Naval History Forums

I agree that the rebuilt QEs were quite successful. They were everywhere and did quite a lot for their navy. Got some good value for WW1 BBs

But I'm surprised no one here has mentioned the Kongo class. Though they weren't the most succesful ships in WW2, you can't deny they did quite a bit for Japan during the Pacific War.

I think a case could be made for Nagato and Mutsu.

Gentlemen,
I'm sorry to show my ignorance, but what is, or was, a WEE VEE?

paul.mercer wrote:Gentlemen,
I'm sorry to show my ignorance, but what is, or was, a WEE VEE?

USS West Virginia. I think that was her popular name.

Bill Jurens opined in an article in Warship International #43 Issue 1 that West Virginia may have turned in the best gunnery performance of any Battleship in WWII at Surigao Strait, apparently with 12+ consecutive straddles beginning at about 25,000 yds. This was a night engagement, and most salvoes were full broadsides.

Steve Crandell wrote:Bill Jurens opined in an article in Warship International #43 Issue 1 that West Virginia may have turned in the best gunnery performance of any Battleship in WWII at Surigao Strait, apparently with 12+ consecutive straddles beginning at about 25,000 yds. This was a night engagement, and most salvoes were full broadsides.

... I once read WV's official gunnery report. She did fire very well, and her broadsides were heavily felt on board battleship Fuso.
Indeed, now that I think of it, I don't know of comparable effectiveness in terms of straddles , and especialy at night...

What needs to be put into context though is that both West Virginia and Fuso were traveling at 15 to 18kts during the battle, a lower speed that "usual" battleship battles during WW2.

alecsandros wrote:

Steve Crandell wrote:Bill Jurens opined in an article in Warship International #43 Issue 1 that West Virginia may have turned in the best gunnery performance of any Battleship in WWII at Surigao Strait, apparently with 12+ consecutive straddles beginning at about 25,000 yds. This was a night engagement, and most salvoes were full broadsides.

... I once read WV's official gunnery report. She did fire very well, and her broadsides were heavily felt on board battleship Fuso.
Indeed, now that I think of it, I don't know of comparable effectiveness in terms of straddles , and especialy at night...

What needs to be put into context though is that both West Virginia and Fuso were traveling at 15 to 18kts during the battle, a lower speed that "usual" battleship battles during WW2.

WV's target was Yamashiro, not Fuso, but that isn't important in itself.

I don't think it really matters how fast the ships were going. If your fire control computer has the range, speed, and target course calculated you are going to straddle if your gunnery department does it's job.

Steve Crandell wrote:

alecsandros wrote:

Steve Crandell wrote:Bill Jurens opined in an article in Warship International #43 Issue 1 that West Virginia may have turned in the best gunnery performance of any Battleship in WWII at Surigao Strait, apparently with 12+ consecutive straddles beginning at about 25,000 yds. This was a night engagement, and most salvoes were full broadsides.

... I once read WV's official gunnery report. She did fire very well, and her broadsides were heavily felt on board battleship Fuso.
Indeed, now that I think of it, I don't know of comparable effectiveness in terms of straddles , and especialy at night...

What needs to be put into context though is that both West Virginia and Fuso were traveling at 15 to 18kts during the battle, a lower speed that "usual" battleship battles during WW2.

WV's target was Yamashiro, not Fuso, but that isn't important in itself.

I don't think it really matters how fast the ships were going. If your fire control computer has the range, speed, and target course calculated you are going to straddle if your gunnery department does it's job.

In theory yes,
But in practice once your own ship moves faster, the incremental rotation of the turret to stay on target becomes progressively more difficult. Vibration issues caused by high speed also make on board instruments to produce problems.

On the enemy side, once it is going faster, the projected target position is more complicated.
A 15kts ship can move 230 meters in 30 seconds (time of a salvo to travel to it at a given range). A 30kts ship can move 460 meters in the same amount of time. Slight course changes in 230meters will still keep the ship in the general area were a (full) salvo would land. Same course changes over 460meters may take the ship out of the landing area.

I don't believe that, but of course you are entitled to your own opinion.

How did Washington manage to hit Kirishima at night with both ships moving at high speed on opposite courses? According to your statement, that was essentially impossible. It was also impossible for Bismarck to hit PoW with the latter making radical course changes.

Steve Crandell wrote:I don't believe that, but of course you are entitled to your own opinion.

How did Washington manage to hit Kirishima at night with both ships moving at high speed on opposite courses? According to your statement, that was essentially impossible. It was also impossible for Bismarck to hit PoW with the latter making radical course changes.

30 seconds time of flight means about 20km range for most WW2 battleship guns.

At the end of the day in the second world war 28,0000 shp made you a monitor. The last battleship engagement was simply the IJN impaling itself on vastly superior numbers. Kongo's, Queen's, Renown and Italian Battleships operated with minimal support in a far more hostile environment. The USN rebuilds were simply a political decision rather than a military one and 5 years too late.

Gopher wrote:At the end of the day in the second world war 28,0000 shp made you a monitor. The last battleship engagement was simply the IJN impaling itself on vastly superior numbers. Kongo's, Queen's, Renown and Italian Battleships operated with minimal support in a far more hostile environment. The USN rebuilds were simply a political decision rather than a military one and 5 years too late.

And there we are. No US ship can ever be considered best at anything because other navies were in the war longer and therefore were simply better ships.

Take for example the Renown, she was taken in hand for a refit in 1936 and whoever planned the refit either guessed the type of war she was going to fight or got lucky. That refit kept her in frontline service until 1945. New machinery, Dual purpose secondary armament extra armour. In May 1942 the West Virginia went in for its refit. After the refit the West Virginia could only operate with a proponderence of escorts for defence against submarines making her a very needy unit.

Gopher wrote:Take for example the Renown, she was taken in hand for a refit in 1936 and whoever planned the refit either guessed the type of war she was going to fight or got lucky. That refit kept her in frontline service until 1945. New machinery, Dual purpose secondary armament extra armour. In May 1942 the West Virginia went in for its refit. After the refit the West Virginia could only operate with a proponderence of escorts for defence against submarines making her a very needy unit.

How is this different from any other major warship? What do you mean by "proponderence" of escorts? It somehow takes more escorts than other battleships that have not been rebuilt? Or ones that have, like Warspite?

The West Virginia was slow and had limited power making her very vunerable to submarines by the time she came out of refit she was an anachronism. Thankfully she was not tested in the west during the a time the threats were exponential to those she faced in 44/45. The R class were useless come 41 and Queens had stopped being revelant in 42 and that was down to speed pure and simple. The Renown and Kongo's were able to operate independently or with carriers for the entire war again that was down to SHP and superior hull shape for cruising. An example would be Force H was not an extensive unit which Renown was part off from time to time, for anti submarine protection it relied on speed not large amounts of escorts . At Suriago strait the American battleships had 28 destroyers present hardly a testament to the ability of the Battleships to defend themselves against the submarine threat. Sure you put the West Virginia in the "lab" that was Suriago it would give you a stunning result especially when you overlook the overwhelming odds and huge technological differential come 1944. In the real Battleship war at sea the one before the end of 43 when 3 destroyers were a luxury and the techinological differential was more even she would not have cut it. Her sell buy date was the same as the R class.