Most powerful ship

[Glider]

. Anyway, I don't believe either Erin or Agincourt were that powerful. If memory serves, the RN was not fond of them either. The British 12 inch gun was not nearly as effective as the 14 inchers the Texas mounted either. The RN BCs at Falklands made many hits on the German armored cruisers and it took forever to sink them.

The two problems that the RN had with the Erin were :-

1) Her beam was wider than any other RN vessel and as a result she had to private docks as she wouldn't fit inside Naval docks. Often she used a floating dock for repairs which was expensive and at times inconvenient.
2) Despite her wider beam her interior was cramped by RN standards, sometimes compared to German standards. This in turn gave her more extensive torpedo protection but how effective this is we don't know as it was never tested.

 

[Freebird]

Remember, the ship chosen must have been completed no later than August, 1914!

Are you talking about "completed" date or "commisioned date?"

The Queen Elizabeth was launched in Oct 1913 and commissioned in Dec 1914, so may have missed your cutoff by a few months {and would be a hands-down winner IMO}


The British Iron Duke German König class was the most recent battleships, but both were slightly inferior to the USS Texas I believe.

 

[renrich]

FB, I specifically meant completed or commisioned because I wanted ships ready to go to sea when the war broke out. According to Janes, Queen Elisabeth and Warspite were not completed until October, 1914. I wanted to exclude them because, like you, I believe they would be, hands down, the most powerful of any ships that fought in WW1.

 

[Freebird]

FB, I specifically meant completed or commisioned because I wanted ships ready to go to sea when the war broke out. According to Janes, Queen Elisabeth and Warspite were not completed until October, 1914. I wanted to exclude them because, like you, I believe they would be, hands down, the most powerful of any ships that fought in WW1.

8)

Yes true. And the 3 most recent, Texas, Iron Duke König were fairly evenly matched, it would probably depend on the quality layout of armor

 

[HerrKaleut]

Erin was smaller than the "Iron Dukes" and "Agincourt" was the longest battleship yet built.
With a August 1914 cut off, I would like to nominate the Japanese battlecruiser "Hiei"..27,500 tons, 28 knots and 14 inch guns (

 

[renrich]

HK, I don't believe that Hiei was ready in August 1914. Her sister, Kongo, built in Britain by Vickers, I think, was but she was a BC like the Magnificent Cats and her protection was not up to that of the standard of the true battleships.

 

[HerrKaleut]

I didn't think the thread specified battleships. Be assured "Hiei" was completed by august 4th 1914.
(Kongo was the first,launched May 1912 and delivered in 1913 followed by Hiei, Kirishima and Haruna, the last being completed in 1915. The Kongo was the last major warship built outside Japan and the 14 inch guns of the Haruna were the last gun mounts to be imported) They were theoretically superior to anything the U.S. pacific squadron could muster and they were superior to the "Lions".

 

[vikingBerserker]

The only thing the Kongo's had on the Texas was speed. Japan really did not have a ship that could out gun the Texas class until the Fuso which were completed in 1915

 

[BombTaxi]

The big issue with Kongo was that her armour was not up to the required standard to fight BBS - she was, after all, a battle cruiser. Fighting BBs or other BCs would put her in server danger of being destroyed by heavy guns.

 

[HerrKaleut]

The armour of the Kongo/Hiei..Side belt-6-8 inches (Texas 6-12 inches ) Maindeck 1.5 in. (Texas 1.5 -2.5 )

Turrets 3-9in. (8-14)
Barbattes 10 in. (12 in.)
Casemates 6 in. (7 in.)


So "Texas" was not well enough armoured to resist a 14 inch shell hit and being the slower of the two would be at a distinct dissadvantage.

 

[HerrKaleut]

By the way,someone was saying that "Erin" was bigger than the "iron Dukes" so just out of interest;

Erin Iron duke

Length (p.p.) 559ft 6in 580 ft.


Beam 91ft. 90ft


Draught 28ft 29ft


Weight (normal) 27,500 tons 25,820 tons


Weight (full load) 30,250 tons 30,380 tons

 

[BombTaxi]

The armour of the Kongo/Hiei..Side belt-6-8 inches (Texas 6-12 inches ) Maindeck 1.5 in. (Texas 1.5 -2.5 )

Turrets 3-9in. (8-14)
Barbattes 10 in. (12 in.)
Casemates 6 in. (7 in.)


So "Texas" was not well enough armoured to resist a 14 inch shell hit and being the slower of the two would be at a distinct dissadvantage.

By the same logic, the Kongos weren't well enough armoured to stop a 14in round either. I admit speed would give them an advantage, but the fact still remains that a BCs only sure chance of surviving an encounter with a BB was to run away. After all, BCs were essentially overgrown and over-gunned ACs. If you wanted a vessel that could dominate the sea and win decisive victories over enemy fleets, you needed BBs. They could do the job, while BCs could not. Jutland proved that beyond any shadow of a doubt.

 

[HerrKaleut]

I never suggested that the Kongos could stand up to a 14 inch hit but as I understood it we are talking power and as both of our ships are armed with the same guns and neither ship had armour protection to take a hit of that calibre very well, it can be argued that neither was more powerfull than the other.

As for Jutland, I thought the German BCs faired rather well. It is never mentioned that German cordite was a lot more stable than the british. Nor is it ever mentioned that on the british BCs, in order to meet instructions re; higher rates of fire demanded by the admirals, bundles of cordite were stowed a' la "ready use" in the corridors .(in contrast to regulations).

