Best World war two warships?

[Henk]

Thanks mate. You must try it it is great, at first it was crap and then I started to get use to it and got good at it. I do not want to be a designer, I were not good at maths and science. No, I draw them by hand and it is on large papers to big to scan. I wish I could get them on my PC, but to draw them on PC is not my stile i love drawing them on paper it is more fun. I will try to take a picture to post.

Henk

 

[carpenoctem1689]

Awesome, that sounds really cool. Do you do it on large graph paper and such to keep dimensions and everything, are they to any particular scale, or just whatever it turns out as? I have free handed some real battleships and some designs ive come up with but nothing on anything bigger than a notebook page. I have a note book i just scetch in, though your idea sounds much more fun, might have to steal it <.< >.>

nice to find someone with an affinity for battleships once and a while, keep up the designs, you can only get better

 

[Henk]

No, it is a large white blank page and I use a scale like 4mm is one meter, because I do not have a large enough page to have a larger scale.

Thanks mate and try it and great to find someone who love battleships.

Henk

 

[KraziKanuK]

If you want to get into the nitty-gritty of tha Yamato, get the Anatomy of the Ship on the Yamato by Janusz Skulski, ISBN0-87021-019-X. Over 600 perspective and scale 3 view drawings on 159 pages.

 

[Henk]

Oh yes that sounds good thanks mate. The only thing that got my attention from the Yamato is the range finders, guns, secondary and the aft hull the rest is a faillure for me and thus will only make it bad in combat situation. Look where the AA guns are, all together in one place just waiting for a bomb.

Henk

 

[KraziKanuK]

Henk, one on the Bismarck ISBN 0851779824 (did not know about this one)

A list of the books in the series:

The Flower Class Corvette Agassiz
The Cutter Alert, 1777
The Submarine Alliance
The Cruiser Bartolomeo Colleoni
HMS Beagle Survey Ship Extraordinary, 1820–1870
The Cruiser Belfast
The 74-Gun Ship Bellona
The Schooner Bertha L. Downs
The 20-Gun Ship Blandford
The Armed Transport Bounty
The Destroyer Campbeltown
The Royal Yacht Caroline, 1749
The Ships of Christopher Columbus (Niña, Pinta, Santa Maria)
The Frigate Diana
The Battleship Dreadnought
Captain Cook's Endeavour
The Destroyer Escort England
The 32-Gun Frigate Essex
The Fairmile "D" Motor Torpedo Boat
The Battleship Fuso
The Escort Carrier Gambier Bay
The Bomb Vessel Granado, 1742
The Battlecruiser Hood
The Aircraft Carrier Intrepid
The Four Masted Barque Lawhill
The 24-Gun Frigate Pandora, 1779
The Liner Queen Mary
The Destroyer The Sullivans
The Susan Constant, 1607
The Heavy Cruiser Takao
The Type VII U-boat
The Type XXI U-boat
The Aircraft Carrier Victorious
The 100-Gun Ship Victory
The Battleship Warspite
The Battleship Yamato

 

[Henk]

Oh yes those look great I wish I could get my hands on some of them. Thanks mate. Do you have some of them?

Henk

 

[carpenoctem1689]

I wish i had them, never can know too much about them. My only paper reference that i own only provides one overhead and horizontal of battleships, carriers and various other warships, the general statistics and only a brief summary

 

[Henk]

I learned a lot when I got Janes Fighting Ships of WW2. I want some more books on Battleships, but the book shops here are crap when it comes to battleships and WW2 and expensive.

Henk

 

[carpenoctem1689]

I know what you mean. the borders and all the other book stores have never even heard of janes fighting warships, and wouldnt order them for me..bastards. i mean i really wanted that book.

 

[Henk]

Assholes, it does have some problems here and there, but it is great to find out if a shit were actualy a great gun platform. I also have Jane's fighting ships of WW1 and Jane's fighting aircraft of WW2.

Henk

 

[carpenoctem1689]

both those books would serve me pretty damn well, i need to do some online shopping, but first i need some funds for this shopping, i have too many projects running as it is, warship models, aircraft models, learning how to paint, a girlfreind, and gas, and guess whats next, no job.

hypothetical battle. Richleu *butchered spelling but thats allright, ill just refer to it as R) against Bismarck. According to this website R was better than the Bismarck http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm but come on, the comparison must seriously not consider the combat effectiveness of these vessels. The R has all guns concentrated forward, like the nelsons, making them easy to knock out all main battery fire power with one shell hit. She had good underwater protection, and decent armor, but i doubt the crew would be well trained, considering the french navy had languished somewhat in training, building speeds and such. Bismarck now, amazing ship, my opinion best BB of the atlantic. Fast, well armed and can certainly, as was proven, take a pounding and a half. If she could get behind R (its french, come on it was pracitally made to run) then it would easily win. if R were to trun, it would be the same as the yamato vs iowa scenario, the pursuer would have a manouvering and firepower advantage, and could close range quickly and fire more rounds. i would easily take bismarck

 

[Henk]

Yep, the R is not in the same class as the Bismarck and the crew of the Bismarck were ready for combat and they were well trained. The French were made to run from war and they would not have stood a chanse.

Now then the Nelson is a other stupid battleship and the only thing is, crap.

The same problems here mate, girls, gas and no car only my moms car and she just wants gas.

Oh, by the way you have a PM mate.

