Best World war two warships?

[tomo pauk]

afaik no battlecruiser there are after WWI, also the old BC, as Hood and Kongo, are no more considered BC but BB.
the concept of BC, a ship with around same weapon of a BB and around the speed of cruiser was passed when the new BB get high speed.

Agree.

 

[parsifal]

The crews of 4 RN battlecruisers that experienced wholesale explosions hull breaks would bitterly argue against rating Scharnhorst as a worst Battlecruiser.

What four British Battlecruisers were sunk in WWII???? considering thaqt they only fielded three for the whole war


The four BCs lost at Jutland were lost a much from Beatty's stupidity as anything to do with the design faults....but the issue is the title of the thread....best warships of WWII, not of all time

 

[parsifal]

afaik no battlecruiser there are after WWI, also the old BC, as Hood and Kongo, are no more considered BC but BB.
the concept of BC, a ship with around same weapon of a BB and around the speed of cruiser was passed when the new BB get high speed.

Well according to both Janes and Conways, Hood was rated as a Battlecreuiser for her entire career.

The Kongo Class were rated as BCs when built, but after reconstruction in the thirties were re-rated as fast Battleships. That much is true, but their design, protection, displacement all put them in the class of Battlecruiser. Their displacement is perhaps the best indication of what they were....they displaced a maximum of 31000 tons deep displacement, to the Scharnhorsts 38900. . It seems ilogical to rate the Scharnhorst as a Battlecruiser at nearly 40000 tons, when the Japanese ships are lighter but still rated as a Battleship

What the Battlecruiser description suggests to me for the Scharnhorst was that despite their relatively massive size they were still weak and unsatisfactory ships. What the label "fast battleships" for the Kongos suggests to me is that despite their obvious weaknesses as Battlecruisers, they could be half considered as Battleships because of their firepower, and overall design excellence. Thats notwithstanding their lossess to the US BBs in November 1942....

 

[Glider]

Well according to both Janes and Conways, Hood was rated as a Battlecreuiser for her entire career.

The Kongo Class were rated as BCs when built, but after reconstruction in the thirties were re-rated as fast Battleships. That much is true, but their design, protection, displacement all put them in the class of Battlecruiser. Their displacement is perhaps the best indication of what they were....they displaced a maximum of 31000 tons deep displacement, to the Scharnhorsts 38900. . It seems ilogical to rate the Scharnhorst as a Battlecruiser at nearly 40000 tons, when the Japanese ships are lighter but still rated as a Battleship

What the Battlecruiser description suggests to me for the Scharnhorst was that despite their relatively massive size they were still weak and unsatisfactory ships. What the label "fast battleships" for the Kongos suggests to me is that despite their obvious weaknesses as Battlecruisers, they could be half considered as Battleships because of their firepower, and overall design excellence. Thats notwithstanding their lossess to the US BBs in November 1942....

I don't know why the Japanese re rated the Kongo's as fast battleships as the changes they had were similar to those made to the Renown. Modern engines, weight saving that was allocated to better protection to air attack and AA defence. However the Renown remained a Battle cruiser, one that I would prefer to the Kongo.

The Schornhorst has as far as I know never been called weak or unsatisfactory. True 6 x 15in would be better than 9 x 11in and that was being changed but that was the only problem.

 

[Juha]

I agree with Glider on Renown, it was very useful ship for RN having respectable firepower in 6 * 15in and good heavy AA with 20*4.5in and enough speed to operate with fleet carriers, but still somewhat lacking in protection.

On Voldemort's list
I partly agree but
BB: Iowa class, they had speed to operate with fleet carriers and excellent AA, also the 16in/L50 was excellent 16in gun.
BC: Scharnhorst was not a bad design but it had a number of serious flaws: weak main armament, main armour deck was too low down because of the class was heavier than was designed, in fact at full load the main armoured deck was below waterline, also there was a discontinue over boiler rooms because of boilers were bigger than was thought and so the main armoured deck was heightened over boiler rooms but the vertical part of that was only 80mm thick and that proved to be a fatal weakness in Scharnhorst's case, a 14in shell from DOY hit there and penetrated and did massive damage in No 1 boiler room and doomed the ship in the Battle of North Cape. Also the general weakness of horizontal protection was shown when they were hit by level bombers. And torpedo protection, while effective at mid-ship was too weak at ends as shown when HMS Acasta hit Scharnhorst with a torpedo in 1940.