 

[Glider]

I never suggested that the Kongos could stand up to a 14 inch hit but as I understood it we are talking power and as both of our ships are armed with the same guns and neither ship had armour protection to take a hit of that calibre very well, it can be argued that neither was more powerfull than the other.

As for Jutland, I thought the German BCs faired rather well. It is never mentioned that German cordite was a lot more stable than the british. Nor is it ever mentioned that on the british BCs, in order to meet instructions re; higher rates of fire demanded by the admirals, bundles of cordite were stowed a' la "ready use" in the corridors .(in contrast to regulations).

If a BB goes up against a BC the money will be on the BB every time, its not a guarantee as in a naval battle where you hit on a ship is in the lap of the gods and anyone can get lucky.
However all things being equal the BB will have a much better chance. Speed is of little help once battle is joined unless the BC wants to run away and even then the BC has to hope that her speed is unchanged. If it is, she is finished. Its worth remembering that the BC's had a speed advantage of about 3-5 kts (depending on type) over comparable BB's, walking speed, a speed easily lost in case of damage.

The Kongo/Texas debate could equally apply to any comparable BC/BB engagement. The BB Texas in this case has thicker armour and is better protected against damage. Even if the shell penetrates the supporting structure is stronger and more able to resist damage. The Texas has more guns and has an increased chance of a hit.
The engine spaces in a BC are a much larger percentage of the volume of the hull and these are vulnerable spaces. Any hit is almost certain to do damage that will impact the ships speed something that is death to a BC. So the BC is far more vulnerable than a BB in this area.

The German BC's did do exceptionally well at Jutland but when they came up against the BB's all bets were off. They only escaped because the RN lacked the flexibility/will to follow them up. As you have pointed out if the RN had obayed their own rules then the Germans would not have done as well and the difference less marked.
Indeed the Germans ability to do what they did was largely down to their armour which was equall to almost any BB of the time. This shows that having 12in armour was a major advantage in withstanding 13.5 or 14in shells. Note here the Erins 13.5 guns fired a shell comparable to the 14in, both of which weighed approx 1,400lb.

 

[vikingBerserker]

The armour of the Kongo/Hiei..Side belt-6-8 inches (Texas 6-12 inches ) Maindeck 1.5 in. (Texas 1.5 -2.5 )

Turrets 3-9in. (8-14)
Barbattes 10 in. (12 in.)
Casemates 6 in. (7 in.)


So "Texas" was not well enough armoured to resist a 14 inch shell hit and being the slower of the two would be at a distinct dissadvantage.

The Kongo armour you quote was from the 1927-40 period where length was increased by 8m and armour rose by 50%. When launched her belt was actually only 3"-8" thick.

 

[renrich]

HK, the thread did not specify BBs, rather just most powerful ship. Kongo is a reasonable choice. Janes gives Texas protection as 12 inch belt amidships, same bow, same aft, same deck. 14 inches to 8 inches turrets, 14 to 8 inches battery. Kongo: 10 inch belt amidships, 4 inch, ends, 2.5 inch deck, 10 inch turrets, 7 inches battery and conning tower. I read that as the Texas having much better protection. Another point, Texas carried 10- 14 inch guns. Kongo-8- 14 inchers. In hindsight, the British BCs showed at Jutland and later with Hood that they could not stand up to heavy shellfire as well as BBs. The German BCs did better at Jutland than the British because they sacrifised a little speed for better protection and a little habitibility for better compartmentation. I think what you are talking about in stable explosive is that the British shell contained lyddite whereas the German's contained trotyl. The lyddite was not as stable and sometimes exploded on impact rather than after penetration of the armor. That may explain the difficulty the BCs had sinking Spee at Falklands. Another point, Kongo's sister, Kirishima, after her protection was increased between wars, did not stand up well to shellfire at Guadalcanal.

 

[Matt308]

sorry don't know much about the WW1's but i know a bit about some twos

.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Matt you are going to wear that shovel!!

 

[HerrKaleut]

The ref.book that I used gave the following for the Kongo in 1912, 1931 and 1937 (in that order)

Side belt..............6-8 in.(152-203 mm).......same.........same
.... ends.............3in.(76mm)..................same.........same
deck upper............1.5in.(38mm)..............same..........same
deck lower............0.75in.(19mm)............0.75-4.75in.(19-120mm).........same
main turrets..........3-9in(76-229mm).........6-9in.(152-229mm)................same
barbettes.............10in(254mm)..............11in(280mm).......................same
casemates............6in(152mm).................same...............................same



And yes, I was refering to lyddite content in British charges.

 

[vikingBerserker]

The ref.book that I used gave the following for the Kongo in 1912, 1931 and 1937 (in that order)

Side belt..............6-8 in.(152-203 mm).......same.........same
.... ends.............3in.(76mm)..................same.........same
deck upper............1.5in.(38mm)..............same..........same
deck lower............0.75in.(19mm)............0.75-4.75in.(19-120mm).........same
main turrets..........3-9in(76-229mm).........6-9in.(152-229mm)................same
barbettes.............10in(254mm)..............11in(280mm).......................same
casemates............6in(152mm).................same...............................same

Interesting. The sources I used were Battleships by Crescent and Conways All The World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946