Best rebuilt battleship?
Best rebuilt battleship?
Hi all.
Which do you rate as the best re-built Battleship?
QE?
Warspite?
Valiant?
Tennessee?
California?
WeeVee?
CONTE DI CAVOUR ?
GIULIO CESARE ?
CAIO DUILIO ?
ANDREA DORIA ?
My own thoughts are WeeVee due in large part to her main battery and the vaunted USN 5"/38 secondary battery for AA use.
Any input would be apprieciated.
thanks
Which do you rate as the best re-built Battleship?
QE?
Warspite?
Valiant?
Tennessee?
California?
WeeVee?
CONTE DI CAVOUR ?
GIULIO CESARE ?
CAIO DUILIO ?
ANDREA DORIA ?
My own thoughts are WeeVee due in large part to her main battery and the vaunted USN 5"/38 secondary battery for AA use.
Any input would be apprieciated.
thanks
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst
Re: Best rebuilt battleship?
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.
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.
- marcelo_malara
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1852
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
- Location: buenos aires
Hi Gary:
From a pure technical point of view, the most demanding job was made on the Italian´s. Their lenght was increased, the machinery power output tripled and the gun´s caliber increased too.
The Kongos were lenghtened too and the machinery power doubled.
WV just received bulges and new secondary artillery, like Warspite.
Again, I am not judging the efectiveness of the upgrade, just the work done.
From a pure technical point of view, the most demanding job was made on the Italian´s. Their lenght was increased, the machinery power output tripled and the gun´s caliber increased too.
The Kongos were lenghtened too and the machinery power doubled.
WV just received bulges and new secondary artillery, like Warspite.
Again, I am not judging the efectiveness of the upgrade, just the work done.
- _Derfflinger_
- Supporter
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:01 pm
- Location: Missouri, USA
- Dave Saxton
- Supporter
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Rocky Mountains USA
- Antonio Bonomi
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3799
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
- Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy
Rebuilt battleships
Ciao all,
YES, probably the Italians were the ones to renew the most of the ships,.. un until the point that it was better to make it brand new, .. 3 more Littorio Class battleships were better than 4 old Cavour class.
They ( Cesare and Cavour ) were used only at Punta Stilo, .. facing Warspite and QE's ( other renewed one's but stronger ) with no fear, .. but unsuccesfully.
After it was clear that Littorio's were much better and faster, .... but with no air coverage,..unsuccesfull as well but at least equal or better than the British ones as ships.
Ciao Antonio
YES, probably the Italians were the ones to renew the most of the ships,.. un until the point that it was better to make it brand new, .. 3 more Littorio Class battleships were better than 4 old Cavour class.
They ( Cesare and Cavour ) were used only at Punta Stilo, .. facing Warspite and QE's ( other renewed one's but stronger ) with no fear, .. but unsuccesfully.
After it was clear that Littorio's were much better and faster, .... but with no air coverage,..unsuccesfull as well but at least equal or better than the British ones as ships.
Ciao Antonio
I believe the US Battleships received completely upgraded FC systems, bringing them up to the Iowa Class standard, as well as the latest air and sirface search radars.marcelo_malara wrote:Hi Gary:
From a pure technical point of view, the most demanding job was made on the Italian´s. Their lenght was increased, the machinery power output tripled and the gun´s caliber increased too.
The Kongos were lenghtened too and the machinery power doubled.
WV just received bulges and new secondary artillery, like Warspite.
Again, I am not judging the efectiveness of the upgrade, just the work done.
Re: Best rebuilt battleship?
The "technical" part of me favors Tennessee and California.Gary wrote:Hi all.
Which do you rate as the best re-built Battleship?
QE?
Warspite?
Valiant?
Tennessee?
California?
WeeVee?
CONTE DI CAVOUR ?
GIULIO CESARE ?
CAIO DUILIO ?
ANDREA DORIA ?
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!
Re: Best rebuilt battleship?
That's almost exactly what I was thinking, particularly the QE.RNfanDan wrote:The "technical" part of me favors Tennessee and California.Gary wrote:Hi all.
Which do you rate as the best re-built Battleship?
QE?
Warspite?
Valiant?
Tennessee?
California?
WeeVee?
CONTE DI CAVOUR ?
GIULIO CESARE ?
CAIO DUILIO ?
ANDREA DORIA ?
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!
Re: Best rebuilt battleship?
OK, so because Tennessee didn't have the same combat career as QE, that makes QE a better ship?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!
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.