CA: I prefer Baltimore class
CL: I have nothing against Belfast but maybe Clevelands were better

A/S vessel: Loch class frigates because of their 2 Squids

Juha

 

[parsifal]

I don't know why the Japanese re rated the Kongo's as fast battleships as the changes they had were similar to those made to the Renown. Modern engines, weight saving that was allocated to better protection to air attack and AA defence. However the Renown remained a Battle cruiser, one that I would prefer to the Kongo.

The Schornhorst has as far as I know never been called weak or unsatisfactory. True 6 x 15in would be better than 9 x 11in and that was being changed but that was the only problem.

Agree that both the Kongos and the Renown were very extensively rebuilt.

There are quite a few authors that have commented on the unsatisfactory nature of the Scharnhorst. Tom Frame stands out as the most obvious to me. But consider this. They were built with 9 x 11 Guns fitted, which gave them a broadside weight 2970 kg per salvo. By comparison, the Renown could deliver 5274 kg per salvo and th kongos 5378 kg. I would hazard a guess and argue that the AP capabilities of the 15 and 14 inch guns was also superior. The only thing the german ship has an advantage, is that with a larger number of tubes shipped, they have a statistically higher chance of a hit per salvo.

In terms of ROF, the German gun is rated as having a an rof of 3 rpm.The 15 and 14 in guns had a nominal firing rates of 2 rpm. This means that the weight of ordinance delivered per minute by Scharnhorst was 8910 kg, compared to 10756 for the Kongo, and 10548 for the Renown.

Range is not as important as people imagine, since the longest ranged shot of the war did not exceed 27000 yards. All three guns were potentially lethal at that range. Neither was armour penetration, since Battlecruisers genenerally were underarmoured, and could not withstand heavy calibre hits. Mind you, the 11inch shells of the German ship are going to have some difficulty in some areas of the Renowns defensive armour scheme
And remember this, both Renown and Kongo were 20 years older than the Scharnhorst. If you want to compre aples to apples, the Scharnhorst on the displacement she draws, should be compared to the KGVs or the North Carolinas. Thats why she was an unsatisfactory and weak design

 

[Juha]

Also Scharnhorsts were wet forward, partly because they were heavier than planned. There was a marked difference here between Scharnhorsts and Renown when they met off Norway in 40. After Renown got a hit onto Gneisenau's foretop Scharnhorsts tried to disengage in which they succeeded in the end by running against strong headwind, but during the chase Scharnhorst's A turret was disabled and B turret suffered time to time from water cascaded over her bows while Renown could keep steady fire from her forward turrets.

Juha

ADDITION: I read the British descriptions on the 9th April 1940 action Renown vs Scharnhorts. According to Raven and Roberts also Renown run into difficulties with its forward turrets while sailing at full speed to the gale force sea. Maybe Germans didn't notice that or maybe they overstated their own technical problems in order to explain why they disengaged, Renown had ordered its DD screen away very early on and had pursuit alone the Scharnhorsts.

 

[Glider]

I knew that the Scharnhorsts were originally wet forward but the bows were rebuilt to overcome this difficulty. The difference between the 9 x 11in and the 6 x 15 has already been commented on but generally all these BC's could penetrate each other.

I also agree that the Schornhorst was 20 years later and a better comparison would be the USS Alaska, a ship of similar size, simlar protection and with 12in guns.

Unfortunately I haven't read Tom Frames book on the Scharnhorst so cannot comment on his paper.

