Most heavily Armed ship during ww2.

elmilitaro said:

In my opinion it was the Patrol Torpedo Boat or better yet known as the PT Boat.

Click to expand...

In terms of armament per weight, that's defensible, but certainly not in any sort of absolute terms.

Since I count carrier's aircraft as part of its armament, one of the Essex class carriers. If you don't consider that reasonable, it would have to be the Yamato or Musashi, with the USN post-1935 battleships in second place.

I dont see how we can compare different categorie of ship on anything like a level of playing field. You need to nominate most heavily armed ship in each category. Even then the criteria for measuring most heavily armed is relative....a ship with a heavy gun or torpedo armament, like the Shimakaze, wont do very well when looking at AA defences, or ASW capability...

Restricting each class to a primary mission of anti-surface role (a very big assumption), I would rate the ships in the following classes

1. BB : Yamato, honourable mention to the Iowas
2. BC : Hood
3. CA : Suzuya
4. CL: Southampton or Fiji
5. DD: Shimakaze, honourable mention to the Taskkent
6. TB (large): T-28 (I think...also known as the Elbings)
7. DE: Matsu
8: SS: Type XXI
9. PT: "S" Boote

The Brooklyn class light cruisers were the best,

Multiple engagements in the MTO and PTO proved their worth. Anyone want to argue about having fifteen 6" guns proven under actual combat and battle conditions?

parsifal said:

1. BB : Yamato, honourable mention to the Iowas
2. BC : Hood
3. CA : Suzuya
4. CL: Southampton or Fiji
5. DD: Shimakaze, honourable mention to the Taskkent

Click to expand...

I can pretty much agree with this, but one could also say the Alaska to be the most heavily armed CA and the Mogami-class to be the most heavily armed CL.

JtD said:

I can pretty much agree with this, but one could also say the Alaska to be the most heavily armed CA and the Mogami-class to be the most heavily armed CL.

Click to expand...

Just what exactly did the CB's? do?

syscom3 said:

Just what exactly did the CB's? do?

Click to expand...

Other than waste money and resources?

The Alaskas were lovely ships, easily the most powerful "cruisers" of the war, but the specific role for which they were constructed ceased to exist in late 1942, which is why the other ships of the class were never finished. About their most important role in history has been as troll bait: "were the Alaskas battlecruisers?" or "in a one-on-one fight, which would prevail: Alaska or Scharnhorst?"

swampyankee said:

About their most important role in history has been as troll bait: "were the Alaskas battlecruisers?" or "in a one-on-one fight, which would prevail: Alaska or Scharnhorst?"

Click to expand...

, yes, sums it up nicely.

If you give the crews the same level of training and remove luck from the battle, I'd have to give the Alaska a bit of an edge.

there is an oldthread somewhere that debated this topic in great depth. given that the KGV in its fight with the scharnhorst was pretty hard pressed at times to bring the german ship down, its hard to see how the alaska can be given a great edge

Not a great edge vs the KGV class but the American 12" guns were in a class of their own as far as 12" guns go.

It does come down to luck. The American 12" guns are a lot more powerful than the German 11" guns but the protection is a lot weaker. SO it comes down to who hits first and where. The American 12" guns at 25,000yds were almost the same as the British 14" as far as penetration goes but the British shells carried a much larger bursting charge.

The American guns fire faster than the British guns but not as fast as the Germans but at long range they may not use the top rate of fire, at long range you might be able to have the 3rd salvo in the air before the first one lands.

Shortround6 said:

Not a great edge vs the KGV class but the American 12" guns were in a class of their own as far as 12" guns go.

It does come down to luck. The American 12" guns are a lot more powerful than the German 11" guns but the protection is a lot weaker. SO it comes down to who hits first and where. The American 12" guns at 25,000yds were almost the same as the British 14" as far as penetration goes but the British shells carried a much larger bursting charge.

