Best World war two warships?

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

Yes, Habbakukk was the giant sawdust carrier, designed for multiengined aircraft really. The Yamatos did have the radar though. While it wasnt as advanced as American radar, by any stretch, the optical sights on a clear day (which was often the case in the pacific) would give the Yamato a damn fine chance.
 
Nonskimmer said:
Ah, the corvette. Not a bad go for a hastily converted whaler, eh?
Click to expand...
the weapon of choice for the RCN those guys were pretty tough sailors everyone I ever met that served on one of them was unique and as side note how come every little town or dinky river gets a ship named after it in Canada with one of the worlds most powerful river alls we get a 4 stack destoyer
 
Scharnhorst V.S the Hood, who would you take?
for me, i like the hood, only, and only because she had the 15in. guns while the Scharnhorst had 11in. guns, suitable for commerce raiding, but not gunfights i would think. If Scharnhorst was able to trade out the 11in. guns for 15in. guns as intended, then my vote would be Scharnhorst all the way.
 
pbfoot said:
...and as side note how come every little town or dinky river gets a ship named after it in Canada with one of the worlds most powerful river alls we get a 4 stack destoyer
Click to expand...
Ah, I wouldn't feel too bad. Our last aircraft carrier (HMCS Bonaventure) was named after a bird sanctuary in Québec.
 
Wow, what a prestigous name lol. After a bird sanctuary. Not to be a bother, but do you have any links to the information about the modern canadian navy?
 
Wow, seems like a somewhat modern, (by that i mean not completely outclassed) but very small naval force. Can you tell canada is confident its allies will always come to the rescue?
 
Yeah, but I mean, without an enormous military budget, canada can better apply that money. Canada is a country with alot of allies, and few direct enemies. They dont need an enormous navy, but it wouldnt hurt to add some more defensive, and maybe a little blue water capability to their credit.
 
The Canadian Navy could take some hints from the US, learn the ways of building some decent destroyers, with some anti-ship capabilities. Im sure the US would be more than willing to help them out with construction methods and technology. The canadians wouldnt even need many, just some, more in the pacific i would think. But what do i know lol.
 
carpenoctem1689 said:
The Canadian Navy could take some hints from the US, learn the ways of building some decent destroyers, with some anti-ship capabilities. Im sure the US would be more than willing to help them out with construction methods and technology.
Click to expand...
Actually, we've been down this road many times in the past. The US has offered ships to Canada on several different occasions over the years. We'd either build our own (good designs in their own right, for the most part), or buy them from Britain because of our traditional ties to the British crown.

The main problem with our hardware comes from the fact that we don't upgrade or update often enough. We leave vessels in service way too long without significant upgrades. Eventually they just wear out. We could also stand to have a much larger fleet, and that's another argument that's been going on for many years.
 
carpenoctem1689 said:
They really didnt give the Bismarck enough credit. It survived one hell of a pouding, and was still afloat. Some sailors claim it was scuttled, and others say RN torpedoes,
Click to expand...

No torpedos rubtured her hull. The torpedos effectivly sealed her fate because they jammed her rudder so that she could only go in circles. The surviving sailors of the Bismark say that she was scuttled to keep the British from saying that they sunk the Bismark (even though at that point she was not able to fight back anymore because her armament was all destroyed but no shells penetrated her vital areas). Robert Ballard actually proved (if you read his book and watch his movie about it he explains it and shows it in pictures and video) that it was scuttled because all the holes that would have allowed water to come into the ship and sink it were blown out by explosions set from the inside. You can actually see in the pics how the torpedos and the shells were deflected off the armour of the ship.
 
1.) Battleship- Iowa Class
2.) Battlecruiser- don't care
3.) Heavy cruiser/Armored cruiser- don't care
4.) Light cruiser-don't care
5.) Destroyer- Fletcher Class
6.) Submarine- Type VII U-boat
7.) Patrol Boat or MBT- PT boat
8.) Aircraft Carrier- Essex Class
 
