Gopher wrote: At Suriago strait the American battleships had 28 destroyers present...
Gopher wrote:Let's transpose ships to the different battles. Could the R class have won Suriago? With 28 destroyers half a dozen heavy cruisers available they would not like the USN Battleships broke sweat. Could the West Virginia's etc pulled off 2nd Narvik, matched the the Queens performance at Matapa, Landed hits on the Gnenisenau in a stern chase, ran convoys to Malta, or in place of the Italians to North Africa. Could they operate in the "Slot"? The answer is an emphatic no simply because they were too slow and too underpowered. Helm work saved the Queens and other Ships in the Med time and time again. Remember in the Med it was 1000kg and 500kg bombs not the toys Vals dropped on you.. The old American battleships weren't used because there was no environment they could operate in until the allies had overwhelming superiority.
Gopher wrote:That is an engagement with forts, which is my argument that was the only role the class could function against and required overwhelming superiority to put her in position to do that. Could she have bombarded Genoa like Malaya and Renown? Could she have bombarded Henderson Field? The answer again an emphatic no. Would it have made a difference if America had scrapped those ships sunk at Pearl and put their guns on purpose built monitors saving vastly in crews. The anwer is that would have been yes that was the pragmatic solution. The America Battleships just don't come close to the Italian, RN or IJN rebuilds in utility and availabity when it actually counted. How many Allied capital ships were lost after 1942? The hard work had been done and the hard battleship work was done by the rebuilds Renown and Queens. and those other old war horses that never had that luxury.
Gopher wrote:, Landed hits on the Gnenisenau in a stern chase, .
Dave Saxton wrote:Only after 16 broadsides at less than 16,000 yards. I would expect an old USN BB to shoot at least that good.
RNfanDan wrote:Dave Saxton wrote:Only after 16 broadsides at less than 16,000 yards. I would expect an old USN BB to shoot at least that good.
I wouldn't expect that, at all...the old "BB" could never have accomplished a stern chase of the much faster Germans, to begin with. Furthermore, given the horrific sea state at that time, the "BB" would be at an even greater disadvantage as it forced its fat, squat hull through the mountainous waves.
[Back to my self-imposed exile
Tiornu wrote:For a ship of the line, the WeeVee and Tennessees were the best. Their advanced FC outfit gave them an unsurpassed ability to hit, and they were powerfully armed.
For a more mobile design, Renown or a Kongo would be good choices. The Italian ships represent a remarkable achievement, but I really distrust their armor--not that the others were all that great.
MVictorP wrote:Deck armor, TDS and increased AA capacities are also paramount for an older ship to survive WWII.
MVictorP wrote: "The Italian beauties were just too much modernized for the result."
Dave Saxton wrote: " Isn't investing in new construction much better?"
Alberto Virtuani wrote:MVictorP wrote: "The Italian beauties were just too much modernized for the result."
Hi, I fully agree: they were elegant ships (with some very innovative features, like the attention to AA armament in Doria class), but their protection was not improved (compared to a WWI standard) and their speed was still too low to operate with the Regia Marina "new" battlefleet.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest