Preston: Worst warships of all time
Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time
You seem too imply that BS and VV were not considered then G&D say that the SoDak`s were the best treaty ships. That is not the case. The limit was simply ignored by the Italiens and Germans but they were still officially treaty ships and are therefore part of the comparison.
- Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time
Lutscha,
That´s a matter of interpretation but it´s not relevant: neither Treaty ship was designed to beat a much heavier and armoured foe with better distributed gunnery and capable of sustaining much more damage than a lighter unit.
That´s a matter of interpretation but it´s not relevant: neither Treaty ship was designed to beat a much heavier and armoured foe with better distributed gunnery and capable of sustaining much more damage than a lighter unit.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time
I`m out, it`s hopeless.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 408
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
- Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time
Sure they were - they were designed to defeat anything they came across, I think. And they had enough firepower to do it.Karl Heidenreich wrote:Lutscha,
That´s a matter of interpretation but it´s not relevant: neither Treaty ship was designed to beat a much heavier and armoured foe with better distributed gunnery and capable of sustaining much more damage than a lighter unit.
Better distributed gunnery... what the heck does that really mean? I understand you like the 4x2 gun arrangement... does it make a ship shoot better?
Some of that poor gunnery distribution, in Wilmington...
- Attachments
-
- Trip to BB-55 w Girls 117 [1024x768].JPG (131.62 KiB) Viewed 11871 times
Shift Colors... underway.
- Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time
I envy people who can visit capital ships as often as some of you do, really. That photo is just awesome, beautifull. I´m still planning to go to New Jersey and visit the BB there... someday.
It´s a shame that some of the most important warships are sunk, but still, I´ll be happy with those the US has wisely preserved. Shame that there is not a KGV to visit, though.
Thanks for the photo, yellowtail3.
It´s a shame that some of the most important warships are sunk, but still, I´ll be happy with those the US has wisely preserved. Shame that there is not a KGV to visit, though.
Thanks for the photo, yellowtail3.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
- Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time
yellowtail3:
Best regards,
I never said nor imply that those turrets were an example of poor distribution: take a look to my posts and you will not find such an afirmation. I just said that the displacement limited Treaty battleships were not designed to beat bigger, stronger armoured, battleships. The North Cals and South Daks were "just" 35,000 tons, which is why the USN worried to built much bigger ships as the 50K ton Iowas or the even bigger 70K tons Montanas. If they were not required then they (USN) would have never worried in built them in the first place. I´m not trying to offend no one here, is an historical and proven fact!Some of that poor gunnery distribution, in Wilmington...
Best regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
- Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time
Lutscha:
North Carolina and South Dakota battleships had, in their armour scheme, an upper armoured deck of some 38 mm (if I recall well). It´s function was to prevent AP bombs and shells to penetrate the lower main armoured deck and detonate into the ship´s vitals by affecting the device trajectory and producing the detonation in the space between the upper and main armoured decks. So, there is a 38 mm upper armoured deck. Now, the designers of the original Treaty battleships considered that the upper armoured deck (38mm) was good enough for the original armament this ship´s had: 14" shells as a result of the rule of thumb (at least in the North Carolina). Now, the South Dakota class also has the same arragement which "must" mean that they were sure enough their ship was well protected for their own 16" guns.
Bismarck, under the same premise, came with an upper armoured deck of 50 mm. Bismarck was armed with 15" guns. In accordance to German designers in order for this deck to work properly they needed of a 50 mm thick plate. That means one of two things (or both):
1. Bismarck´s batteries could have penetrated the upper armoured deck of the USN Treaty BBs which would have failed of pre detonating or afecting the trajectory of the German 15" shells.
2. Bismarck´s upper armoured deck, thicker than that of the contenders, would have succesfully pre detonated the enemy´s shells and/or affected the shell trajectory. Bismarck´s vitals would have been safe of USN 16" shells.
There is enough literature on this simple example. That´s is why I´m saying a bigger and better armoured ship could not be defeated, as a per se event as you people suggest, by a lighter ship.
I´m really not trying to give you a particular hard time. In order to address this I will like to point out one single feature, as per example, of this issue of designs.I`m out, it`s hopeless.
North Carolina and South Dakota battleships had, in their armour scheme, an upper armoured deck of some 38 mm (if I recall well). It´s function was to prevent AP bombs and shells to penetrate the lower main armoured deck and detonate into the ship´s vitals by affecting the device trajectory and producing the detonation in the space between the upper and main armoured decks. So, there is a 38 mm upper armoured deck. Now, the designers of the original Treaty battleships considered that the upper armoured deck (38mm) was good enough for the original armament this ship´s had: 14" shells as a result of the rule of thumb (at least in the North Carolina). Now, the South Dakota class also has the same arragement which "must" mean that they were sure enough their ship was well protected for their own 16" guns.
Bismarck, under the same premise, came with an upper armoured deck of 50 mm. Bismarck was armed with 15" guns. In accordance to German designers in order for this deck to work properly they needed of a 50 mm thick plate. That means one of two things (or both):
1. Bismarck´s batteries could have penetrated the upper armoured deck of the USN Treaty BBs which would have failed of pre detonating or afecting the trajectory of the German 15" shells.
2. Bismarck´s upper armoured deck, thicker than that of the contenders, would have succesfully pre detonated the enemy´s shells and/or affected the shell trajectory. Bismarck´s vitals would have been safe of USN 16" shells.
There is enough literature on this simple example. That´s is why I´m saying a bigger and better armoured ship could not be defeated, as a per se event as you people suggest, by a lighter ship.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 408
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
- Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time
not the least bit of offense taken...Karl Heidenreich wrote:I´m not trying to offend no one here, is an historical and proven fact!
Best regards,
Shift Colors... underway.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 408
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
- Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time
Unfortunately, that means you'll have to drive into Camden, which is distinctly unpleasant...Karl Heidenreich wrote:I envy people who can visit capital ships as often as some of you do, really. That photo is just awesome, beautifull. I´m still planning to go to New Jersey and visit the BB there... someday.
I've always wished the USN has managed to cripple Yamato before she got underway in the spring of '45, and so capture her four months later... we'd have a lot more photos, and she'd have made a great prize/museum in San Francisco...It´s a shame that some of the most important warships are sunk, but still, I´ll be happy with those the US has wisely preserved. Shame that there is not a KGV to visit, though.
Thanks for the photo, yellowtail3.
PM w/photo album on the way...
Shift Colors... underway.
- Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time
yellowtail3:
Is that Camden the same place where a battle of the Independence War was fought between Cornwallis and Gates?
I have been told that before. But also that there is a way around that is much, much better. Is that so?Unfortunately, that means you'll have to drive into Camden, which is distinctly unpleasant...
Is that Camden the same place where a battle of the Independence War was fought between Cornwallis and Gates?
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time
You;re right about the Kriegsmarine destroyers. 5.9 inch guns are too heavy for a destroyer as it made them top heavy & bad sea keepers not to mention the strain put on the deck.
HMS Mermaid was obsolete before it was built and the battleship Vanguard was built with left over 15 inch guns from WW1. Apparently they had to counter flood compartments to stop her capsizing every time they fired them - not to mention the damage done to the 40mm STAAG anti aircraft gun on the B mounting.
HMS Mermaid was obsolete before it was built and the battleship Vanguard was built with left over 15 inch guns from WW1. Apparently they had to counter flood compartments to stop her capsizing every time they fired them - not to mention the damage done to the 40mm STAAG anti aircraft gun on the B mounting.
Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time
Wow didn't know that about Vanguard (necessity for counterflooding when firing main armament). I've never been impressed with Vanguard anyway, neither in terms of looks nor in terms of offensive armament. The WW I era 15" was a very fine gun to be sure, but by late WW II there were much better guns at sea.
Speaking of appearance, the South Dakotas were among the ugliest battleships ever built, in my opinion. I wouldn't put them in with the very worst warships, even granted the SD's abysmal performance at 2nd Guadalcanal--during which she managed to hit exactly nothing, despite Captain Gatch's claims to have sunk half the Japanese navy in subsequent press releases. The SD indeed earned the sobriquet 'Shitty Dick' during this battle, having been bailed out of disaster by a roughly equivalent ship with a much better trained crew.
I'd have to agree that Furious, et al were definitely to be ranked with the worst warships of all time, even considering their presumed function as support vessels for a Baltic Sea invasion of Germany. They were useless for any other purpose (except maybe conversion to CVs lol); and there were better ships for that purpose, as has been pointed out.
Speaking of appearance, the South Dakotas were among the ugliest battleships ever built, in my opinion. I wouldn't put them in with the very worst warships, even granted the SD's abysmal performance at 2nd Guadalcanal--during which she managed to hit exactly nothing, despite Captain Gatch's claims to have sunk half the Japanese navy in subsequent press releases. The SD indeed earned the sobriquet 'Shitty Dick' during this battle, having been bailed out of disaster by a roughly equivalent ship with a much better trained crew.
I'd have to agree that Furious, et al were definitely to be ranked with the worst warships of all time, even considering their presumed function as support vessels for a Baltic Sea invasion of Germany. They were useless for any other purpose (except maybe conversion to CVs lol); and there were better ships for that purpose, as has been pointed out.
Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time
You're joking, right?Streona wrote: Apparently they had to counter flood compartments to stop her capsizing every time they fired them - not to mention the damage done to the 40mm STAAG anti aircraft gun on the B mounting.
Re: Preston: Worst warships of all time
Well, he DID qualify that with "apparently"...and it is well-known that Vanguard was so technologically advanced above decks, they forgot all about making her a good gunnery platform below decks....dunmunro wrote:You're joking, right?Streona wrote: Apparently they had to counter flood compartments to stop her capsizing every time they fired them - not to mention the damage done to the 40mm STAAG anti aircraft gun on the B mounting.