Henk

 

[delcyros]

This webpage has grave shortcomings. I put forward a lot of arguments in another thread (was it battleship raiders?). All indicates a very unbalanced view, giving US - ships a generally higher credit for unproven aspects (just to name one: the underwater protection, which was considered even by the USN in 1943 as weak, since Washingtons somehow similar TDS was defeated by a japanese standart submarine torpedo - not even a long lance), while all benefittal aspects of Yamato and Bismarck in special are neglected or greatly reduced (take rate of fire: they almost halved Bismarcks rpm, while they reduced Iowas by 18% only or the belt protection: vitals of Bismarck cannot be reached by side hits. The sloped deck behind was simply not taken into consideration, or range: simply false numbers) Some aspects with disadvantage (metacentric height protected buoyancy reserve, compartimentation) for US ships are completely neglected. All this seems to indicate that the author puts a good deal of patriotism (which is ok) and all-or-nothing pathetics.
Last but not least he failed to acknowledge that Iowa and South Dakota´s so called "decapping plates" would never ever decap a 15" round. Nathan Okun proves this in his revised dacapping analysis (after he wrote in his otherwise excellent Bismarck armour scheme protection that the plate barely decaps). The webpage also neglects that Littorios decapping plate ALWAYS decaps projectiles before they reach the belt, mistakes and mistakes. Other than this , I like the way of analyzing there.

 

[Henk]

Yes, I only use it to show the battleships that were some of the strongest, yes I agree they do have great shortcomings. The Bismarck does not get the credit it need and the fact that some think the Rodney and Nelson were such great battleships is bullshit. I think they were worse than the Richelieu.

Ag you know the thing is that I still say the Iowa is my best, but the Bismarck is in the same frame and the Iowa also has here shortcomings and so does the Bismarck.

Henk

 

[carpenoctem1689]

Iowas underwater protection was not great, and thats being generous. she was said to be wet in heavy seas, her beam should have been wider, but need for the panama canal caused that.

Richeleu was in opinion not so good a battleship. First of all, its like a faster nelson, with better armor protection, especially against torperdoes. However all guns forward in two turrets made the damn thing defenseless as it ran (from a distance). I wouldnt imagine AA would be so good, since most of its on the aft deck, restricting forward fire with the secondary guns. hit she ship in the bow around the waterline, and the bow would sink, imagine steaming forward with a gaping hole in the armor and alot of the armor weight, and the main battery weight further forcing the bow down into the water and bring water into the ship. Would sink quite quickly i imagine.

Yanato as stated earlier had a cluttered deck, with alot of its vitals standing tall amidhsips, asking for a nice shell hole. It did however have the airacraft launchers on the fan tail, looks familiar on modern ships too doesnt it? I dont have much else to badmouth yamato.

Bismarck, awesome ship. Needed the rudder to be fixed. Ive heard from a bismarck special on the history channel, and read somewhere that bismarcks rudder inadequacy was made known, but didnt have time to be fixed. Other than that, nothing against it.

 

[Henk]

100% correct. I must say you took the words out of my mouth.8)

Henk

 

[Glider]

Sorry but I must disagree with some of your assumptions. Having all the guns at the front is a risk in that one shot could knock out all the guns, however ths was unlikely. The turrets were spread as far apart as possible to reduce the risk. The turrets themselves were split into two with thick armour between each pair of guns within the turret. The Dunquirk had a similar arrangement and was hit in the turret but only two guns were knocked out the other two kept firing. So the theory worked.

Saying that having the guns at the front was a disadvantage when running away, works on the basis that the battle had already been fought and lost.

Having all the guns at the front does give the French ship tactical advantages as it will always fire full broadsides. For instance it could reverse its direction and cut behind the opposing ship, or it could decide to close the range rapidly. Whereas the Bismark is stuck in one general direction and to close the range would involve losing half its firepower putting it at a significant disadvantage.

The battle would be close and luck would play a major part.

As for AA guns the heavy AA was not effective until the proximity fuse was developed and the light AA was more important. ON this basis the positioning of the light AA guns was more important and that was pretty well spread out.

 

[carpenoctem1689]

Yes, the theory about the guns not being knocked out worked the one time it did happen, buy why take the risk? I mean spreading the guns would eliminate the possiblity of that happening altogether.

Yes she could fire a full broadside at all times ill give her that, but paying the price listed above, and the fact that when running away you couldnt use the main battery. Yes the battle may have been lost due to hits, the wish to disengage, or the thought of enemy reinforcements on the way. BUT, why risk the ships total loss if only the battle is lost? Live to fight again another day, or at least cover your ass as best you can on your way out. Any engagement between battleships depends on many variables, as i said before, however i dont feel bismack and richeleu is really an even match. Granted the Richeleu wasnt horrible, but i would NEVER put all main battery forward.

Richeleus inability to have as suffecient amount of heavy AA forward would become a major hinderance as aircraft became more widely used in attacking battleships. Yes it had adequate Light AA forward, but with that theory, you couldnt shoot at the possible swarms of enemy aircraft (in the atlantic, many ships found themseleves in range of land based attack aircraft or bombers, especially since Richeleu being a french BB, would operate in the mediterranean theater quite possibly). Now that you cant shoot long range Heavy AA to at least brake up the attackers formations, your hit by waves of enemy aircraft and you cant shoot them until you yourself are in range of guns, soon to be bombs and torpedoes.

 

[delcyros]

I am going to finish my paper on Iowa vs Yamato armour scheme comparison. Only minor things left, all computations finished by now. From what I analyzed, Iowa is no one on one equal contender. You will read soon why but I can tell you now that the only chance would be to use it´s superior speed to either disengage on it´s own initiative or to close into less than 16.000 yrds range and hope that it will be still in fighting condition afterwards (what follows is a direct pounding where both can defeat each others protection). To stay in medium - long range (fighting doctrine of USN and IJN, and therefore the most plausible scenario) would be suicide for Iowa, it´s vitals are totally exposed while Yamato´s vitals on the other side are 16" - proof. Only a fluke hit on a small area behind turret B may blew up Yamato (unlike Iowa) at distance...