Best World war two warships?

tomo pauk said:

Originally Posted by Glider
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. .

Click to expand...

Taking your points one at a time
The first RN BC's had 12 in Guns, the first German BC's had 11 in guns. However the armour on these vessels were different. RN vessels having a belt of around 6 in, the German vessels 11 in.
The second wave of British BC's had 13.5in guns and the belt armour was about 9in. The equivalent German Vessels had 12in guns and the belt armour was about 12 in.
The RN then went to 15in Guns but the German Navy didn't build any more BC. The trend is clear, ship for ship the german BC had less firepower but better protection.

The Sharnhorst was a continuation of the general theme, better protection less armour. As for the RN, she abandoned the BC as a class and concentrated on the KGV and Lion Class BB's.

As for your fav designs from WW1 I would agree with you, the QE and Seyditz were excellent designs.

Soren said:

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.

Click to expand...

True but these are only theoretical ranges in the sense that all you would do is use up your ammunition and wear the guns out. You would never hit anything at that range.

tomo pauk said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes

I meant sacrifices in protection

Hello Soren
I wonder what are your sources for the range of the 15in on Bismarck and Tirpitz?
Germany 38 cm/52 (14.96") SK C/34 gives max 36 520m with AP shell, which is the same figure that for ex Garzke Dulin give.
In coastal artillery installation the gun had max range of 42 000m with AP because of higher elevation available and max 54,900m for much lighter HE shell. But you are talking on Bismarck and Tirpitz and compared it to range of 11in and 18in firing AP shell.

Juha

Hi Guys,

some comments to the last posts.

The Scharnhorst has the better protection but the Dunkerque has the better weapons. The unknown question would be if the 13in guns would be enough to seriously compromise the german armour.

Click to expand...

Thats not the truth. Dunkerque is better protected than SH and has had much more worse weapons.
The french guns were to closely spaced together and suffered from problems with excessive dispersion. Also they were to short with L50 for there high muzzle velocity.
On the other hand the 11in/54.5 SK C/34 was to my opinion the best balanced german heavy naval gun ever built and it was very accurate. SH made the longest gunfire hit ever on a moving target (Glorious) at 26,465 yds.
The weak point at the SH protection is the upper belt with 45mm and the low main deck with 80mm. At a range up from 18000-19000m a projectile can go directly from the upper belt to the main deck and that isn't a good protection. There was the overall protection from Dunkerque with 220mm inclined main belt and 130mm main deck (high) much better.
But at a 1 on 1 straight battle at 1940 or 1941 i will bet on SH/GS because of the much better guns and I'm
a big fan of the french battleship design of WWII, but the guns of the Dunkerque- and Richellieu-Class were **** with the excessive dispersion problems.

The four BCs lost at Jutland were lost a much from Beatty's stupidity as anything to do with the design faults

Click to expand...

Sorry parsifal but that is nonsens. The german BC's from WWI (Jutland) were much better protected than there british counterparts and the "security system" for the propellant charge in the turrents was much better by the germans (after the battle of doggerbank) than the british. The only very good and balanced british BC at Jutland was HMS Tiger. SMS Lützow took 24 heavy hits up from 12 inch at Jutland before sinking, therefrom 6 heavy hits in the bow and there was a design problem with the torpedoroom at the bow.

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.

Click to expand...

This hit from DOY isn't prooved. SH was 5 knots faster plotted from DOY at Nordcap by a wind strength of 9 (that's an Orkan) and that could be an argument for an extreme overpowering of the SH boilers. One shock impact from a 14inch projectile can release the lower speed of 22kn after this hit from DOY. The lower speed of 12 kn was after the first torpedo hit. For my opinion a real 14 inch hit to the boilers had a much higher impact than a loss of speed to 22kn.

I wonder what are your sources for the range of the 15in on Bismarck and Tirpitz?
Germany 38 cm/52 (14.96") SK C/34 gives max 36 520m with AP shell, which is the same figure that for ex Garzke Dulin give.

Click to expand...

That's totally correct because BS/TP had only an elevation of 30 degrees.
The coastal version was up to 55 degrees.

parsifal said:

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....

Click to expand...

