Most heavily Armed ship during ww2.

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

Just a small, tiny, correction about the Battlecruiser. It was always intended to go against any kind of ship, what it was never intended to do was to get into a slugging match with a Battleship.

The Battlecruiser should have been used as a powerful hit and run vessel. It's quite remarkable that the British invented the Battlecruiser and they also developed perfect tactics for them but time and again they forgot to read the manual! The Battle of Jutland and the sinking of H.M.S Hood are both times when the Royal Navy forgot that a Battlecruisers main defence is it's speed!
 
Hood had a top speed of 30kts D slower than Bismark so it was always going to be a slugging match. When the Battle cruiser was first designed I agree they where 10kts faster than the battleships of the day so as you say they could use speed to an advantage so I stand corrected MR D .At jutland they also stacked munitions in the corridors as they had over filled the magazines.Not a good idea
 
The H.M.S Hood was set for a re-fit though, personally I don't believe she should have been sent out into the oceans until that was done but that is with the benefit of hindsight.

In Jutland, as in the Hood, the turrets were stacked with cordite, which happens to be against Royal Navy regulation both then and now. The gunners enjoyed a higher rate of fire though. The light armour of the Battlecruiser left it open to destruction in the slugging match of Jutland.
 
You mean with the regulations? I think they've updated it to encompass all weapons explosives on the ship, like missiles and such. You don't want the hanger to be full of missiles ready to be put on GR.7s, when the ship gets hit.

And I honestly think if someone got on the Ark Royal and started packing cordite around the inner workings of it, someone might say "What the hell are you doing?"

Unless it was the Ark Royals mascot, that African Grey, then it'd probably say "Show us yah tits" ...oh, I started rambling.
 
Speaking of Iowa class, the picture below is on the USS Missouri during the surrender ceremonies in Tokyo Bay. The guy in the lower left, in the circle is my wife's cousin! When I found that out, I was amazed. Unfortunately, Teddy passed away before I met my wife. I would have loved to talk to him.
 

Attachments

  • teddy_191.jpg
    104.8 KB · Views: 675
I visited the USS North Carolina when I was out there visiting my uncle, and I was totally blown away by the scale of that thing! I've visited HMS Belfast and several modern RN vessels, and they're like tugboats compared to a USN BB Certainly the greatest concentration of firepower (barring CV's) that was ever set afloat!
 
Thats some pic Evan he must have felt very privaledged to see such an important moment in history.
Its a shame they couldnt have kept a Battleship from the UK fleet as a reminder. when the Belfast was proposed as maritime attraction I seem to remember the old Ironduke was still about (somewhere in the middleeast I think) it would have been nice to see her saved.
 
I saw the New Jersey up close, at Norfolk. What a monster! She wasn't berthed at the naval yard, she was tied up in the inner harbour, and I wasn't expecting to see this massive battleship when I rounded the corner.
And once again, the camera was at home.
 
There certainly an impressive symbol of sea power Skim I have a little 2 meg camera that I wear around my neck so If something crops up I can get a reasonable picture it's only 1" X 3"
 

Attachments

  • camera_499.jpg
    10.8 KB · Views: 633
"Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall Who's the Baddest of Them All?"

I found this article and think it should settle once and for all what is the most heavily armed ship. Plain and simply, its always been a battleship, and saying that a PT boat armed with a couple of MG and a couple of torpedo's is in the same league as a capital ship is lunacy.

The gentleman who wrote this article took into consideration all the factors that made up a battleship and quantified it. The results are surprising. Just because the Germans had a ship like the Bismark or the Japanese the Yamato doesnt mean automatically its great.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

Enjoy!
 
That's all well and good but an aircraft carrier would have no problem dealing with a BB. That said, the BB will always be the most heavily armed in terms of guns and no one has disagreed. I think you'll find the Iowa Class BB mentioned by me already on this thread.
 
Had a quick look at thet web site SYS not totally convinced at one point he states the Bofors had a higher rate of fire than the PomPom the KGV had 1x 40mm Bofors and 4 multi barrelled pompoms
It was very rare for the pompom to be less than 4 barrelled and normally eight on major war ships the unit was treated the same as the modern Phlanx or Gatling gun although multi barrelled it was a single weapon this gave it a rate of fire of 90 X 2lb rounds per barrel per minute in otherwords 720 RPM for each weapon with a maximum range of 13000ft this is less than the Bofors which could reach 23000ft but inpractice the Bofors was best below 12000ft,the Bofors rate of fire was 120 rounds per minute but in the case of the USN quad barreled unit it gave a rate 440 RPM (or with really good loaders 540RPM) both the 4 barrelled Bofors and the 8 barrelled pompom's required large crews to keep there thirsty magazines supplied.
Having said all of that, personaly I dont neccesarily go along with his findings regarding the heaviest armed vessel of ww2.
 

Attachments

  • pom_pom_341.jpg
    34.3 KB · Views: 532
  • 40mm_176.jpg
    61.3 KB · Views: 528
I think what we are trying to do is work out the most heavily armed ship in comparison with its size. IE. for how small it is the PT Boats are very well armed.
 
HealzDevo said:
I think what we are trying to do is work out the most heavily armed ship in comparison with its size. IE. for how small it is the PT Boats are very well armed.
Click to expand...

In that case Healzdevo I'll go for the LCT(R) (Rocket firing landing craft)
This had a set of launchers for 60-lb rockets mounted on the covered-over tank deck. The full set of launchers was 'in excess of' 1,000 The firepower was claimed to be equivalent to 80 light cruisers or 200 destroyers.(I think they mean in terms of a broadside)

The method of operation was to anchor off the target beach, pointing towards the shore. The distance to the shore was then measured by radar and the elevation of the launchers set accordingly. The crew then vanished below (apart from the commanding officer who retreated to a special cubby hole to control things) and the launch was then set off electrically.
 
I agree from some of the D-Day footage pity the poor Germans if those LCT(R)s were aimed accurately as they really did put in a heavy barrage. Pity they weren't aimed more accurately orginally as they probably could have reduced US casualities quite a bit at Omaha if they had hit the German Defences in the right places.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Were airborne operations in WW2 worth it?
Replies
14
Views
784
frankv
F
O
How America Leaped Into WW2 After Pearl Harbor...(or did we?)
Replies
15
Views
2K
fannum
N
US Navy WW2 squadron patch
Replies
1
Views
1K
Wurger
D
Help with RAF WW2 service record
Replies
10
Views
2K
Sabrejet
A
WW2 Japanese Flag Translation
Replies
18
Views
4K
AerialTorpedoDude69
Menu
Log in
Register