 

[Amsel]

As a treaty ship in a incredibly outnumbered navy, playing the role of a BB against the RN ; it was doomed.

 

[Juha]

Hello Glider
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had got the the "Atlantic" bow already in 1939, so that clearly didn't solve the problem.

Amsel
In the gunnerly duel Scharnhorst and Gneisenau vs Renown they clearly were not outnumbered, Renown was. Renown had with it IIRC 8 DDs but those had no chance to stay with her in stormy weather and so soon fell far behind. Germans recognized Renown almost immediately, officers in Renown thought that they had made contact to Scharnhorst and Hipper, ie a modern BC and a modern CA, but attacked without hesitation.

On Alaska class, they were as they were classified large cruisers and so didn't have any torpedo protection to speak of contrary to British, German and japanese BCs.

Juha

 

[Amsel]

Juha, I'm well aware of the skirmish between the Renown and the S&G. The Scharnhorst was clearly outmatched, mostly due to the Renown's superior rifles and fire control. I'm just saying that the Scharnhorst was doomed. All the KM vessels were.

 

[parsifal]

I also agree that the Schornhorst was 20 years later and a better comparison would be the USS Alaska, a ship of similar size, simlar protection and with 12in guns.
.

Just remember that the Alaskas managed to put 9x 12 in guns to sea on a displacement just over 30000 tons. I have to draw attention to the fact that the Scharnhorsts only managed to put 9x11 in guns to sea on 38000 tons. The armouring scheme of the Scharnhorsts was more extensive, but not greatly so, ....the turrets on the Alaskas for example had armour plate 11-13 inches thick, whilst the turerets in the Scharnhorsts were 14 inches on the front facings and only 6 inches elsewhere. . The main belt was 6-13 in the Scharnhorsts compared to 5-9 inches in the Alaskas

The Alaskas are some of the most misunderstood ships in History. They are often referred to as Battlecruisers in popular literature, but the USN never rated them as such. Conways describes them as the logical development of Heavy Cruisers, free of all treaty restrictions. They were never intended to fight in the US gunline, like Battlecuisewrs were designed to do

 

[Juha]

Hello Parsifal
IMHO at least Renowns and the "big light cruisers", Glorious, Courageous and Furious were designed to fight against cruisers not battleships. Renowns got more armour during their refits in 20s and 30s but I doubt that they were seen as suitable to battleline, probably their function was more like as fast carrier escorts and as back up scouting forces. Maybe not, any case the bigger Hood was sent against Bismarck and Repulse was sent to Singapore with PoW but her adversities were probably seen being Kongos and heavy cruisers. Repulse duelled with Schanhorsts and with Italian BBs at Spartivento but was forbidden to engage Bismarck alone.

Juha

 

[parsifal]

No doubt....the BC concept was flawed in that it usually sacrificed too much firepower for speed and gunpower. Scharnhorsts sacrificed less protection but a lot of gunpower and retained a lot of speed

I think that Battlecruisers can join the gunline, but would probably be knocked out with only a few hits. They really needed Battleships to protect them

The exception to this was in the Med, where the Renown could face one or even two Italian Battleships, with some hope of success. The Italian BBs simply lacked the firing accuracy, and the orders they were always constrained by made them easy meat most of the time

 

[Glider]

Just remember that the Alaskas managed to put 9x 12 in guns to sea on a displacement just over 30000 tons. I have to draw attention to the fact that the Scharnhorsts only managed to put 9x11 in guns to sea on 38000 tons. The armouring scheme of the Scharnhorsts was more extensive, but not greatly so, ....the turrets on the Alaskas for example had armour plate 11-13 inches thick, whilst the turerets in the Scharnhorsts were 14 inches on the front facings and only 6 inches elsewhere. . The main belt was 6-13 in the Scharnhorsts compared to 5-9 inches in the Alaskas

The Alaskas are some of the most misunderstood ships in History. They are often referred to as Battlecruisers in popular literature, but the USN never rated them as such. Conways describes them as the logical development of Heavy Cruisers, free of all treaty restrictions. They were never intended to fight in the US gunline, like Battlecuisewrs were designed to do

I certainly agree that the Scharnhorst weighed more than the Alaska but I don't think the difference is as great as those mentioned in your posting.