RN called they old BC as BC for tradition but there was not more different use in WWII, near all time BB and "BC " was used like same ship. afaik no other navy used the battle cruiser name in WWII, but the name is not important as the doctrine of use, there was not more a doctrine particular for BC in WWII

voldemort said:

Carrier: Essex class CV
Battleship: Yamato class (Yamato and Musashi)
Heavy Cruiser: Norfolk
Light Cruiser: HMS Belfast

Click to expand...

Why the Yamato class? Aside from the 18" guns, the Iowa class BB's were superior in every single category.

Heavy cruiser? The Baltimore class CA's turned out to be excellent designs, serving well into the 1970's.

Light cruiser? The Cleveland class CL's were some fine designs.

Parsifal,

I must have been looking at the data for the coastal gun cause what you're saying makes more sense to me.

As for the Scharnhorst, it had one very sweet armament package! Those 28cm guns were excellent! With a RoF of 3.5 rounds pr. min and a 41 km range, and the record for longest ever obtained gunfire hit, thats impressive!

Hello Don
Quote: " that could be an argument for an extreme overpowering of the SH boilers. One shock impact from a 14inch projectile can release the lower speed of 22kn after this hit from DOY."

Interesting, I must admit that I haven't read any monographs on the Battle of North Cape but Garzke and Dulin in their Battleships Axis and Neutral Battleships in WWII (1986) write that one 14in exploded in No 1 Boiler Room after which SH's speed dropped to 8kts but fast damage control actions allowed soon the speed increase to 22 kts. They also claimed the burst in the boiler room in their Allied Battleships,1990 edition, also Humble in his old Hitler's high seas fleet (1972) claimed the same.

Hello Soren
IMHO even if the 11in gun was very good for 11in I'd not call Scharnhorst's armament even sweet, simply weak. German 28cm/L54 was typical German heavy naval gun with high MV but light shell, only 330kg AP shell, when compared to for ex the US 12in in Large Cruiser Alaska, which had 517kg AP shell. Renown's old 15in guns had 879kg AP shell. I didn't bother to check the weight of the AP shell of the IJN 14in. How effective German 28cm would have been against heavily armoured target we don't know because I don't recall any effective hit on those targets. IIRC DOY got two duds through its mast legs, Renown got one dud through mast and other dud through the ship far aft. That all were duds means nothing because the shells hit nothing very substantial so there was nothing to activate the fuzes. Glorious or cruisers at La Plata (Graf Spee) were not heavily armoured.

Juha

Glider said:

Taking your points one at a time
The first RN BC's had 12 in Guns, the first German BC's had 11 in guns. However the armour on these vessels were different. RN vessels having a belt of around 6 in, the German vessels 11 in.
The second wave of British BC's had 13.5in guns and the belt armour was about 9in. The equivalent German Vessels had 12in guns and the belt armour was about 12 in.
The RN then went to 15in Guns but the German Navy didn't build any more BC. The trend is clear, ship for ship the german BC had less firepower but better protection.

Think you've missed my point - I was comparing firepower within the navy, not within particular ship class. German WW1 BCs had about the same firepower as their BBs, and RN BCs' firepower was on par with their BBs. Therefore I'd say Germans did not sacrificed firepower of their BCs.

The Sharnhorst was a continuation of the general theme, better protection less armour.

Typo?

As for the RN, she abandoned the BC as a class and concentrated on the KGV and Lion Class BB's.

My point exactly: there was no comparison between interwar BCs of RN and KM simply because there was no new BCs to compare.

As for your fav designs from WW1 I would agree with you, the QE and Seyditz were excellent designs.

Click to expand...

.

parsifal said:

Yes

I meant sacrifices in protection

Click to expand...

Therefore, since Scharnhorst design put a great emphasis for armor protection, that collides with a definition of a Battlecruiser ( = BCs had reduced armor protection).

Originally Posted by Glider
Taking your points one at a time
The first RN BC's had 12 in Guns, the first German BC's had 11 in guns. However the armour on these vessels were different. RN vessels having a belt of around 6 in, the German vessels 11 in.
The second wave of British BC's had 13.5in guns and the belt armour was about 9in. The equivalent German Vessels had 12in guns and the belt armour was about 12 in.
The RN then went to 15in Guns but the German Navy didn't build any more BC. The trend is clear, ship for ship the german BC had less firepower but better protection.

