alecsandros wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:49 pmUS Washington class had as well alot of missions (Arctic convoy duty, Guadalcanal fight-to-the-death missions, AAA coverage of fleet carriers, coastal bombardment).
Japanese Kongo class (4 units) also had ample war coverage, from carrier escort to coastal bombardment, Java battles, Indian Ocean forray, etc.
The KGVs were nice ships , allthough I'm having difficulties separating them from the Royal Navy as a whole. I.e. , even with better or worse characteristics, the KGVs would have anyhow benefitted from the ample support of ocean destroyers and vast array of bases spread around the globe , which offered invaluable support for the battleships. An interesting thought exercise is to swap KGV class with another battleship class of the same years. Swap it with Bismarck and see what you get. Does the Kriegsmarine benefit from KGV more then it had with the Bismarcks ? (other then by expended raw materials for construction). Does the ROyal Navy benefit more by having 2 Bismarcks then 2 KGVs ?
The RN did have a reasonably close Bismarck in the form of Vanguard. Was it an upgrade? I think so.
Would the KGVs been a better fit for either USN or IJN at Guadalcanal? I think so.
Would a Tirpitz or two been an even better fit than a KGV or two for either protagonist at Guadalcanal? I think so.
Would a 1943 Iowa been a better fit for the Germans during the historical Bismarck 1941 mission? I think so. (Based mainly on AAA.)
Would a 1942 North Carolina or South Dakota been a better replacement for Bismarck's historical mission? I don't think so.
Would a 1941 KGV done better than Bismarck if they were swapped? I don't think so.