much but adaequate for the ASW task.
Her type 21 radar, while inferior to contemporary US sets, still gives a credible scouting ability, the way Shimakaze usually was used in ww2.

Glider · Jun 18, 2007

True but she didn't have the proximity fuze which made a vast difference, she didn't have the 40mm also a significant advance over the 25mm. Range means next to nothing on a destroyer as the ship itself makes such a poor gun platform and 18 DC's would not up up for the task as well as her ADSIC being a poor performer.
I am afraid I don't think she is up to the AA or ASW role.

Whilst her radar gives scouting ability it is very poor compared to the allied radars who could keep her at arms length and she wouldn't know about it.

Best World war two warships?

Captain

Captain

Airman

Brigadier General

Chief Master Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Globetrotting Surgeon General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Attachments

Globetrotting Surgeon General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Banned

Captain

Chief Master Sergeant

Forum Mascot

Banned

Forum Mascot

Banned

Captain

Tech Sergeant

Captain

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads