RNfanDan wrote:
The "technical" part of me favors Tennessee and California.
My better judgment however, stands firmly with Warspite and Queen Elizabeth. Whatever these legendary British battleships lacked in "paper" comparisons with the Tennessees is, in my opinion, more than compensated by their outstanding return on investment. The British battleships also did not simply spend their service careers, steaming about as second-string backups!
OK, so because Tennessee didn't have the same combat career as QE, that makes QE a better ship?
USS North Carolina was the first modern US battleship to join the pacific fleet, and the ONLY battleship in that fleet at the time she joined it. She spent the whole war defending carriers and bombarding shore targets, so I guess that makes QE a better ship?
I suppose you could say that all British ships were a better return on investment, because there were fewer of them so each was called upon to do more.
Finally, why could QE not be described as a second string backup? It seems obvious to me that she was, but maybe I'm missing something here.