The American guns fire faster than the British guns but not as fast as the Germans but at long range they may not use the top rate of fire, at long range you might be able to have the 3rd salvo in the air before the first one lands.

Click to expand...

This is far away from reality!

After the Navyweapons homepage and the World War II Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables, which are basing on Nathan Okuns facehard program, which in reality gave USA and Brititish guns through biases and ignoring primary sourcing about german guns and armour, from the ground a slight edge, this claim is far away from reality.

Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables
Britain Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables
United States Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables
Germany Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables

German 11.1"/54 gun, 727-lb shell with 640-lb body weight against US class A steel in EFF (Effective Limit: fit to burst)
16000 yard: 12.9 inch
20000 yard: 10.9 inch
24000 yard: 9.2 inch

US 12"/50 gun, Mk 18-1 (Alaska class) 1,140-lb shell with 1,002.1-lb body weight; against german Kc/n.A steel in EFF (Effective Limit: fit to burst)
16000 yard: 13.7 inch
20000 yard: 11.8 inch
24000 yard: 10.4 inch

British 14"/45 gun, 14" Mk 1B 1,590-lb shell with 1,399-lb body weight; against german Kc/n.A steel in EFF (Effective Limit: fit to burst)
16000 yard: 17.8 inch
20000 yard: 15.7 inch
24000 yard: 14.2 inch

From german Gdokos1oo, the german gun is a slightly more powerful then after facehard from Nathan Okun.

Anyway what we can see is, that the british 14 inch gun it is in her own leage of vertical penetration power and far away from the US 12"/50 gun.
The german 11 inch is much much closer at US 12"/50 gun then the US 12"/50 at the british 14 inch gun. Also i can't see that the US 12 inch is so much more powerful then the german 11 inch gun.

Also at the deck penetration, the british 14 inch gun is much more powerful then US 12"/50, but both are to my opinion not able to penetrate the german spaced array armour of Scharnhorst under 30000 yards, after the newest found primary sources from British ADM letters and shooting test of the british Admirality against the german spaced array armour layout of 50mm weather deck and 80mm main armour deck, which was thicker over the magazines.

british
ADM 213-951 German steel Armour piercing ammunition and theory of penetration_1946
DEFE 15-490 High Obliquity Attack of Deck Targets. Part III
High Obliquity Attack of Deck Targets. Part I appears as the primary test report regarding the german horicontal protection registration unknown
SUPP 6-481 Underwater performance of shells (written shortly after High obliquity attack of deck targets ; this report consider the germen horizontal protection as beeing 6 inches single plate (equivalent)
SUPP 22-68 SPACED ARMOUR



The weak point of the SH class was it's very thin 2,30m high and 45mm thick upper belt, which is a weak point from ranges betwenn 19000 till 23000 yards, where a shell could penetrate the upper belt and could go directly to the 105mm slopes or 80mm main armour deck.

I have to say again that these two ships the Alaska and the Scharnhorst are fairly well matched. for main guns I'd say the 12 inch has a slight edge, but the Alaska offers a bigger target area. The secondary guns goes to the Scharnhorst, that might be the deciding factor if the range could be closed. But the Alaska has a touch more speed, so it may control the engagement and keep her distance. The German has a thicker belt so closing to get the fire off the deck might be wise. Much like the Hood was doing with the Bismarch. Once close the Schanhorst has torpedos that could come into play, which the Alaska didn't. So, again pretty close to a wash.

The issue is not so much the guns, as in the armouring scheme. Del has great details on this, but the difficulty is in the distribution. The German ships armourig scheme was exceptionally good, which made her a very hard ship to sink. It was possible, with difficulty to knock out Main guns but never simple.