Think you've missed my point - I was comparing firepower within the navy, not within particular ship class. German WW1 BCs had about the same firepower as their BBs, and RN BCs' firepower was on par with their BBs. Therefore I'd say Germans did not sacrificed firepower of their BCs.

Click to expand...

So despite the fact that the German Navy called them Battlecruisers, you are saying that the German Navy didn't have any Battlecruisers in WW1 because they had similar armour and firepower as the Battleships?

The Sharnhorst was a continuation of the general theme, better protection less armour.

Typo?

Click to expand...

No quite deliberate. Compared to new Capital Ships of the late 30's and early 40's the Sharnhorst clearly sacrificed guns not armour. After all the Bismark had 15in.

As for the RN, she abandoned the BC as a class and concentrated on the KGV and Lion Class BB's.

My point exactly: there was no comparison between interwar BCs of RN and KM simply because there was no new BCs to compare.

Click to expand...

The RN didn't need any new Batlecruisers as they already had three which were scheduled for major rebuilds similar to the Renown. Also as mentioned earlier they were concentrating on fast battleships.

tomo pauk said:

Therefore, since Scharnhorst design put a great emphasis for armor protection, that collides with a definition of a Battlecruiser ( = BCs had reduced armor protection).

Click to expand...

An interesting definition I will admit, one that I have not mentioned before.

Glider said:

So despite the fact that the German Navy called them Battlecruisers, you are saying that the German Navy didn't have any Battlecruisers in WW1 because they had similar armour and firepower as the Battleships?

When I said that German BCs of WW1 had similar armor as their BBs? I haven't said that WW1 German Navy had no BCs either.

No quite deliberate. Compared to new Capital Ships of the late 30's and early 40's the Sharnhorst clearly sacrificed guns not armour. After all the Bismark had 15in.

I was questioning your sentence "better protection less armour."

The RN didn't need any new Batlecruisers as they already had three which were scheduled for major rebuilds similar to the Renown. Also as mentioned earlier they were concentrating on fast battleships.

I was pointing towards your statement:

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.

Click to expand...

That might imply that new BCs were purchased after WW1. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

(about: ( = BCs had reduced armor protection). )
An interesting definition I will admit, one that I have not mentioned before.
Not really a definition, but true nevertheless. It was reply to persifal's post though.

Click to expand...

.

Juha said:

Hello Soren
IMHO even if the 11in gun was very good for 11in I'd not call Scharnhorst's armament even sweet, simply weak. German 28cm/L54 was typical German heavy naval gun with high MV but light shell, only 330kg AP shell, when compared to for ex the US 12in in Large Cruiser Alaska, which had 517kg AP shell. Renown's old 15in guns had 879kg AP shell. I didn't bother to check the weight of the AP shell of the IJN 14in. How effective German 28cm would have been against heavily armoured target we don't know because I don't recall any effective hit on those targets. IIRC DOY got two duds through its mast legs, Renown got one dud through mast and other dud through the ship far aft. That all were duds means nothing because the shells hit nothing very substantial so there was nothing to activate the fuzes. Glorious or cruisers at La Plata (Graf Spee) were not heavily armoured.

Juha

Click to expand...

Weak? With 9x 28cm guns shooting 3.5 rounds a minute? You're being very onesided right now.

Also 330 kg wasn't light for a 28cm gun, it was normal Juha, look it up.

As for their power, they were plenty powerful enough to threaten a ship like the Hood.

Hello Soren
Yes, IMHO weak/light for 31 500 tons standard displacement capital ship, look all other comparable ships. Also KM knew that, that's why they planned to rearm them with 6*15in. 330kg was light for capital ship, even the main armament of Large Cruiser Alaska had 517kg shell. But as I wrote even KM didn't think 11in was adequate.

Juha

Well the big guns/weak armor vs. strong armor/medium guns fast capital ship debate was already 'discussed', I would say rather decisively at Skagerrak, so I don't quite get it why it needs to be re-examined again.

That argument against 11" guns was lost in 1916 already... the choice of 11" guns was largely political, and obviously 15" guns would be better. There are two decisive arguements in favour of the 11" guns, however.