Bismarck had no horrible AA, at least for its time (1941, compare contemporary layouts and you will find that it is more than competetive to other BB).
Prinz Eugen had a decent AA as well (it repeatedly shot down soviet anti shipping planes in 1945), however AA is limited as in all warships. Do do not exaggerate the US 5"/38 DP AA gun. As a gun it is way worser than PE´s 4.1"/65 in terms of muzzle velocity, platform, range, effective ceiling and trajectory. The VT-fuze was what made the 5" effective, not the gun itself.
The Baltimore class, unlike Prinz Eugen, has grave shortcomings in underwater protection.
For Bismarck please shift to ww2general, there is a thread covering a good deal of discussion.
The question is -what is important for a BB?
1.) It has to stay in the battleline and keep it´s vitals safe for some degree
2.) It has to deliver a good deal of damage
Yamato gets all of it. (The sheer number of planes involved in sinking Yamato&Musashi would sink any Iowa-class BB as well and certain points of it´s design (metacentric and byuoncy-reserve, unprotected sides, shortcomings in TDS) makes me think that Iowa would sink pretty soon under these circumstances. AA capability is neglectable. I found out that NOT EVEN IOWAS REPUTATED AA HAS ANY CHANCE TO PREVENT AN INCOMING FLIGHT (12 planes) FROM REACHING BOMB DROPPING DISTANCE ON IT´S OWN!
And BC?
1.) Speed in order to dictate the terms of engagement
2.) Range
3.) a decent firepower
4.) a good protection
As far as I see, Hood covers most of this (at least in the proposed refit), Alaska suffers in protection (and I mean it suffers a lot) and Scharnhorst suffers in firepower (at least sufficiant for a raider but useless against enemy BB)
 
In regards to the Iowa class AAA, the kamikazi's introduced a new element in how you defined air defense. The airplanes had to be blown apart in mid-air to prevent them from following a ballistic path onto its intended target. Only the 5" guns had a good chance of doing that. The 40mm needed direct hits to do it which was hard to do. The 20mm was essentially useless. This was one of the reasons that the USN removed the 40mm and 20mm and switched to the 3" AA guns as soon as possible (although it was post war when it happened).

The US battleships overall had the best chance of inflicting any type of damage to an airplane.
 
In regards to the scharnhorst lacking the firepower to fight battleships....Battlecruisers werent meant to fight a battleship. You didnt need 15in. guns on a Battlecruiser. Scharnhorst was plenty fine as a commerce raider, which is what the germans wanted from their battlecruisers, and even the Bismarck, the best BB in the atlantic.

I am also aware the swordfish torperdoes did not rupture the Bismarcks hull, they dentonated near enought he rudder to make her lose steering control. The Like you said, she was left a floating hulk after the RN fired at her, couldnt even fight back. They ordered torpedoes fired at her, and the RN CLAIMS they sank her. But as you said she was scuttled. I beleive a destroyer or CL fired the torpedoes that they reputed claimed her.
 
The last torpedos fired on Bismarck seems to have hit the weatherdeck rather than the belt. This is not certain in all respects, but proofs from the wreckage point to this. Other torpedoes hit the hull, there cannot be a doubt. It was the TDS, which prevented considerable damage but the hull was holed.
I do not disagree that US BB had better AA capabilities than their contenders but I underline that this wouldn´t play a role in this timeframe. Any BB hunt would involve planes in numbers, which couldn´t be handled by the BB itself (except maybe those Do-217 with Fritz X bombs, but they´re dropped at comparably high altitude, way out of effective AA range) any later than 1943. So the argument with ...this BB has a little worser AA than this one and therefore cannot be the best BB... shouldn´t be used to exclude Yamato here. Luck plays a major role and I cannot see why the Iowas -despite beeing excellent designs- would do better against hundreds of enemy planes than Yamato or Musashi. I do not doubt that they could kill few more planes but the outcome would be the same. I even cannot see how Iowa could prevent those Stringbags from a lucky torpedo hit in her steering compartment...
 
Nonskimmer said:
Ah, I wouldn't feel too bad. Our last aircraft carrier (HMCS Bonaventure) was named after a bird sanctuary in Québec.
Click to expand...
It was named after the island of the same name which happened to have a bird sancturary on it. A carrier is an island, so an appropriate name.
 
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
467
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
202
Snautzer01
Z
Best tank engines of WWII
15 16 17
Replies
335
Views
23K
Reluctant Poster
R
From WW2 Bachem's Ba 349 Natter (Viper), to the cold war
Replies
1
Views
531
Gnomey
Menu
Log in
Register