Naval History Forums

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

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.

What was the range of the Tennessee's/WeeVee's guns?

30,000 yards?

34,000 yards according to

http://www.voodoo.cz/battleships/

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.

Thanks Tiornu and Marcelo

How good would Gneisenau with the six 15" boomers have been?

Derf

She'd still have the Boiler hump.

Besides, I'd rather have Tennessee's 12 X 14 inch guns than 6 X 15 inch

What about the speed?

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

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.

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.

Apart from lack of speed the Tennessee's and WeeVee were probably nearly as good as a modern Battleship.

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 ?

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!

RNfanDan wrote:

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 ?

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!

That's almost exactly what I was thinking, particularly the QE.

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.