I have
Scharnhorst Standard 34,800 tons, full load 38,900 tons
Alaska Standard 29,800 tons Full Load 34,250 tons.

Against this the Scharnhorst had much better armour. As you mention the Scharnhorst had a much thicker main belt by a significant margin. The Main Turret Armour was very similar
Alaska 12.75 in Face, 5 to 6in on the other areas,
Scharnhorst 14 in face, 6 in to the others.

I am as sure as I can that the extra weight went into the armour and the secondary weapons. 12 x 5.9 and 14 x 4.1 will weigh a lot more than 20 x 5in.

As for the titles these are more or less meaningless. At the end of the day the Dunkerque was designed to face off against the Graff Spee as was the Alaska (source American Battleships, Carriers and Cruisers ISBN 35601511 4) and the Scharnhorst was designed to take on the Dunkerque, so they share a similar bloodline. That the USA decided to use an enhanced Cruiser design is a logical and effective approach to solve a problem and they ended up with a good solution.

Juha
No battlecruiser was supposed to stand in the battleline and slug it out against a Battleship. To do so is asking for trouble.

 

[tomo pauk]

No doubt....the BC concept was flawed in that it usually sacrificed too much firepower for speed and gunpower. Scharnhorsts sacrificed less protection but a lot of gunpower and retained a lot of speed

Was the marked part a typo?

BCs were the drednoughts that sacrificed armor to gain speed; their armament was in 90% cases same as BBs had.
Since Scharnhorst had a tick armour, it's not Battlecruiser.

As for the flawed concept: it was Royan Navy BC designs that were flawed. German ships were much better.

 

[Glider]

Was the marked part a typo?

BCs were the drednoughts that sacrificed armor to gain speed; their armament was in 90% cases same as BBs had.
Since Scharnhorst had a tick armour, it's not Battlecruiser.

As for the flawed concept: it was Royan Navy BC designs that were flawed. German ships were much better.

BC's were capital ships that made a sacrifice for speed. Generally British ones sacrificed armour, German one sacrificed firpower. Even in WW1 German BC's tended to have 12 in guns instead of British 13.5in or 11 in against British 12 in.
It is well known that German WW1 BC's had thicker protection than RN BC's it was a trend that continued into WW2. There was nothing new about this trend.

People was lyrical about the Kongo, it should be remembered that she was a British design based on a British WW1 BC with the same flaws as late RN BC's namely thinner armour.

 

[tomo pauk]

BC's were capital ships that made a sacrifice for speed. Generally British ones sacrificed armour, German one sacrificed firpower. Even in WW1 German BC's tended to have 12 in guns instead of British 13.5in or 11 in against British 12 in.

Most of the German WW1 battleships had either 11 or 12 inch guns. Since that was also a calibre of their battlecruisers, I'd say the firepower wasn't reduced.

It is well known that German WW1 BC's had thicker protection than RN BC's it was a trend that continued into WW2. There was nothing new about this trend.

What RN and KM battlecruisers after 1930 could back up that statement?

People was lyrical about the Kongo, it should be remembered that she was a British design based on a British WW1 BC with the same flaws as late RN BC's namely thinner armour.
People have likes dislikes. My fav designs for WW1 are QE and Seydlitz.

.

 

[tomo pauk]

On a more affirmative note, Ive just googled out this nice illustration:

ships of the kriegsmarine - Warbird Photo Album

Posted on our very own forum, nevertheless

 

[Soren]

Was reading about the Scharnhorst and surprisingly it seems like its armament was able to outrange that of many other battleships with a maximum range of 41 km. Only the Bismarck Tirpitz could shoot further at 42 to 55 km according to what I've read so far.

Max range of the Yamato's massive 46cm guns was 42 km.