Firstly, using them, as they were available while the 15" armament would meant delays, and rushing the construction of these capital ships meant that they were available when they were needed. Secondly, the 11", despite its size, punched a big enough hole to be perfectly sufficient against the most likely adversaries (Dunkerque and Renown classes), which were much more lightly armored. At the same time, 11" guns were probably better choices against a numerous cruiser attack.

Hello Juha,

Interesting, I must admit that I haven't read any monographs on the Battle of North Cape but Garzke and Dulin in their Battleships Axis and Neutral Battleships in WWII (1986) write that one 14in exploded in No 1 Boiler Room after which SH's speed dropped to 8kts but fast damage control actions allowed soon the speed increase to 22 kts. They also claimed the burst in the boiler room in their Allied Battleships,1990 edition, also Humble in his old Hitler's high seas fleet (1972) claimed the same.

Click to expand...

I know that. Everyone is looking to an explanation for the the loss of speed to 8kn and than 22kn.
But no survivor from SH could confirm this hit with an explosion in the boiler room only a hit with a large shock.
I think this hit was going through the upper belt and was stopped from the main deck and came to an explosion with a large shock impact. A striking hit to the boiler rooms under the main deck has had much more impact on the vessel. So i think the SH machinery was very much overpowered at the moment of the hit from DOY because SH was 5 knots faster than DOY plotted from DOY and the shock of this hit was the reason for the loss of sppeed.

Yes, IMHO weak/light for 31 500 tons standard displacement capital ship, look all other comparable ships. Also KM knew that, that's why they planned to rearm them with 6*15in. 330kg was light for capital ship, even the main armament of Large Cruiser Alaska had 517kg shell. But as I wrote even KM didn't think 11in was adequate.

Click to expand...

I agree. But the 11in/54.5 SK C/34 gun was a very good gun and very accurate. I good belt penetrator 335mm at 15000m and 291mm at 18000m but a very poor deck penetrator but overall to weak for a real Battleship.

The small guns, the old armoured shema with the upper belt and the low main deck and the politics were the big problems of SH and GS.

With no politics and a "K-Amt" that would be much more innovative like the french and the italian there could be a very "nice" vessel that could match with most of the capital ships other nations.

For exampel i had worked on an alternative design for SH/GS with the same weight .

Displacement: 38000 ts maximun
Length: 245m
Beam: 30 m
Draught: 9.8m
Propulsion: 16 MAN-Typ M12Z42/58 (Diesel engines) with 4 shafts
144000 SHP

Speed: 30 knots (service)
31,5 knots (trials)

Armament: 6 × 15 inch/52 SK C/34 (2x3) Trippleturrents
otherwise like the original

Armour: Belt: 350 mm inclined
main Deck (high) 130 mm

The Zitadelle would be 135-140m against the original of 170m and the airkraft and Hangar would be on the stern. The only weak point of this design is the small expansion room for torpedo hits because of the drippleturrents and the small beam of 30m



.

Hello Kurfürst
Yes, the choice of 11in was largely political and was forced on KM, the other point was the timetable but that didn't chance the fact that end result wasn't very good. Look on deck penetrated ability of 28cm and you see why KM wanted replace them with 15in.

Juha

It would have been interesting if the 15"' had been fitted to her.

Hello Don
on 14in hit, interesting and possible.
On Your Scharnhorst, looked good, even if as a bit conservative person I like more the 3*2 15in solution. The armour scheme looks good, probably fuel and 45mm torpedo bulkhead would have contained splinters from any shell deflected by sloped belt into torpedo defence system, what you think?

I'm in complete agreement with your analyze on 28cm gun.

Juha

ADDITION: On 14in hit, I recall that Garzke and Dulin claimed that some sharpnels from that hit penetrated the bottom of the boiler room and flood water from those holes rose up to foot boards. On 28cm gun, it seems to have been typical german gun optimized to medium range engagements, ie very good agains belts not so good against decks when British heavy guns were optimized for long range engagements, "deck penetrators". Now all Scharnhorsts combats against capital ships were medium range affairs but on the other hand they could use 28cm gun great range and accuracy against Glorious.