Some of the pro-German guys (not DonL) have discounted the effects of the Allied radars, but in my opinion this made all the difference at North Cape. But despite several hits by DoY (a KGV class sistership) Scharnhorst was pretty much impervious to the hits until very late in the engagement. its not overstating the situation to describe the loss of Scharnhorst as very poor luck for the german ship.

parsifal said:

Some of the pro-German guys (not DonL) have discounted the effects of the Allied radars, but in my opinion this made all the difference at North Cape. But despite several hits by DoY (a KGV class sistership) Scharnhorst was pretty much impervious to the hits until very late in the engagement. its not overstating the situation to describe the loss of Scharnhorst as very poor luck for the german ship.

Click to expand...

I know what your saying, but I see the main issue with radar as being the unlucky loss of Scharnhorst's forward radar set in the first engagement. Once this happened the Germans were at severe disadvantage. The other problem for the Scharnhorst's command was becoming seperated from their own destroyers. This made completing the asigned mission all but impossible combined with the loss of the forward radar on their battleship. It also set Scharnhorst up to being surprized. Had the Scharnhorst had some friendly destroyers in company the radars on the destroyers could have given the German admiral a clear picture of the developing situations. The Scharnhorst could have taken evasive action in time.

parsifal said:

The issue is not so much the guns, as in the armouring scheme. Del has great details on this, but the difficulty is in the distribution. The German ships armourig scheme was exceptionally good, which made her a very hard ship to sink. It was possible, with difficulty to knock out Main guns but never simple.

Some of the pro-German guys (not DonL) have discounted the effects of the Allied radars, but in my opinion this made all the difference at North Cape. But despite several hits by DoY (a KGV class sistership) Scharnhorst was pretty much impervious to the hits until very late in the engagement. its not overstating the situation to describe the loss of Scharnhorst as very poor luck for the german ship.

Click to expand...

A very sophisticated and fair summary!
And that has nothing to do with my name in this post.

too much agreeing. we need to stop this right now!!!!!

A strange thing, to my eyes anyway, is that so many WW II naval engagements ( and some WW I) were decided by "lucky" hits.

How many times does the phrase "in the worst possible place" or it's equivalent show up in a description of a hit or damage? In ships 600-800ft long with 50-66% of the length having torpedo protection how often did the torpedoes hit just forward or aft of the protection?

Or one of the first (only?) hits striking the bridge or fire control or main turret? Targets that represent a percentage of the whole ship in single digits.

Shortround6 said:

A strange thing, to my eyes anyway, is that so many WW II naval engagements ( and some WW I) were decided by "lucky" hits.

How many times does the phrase "in the worst possible place" or it's equivalent show up in a description of a hit or damage? In ships 600-800ft long with 50-66% of the length having torpedo protection how often did the torpedoes hit just forward or aft of the protection?

Or one of the first (only?) hits striking the bridge or fire control or main turret? Targets that represent a percentage of the whole ship in single digits.

Click to expand...

This is very speculative!
Nearly all turrets of the famous five of Hippers BC's were out of action at the end of the day, but they could sunk 3 enemy BC's, Lützow was lost through not enough training at damage control, Seydlitz could manage to sail to port with "more" damage.
The hit at Hood was something of luck, also the torpedo hit to Bismarck's control surface and to my ooinion the first hit from DoY at 12000 yards to turret Anton of SH, and the circumstances at 18.20 are mor luck then planed shooting.

Which other battles were luck?

Don't forget the lucky hit on Graf Spee, disabling their oil cleaning machinery. Or, not direct a naval battle, the torp hit that basically crippled the PoW (+ rather bad damage control, failing to restore/stabilize the power circuits for the pumps + AAA).

the problem with this "lucky hit" scenario are all th battles, or all the salvoes where "lucky hits" werent achieved. You dont read about those battles, because nothing intersting happens.

Typically a ship would carry several hundred rounds of ammunition. And typically also, in a naval battle, that ship was likley to expend a good part of that ammunition supply to get that one "lucky hit".

There were lucky hits, But usually, a ship had to work really hard to get that "lucky hit. Which means, nothin lucky about it at all