Battleship Top Ten

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
MichaelC
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 3:40 pm
Location: Canada

Post by MichaelC » Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:14 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:MichaelC:

Why Nevada over Force Z?
Cause Nevada was the only battleship to get underway during the attack.

POW probably more famous but I would bet that overall Nevada is more likely to be known than Repulse.

longreach
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:14 am
Location: Australia

Post by longreach » Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:55 pm

hi Karl,I'm not going to disagree on most of your list,only I would put the Scharnhorst in frount of hood in the most beautiful list,Hood was a good looking lady.but i like the look of the Scharnhorst (with the clipper bow).



Now its time to RUN , DOWN , CRAWL , OBSERVE , AIM , RETURN FIRE. :wink:

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:16 pm

Let´s have the List update for January 2008:


I. Top Ten Most Famous WWII BBs and BCs

1. Bismarck
2. Hood
3. Schanhorst
4. POW
5. Arizona
6. Missouri
7. Yamato
8. Tirpitz
9. Repulse
10. Warspite

Note: Repulse got into the list because her part in Force Z. I moved up Schanhorst because people in this forum look fond for this vessel. PoW moved in Warspite place because her involvement in DS and in Malaya.

II. Top Ten Most Beautifull WWII BBs and BCs


1. Bismarck Class
2. Schanhorst
3. HMS Warspite
4. Roma
5. HMS Hood
6. HMS Repulse
7. Richelieu
8. KGV
9. Yamato
10. USS Alabama

Note: USS Alabama got in at BlueMax1 request and photo. The Schanhorst got above Hood (again). A lot of people like the looks of the Twins.


III. Top Ten Most Powerfull WWII BBs and BCs


1.Yamato Class
2. Iowa Class
3. South Dakota Class
4. North Carolina Class
5. Bismarck Class
6. Richelieu
7. Nelson Class
8. Nagato Class
9. Littorio Class
10. KGV Class

Note: No changes. Yamato´s 18" are the non plus ultra. Just give her a radar and look what she can do to the Iowas... (as a matter of fact maybe she didn´t even need the radar)

Special Mention:
HMS Vanguard (post WWII BB)

Most Ugly WWII BB:
Gangut
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
_Derfflinger_
Supporter
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:01 pm
Location: Missouri, USA

Post by _Derfflinger_ » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:22 pm

Karl - I'd suggest revising your "Most Beautiful" list to the Scharnhorst Class, rather than just Scharnhorst.

Personally, though I regard Scharnhorst as one of my most favorite ships ever, as do many others, I think the Gneisenau was a bit the better looker because of her more graceful Atlantic bow. So, she at least should be included in the listing.

Just my opinion. :think:

Derf

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:25 pm

Derfflinger:

Yes, you´re right. Many people regard the Gneisenau also as the "most beautifull" so is correct to put both of them as a class.

Kind regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Post by lwd » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:27 pm

Did you ever define what your definition of "powerful" is?
I'm wondering why a couple of 16" armed battleships are rated less powerul than 15" gunned ships. Indeed some 16"guned BBs didn't even make the list.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:13 pm

:o


I wonder how is it that since August 2006 until now no one has ever asked for that definition? :think: And this thread is 12 pages long...
Every single one of the readers and posters have understand it and discuss it without trying to hijack the thread with such "semantic" questions... (because I suspect someone will hijack this thread on semantic reasons)


Definition of powerfull:

YAMATO


Kind regards...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Post by lwd » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:45 pm

That is hardly a definition it's and example and without clarification not a particularly useful one. As far as the Yamato vs Iowa it was pretty clear where the differences of opinion and capability are. I was curious about some of the ratings further down. Asking what the bases for an ranking is is hardly just semantics although there is a bit of that involved.

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Post by marcelo_malara » Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:09 pm

"Powerfull" should be a combination of:

Number of guns

Shell weight

Shell velocity

Rate of fire

Range

Accuracy

The problem is weighing the relative merits of each item...

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:10 pm

Marcelo:

You´re right about your apreciation of the subject, of course.

lwd:

I will quote myself:
I wonder how is it that since August 2006 until now no one has ever asked for that definition? And this thread is 12 pages long...
Every single one of the readers and posters have understand it and discuss it without trying to hijack the thread with such "semantic" questions... (because I suspect someone will hijack this thread on semantic reasons)
Best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3626
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Post by dunmunro » Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:03 am

III. Top Ten Most Powerfull WWII BBs and BCs


1.Yamato Class
2. Iowa Class
3. South Dakota Class
4. North Carolina Class
5. Bismarck Class
6. Richelieu
7. Nelson Class
8. Nagato Class
9. Littorio Class
10. KGV Class
I would put KGV into a tie with Bismarck (and I'm sure you will all agree...) due to her combination of speed, armour, firepower and FC. Nelson and Nagato are too slow, while Littorio and Richelieu had dispersion and barrel life problems with the main armament.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Post by lwd » Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:46 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Marcelo:

You´re right about your apreciation of the subject, of course.
So protection isn't a feature of how powerful a battleship is?
....
I will quote myself:
I wonder how is it that since August 2006 until now no one has ever asked for that definition? And this thread is 12 pages long...
Since a lot of the discussion centered around Iowa vs Yamato it was pretty clear that the only area of debate was whether Iowas FC advantages could offset Yamatos so it wasn't as necessary to ask. However your statement that "no one has ever asked for that definition" is at least debateable. Note that on the 4th post on this thread the question is at least asked by implication.

One of the reasons I asked was based on the above is it clear that Bismark should rank higher than say Richilou or Rodney?

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:06 pm

dunmunro:
I would put KGV into a tie with Bismarck (and I'm sure you will all agree...) due to her combination of speed, armour, firepower and FC. Nelson and Nagato are too slow, while Littorio and Richelieu had dispersion and barrel life problems with the main armament.
Very interesting, indeed dunmuro. I agree with you about Nelson, Nagato, Littorio and Richelieu. What´s your idea about them in terms of the list?
About KGV I don´t know... :think: The KGV was a 14 incher while Bismarck had the 15" which in modern vessels (as for WWII) was a lot of difference (well, two 14" shells of PoW were the ones that put Bismarck in serious trouble on May 24th...)

Kind regards
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Post by lwd » Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:35 pm

The KGV did seam to have some serious "teething" problems with their guns. Looking at the data for instance of Duke of York vs Scharnhorst from memory the British salvos averaged significantly less than 10 rounds per. Just where these ships fall firepower wise may depend on when you make the assesment and what ship or if you neglect these teething problems.

Lutscha
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Lutscha » Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:39 pm

DoY's problems were afaik caused by the prolonged engagement.

@dunmunro You would rate KGV higher, although she had weaker belt, deck and turret armour, a weaker TDS, was 3kn slower and had weaker guns?

I don't think that the dispersion problems verify this. Btw, the dispersion was about 100-150m when not firing all guns in a turret.[/quote]

Post Reply