Battleship Top Ten

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Battleship Top Ten

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Lutscha:

Still Friedman regards Iowa Class as a treaty BB with many of it´s restrictions, even after the US call for the escalation clause. And as I posted before in another thread we have the Yamato very important superiority which goes with the IZ.

Best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Lutscha
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Battleship Top Ten

Post by Lutscha »

Thats a rather late reply... :D

I had to look the thread up again, nathan's post is not refering to Yamato vs Iowa specifically but to Iowa's capabilities in general.

Here it is: http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... tml?page=1

The title should catch your interest. ;)
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Battleship Top Ten

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Lutscha:
Thats a rather late reply...
Yeah, I was re reading some old threads looking for something interesting. And this topic has generated good posts.

About the link it´s quite dinamic discussion they have there, more controversy than the one we can found around here. Both positions, in favour and against http://www.combinedfleet.com BB comparison have good points. What about Nathan Okun re formulation of de caping?

Best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
19kilo10
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:48 am

Re: Battleship Top Ten

Post by 19kilo10 »

Why no mention of HMS Vanguard?
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Battleship Top Ten

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Why not Vanguard? That´s a good question. Vanguard has been ignored in many ways maybe becuase it didn´t fought and was regarded by many as the most expensive yacht ever built. I do believe that Vanguards is, maybe, one or the most advanced BB ever built, Iowas included, but it didn´t had the opportunity to prove it´s worth (as any BB after 1941). I´m expecting to read Raven and Robert´s book about British BBs to know about that magnificent vessel.

Best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
19kilo10
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:48 am

Re: Battleship Top Ten

Post by 19kilo10 »

She was a very beautiful ship......even with the old guns she probably would have aquited herself quit well.......
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Battleship Top Ten

Post by dunmunro »

There was/is a knock down, drag out discussion of Iowa versus Vanguard here:

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... tml?page=1

and the latter pages regarding Iowa's magazine locations and vulnerability is very interesting.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Battleship Top Ten

Post by Bgile »

dunmunro wrote:There was/is a knock down, drag out discussion of Iowa versus Vanguard here:

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... tml?page=1

and the latter pages regarding Iowa's magazine locations and vulnerability is very interesting.
I read through the whole thing. I noted this post by Nathan Okun:

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... tml?page=3

No one seems to have mentioned that Vanguard's powder handling rooms were ABOVE the shell rooms so as to make a complete redesign of the WWI turrets unnecessary. IMO this represents the exact same perceived vulnerability as Iowa, although either result is very unlikely. I also note that US ships didn't seem to be as vulnerable to magazine explosion as British ships due the the difference in powder.

In exchange for what the posters see as a vulnerability, you have enough ammunition to actually fire at very long ranges and get hits.

I noted that you claim a similar torpedo hit to the fatal one on PoW would have sunk an Iowa class ship very quickly. Iowas have much less shaft outside the hull, so less to flail around after the bracket is broken, so I doubt the result would be the same. Also, the shafts are further inboard on the Iowa class, making a shaft hit powerful enough to warp a shaft less likely. Any flooding which did occur would be on the centerline, making the ship less likely to capsize.

With respect to the speed of the two ships I note that during the Truk operation Iowa and NJ were both capable of 32.5 knots at wartime deep draft condition and dirty bottoms, something that happened fast in the Pacific operational area.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Battleship Top Ten

Post by dunmunro »

Bgile wrote:

I read through the whole thing. I noted this post by Nathan Okun:

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... tml?page=3

No one seems to have mentioned that Vanguard's powder handling rooms were ABOVE the shell rooms so as to make a complete redesign of the WWI turrets unnecessary. IMO this represents the exact same perceived vulnerability as Iowa, although either result is very unlikely. I also note that US ships didn't seem to be as vulnerable to magazine explosion as British ships due the the difference in powder.

In exchange for what the posters see as a vulnerability, you have enough ammunition to actually fire at very long ranges and get hits.

I noted that you claim a similar torpedo hit to the fatal one on PoW would have sunk an Iowa class ship very quickly. Iowas have much less shaft outside the hull, so less to flail around after the bracket is broken, so I doubt the result would be the same. Also, the shafts are further inboard on the Iowa class, making a shaft hit powerful enough to warp a shaft less likely. Any flooding which did occur would be on the centerline, making the ship less likely to capsize.

With respect to the speed of the two ships I note that during the Truk operation Iowa and NJ were both capable of 32.5 knots at wartime deep draft condition and dirty bottoms, something that happened fast in the Pacific operational area.

The powder handling rooms would always be separated by flash tight doors from the magazines.

You'll note that I qualified my statement by stating that a shaft hit would only sink Iowa if the shaft failed in the same manner as in PoW, IE from the hull through to the ER, and I did not imply that this was or was not more likely to happen, on Iowa. However, if it did happen it could flood all the spaces through which that shaft passed, and the worst case would be the loss of all machinery spaces, which would certainly have sank the ship, whereas PoW's greater degree of subdivision limited the number of compartments that flooded.

To run at 32.5 knots probably required full overload power, and Vanguard could probably have made 31 knots under similar circumstances.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Battleship Top Ten

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

I`m thinking, seriously, to execute a quite important modification in the Top Ten displacing the North Carolinas BELOW Bismarck and Richelieus. This after learning that:

" The US Navy originally avoided internal belt armor in view of the riddled-side problem; however, a rather steep belt had to be adopted in South Dakota Class in order to combine resistance to 16in (rather than 14in) fire with armor weights at least similar to those of the earlier North Carolinas, which were designed against 14in shellfire..."
- Norman Friedman

North Carolinas, armed with 16" could withstand the punishment of 14". That`s quite obvious because North Carolinas`adoption of 16" instead of 14" was by using the escalator clause at the last stages of design, which was not South Daks or Iowas case.

But Bismarck and Richelieu were armed with sophisticated 15" guns (specially the German BB). Then, the edge in the hypotetical case of combat of the German-American or French-American BBs (North Carolina) is on the European side, not American.

Bismarck or Richelieu were capable of fighting and defeat a North Carolina. So, what do you think about moving those two vessels above and North Carolina below?
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Battleship Top Ten

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Let´s have the List update for September 2008 (this time having NEW arguments in order for modifications) :


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

No modifications here so far.


II. Top Ten Most Beautifull WWII BBs and BCs

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

Note: I like Hood and Yamato too much, so they go up.

And this is the one!

III. Top Ten Most Powerfull WWII BBs and BCs

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

There is the following argument to have the Nelsons and the KGV where they are, now with more heavy arguments:

"Nelson, King George V British variations on the heavy belt/heavy deck/liquid side protection theme. A major defect of the Nelson design was that a plunging shell could pass under the lower edge of the thick belt and through the thin torpedo bulkhead; but there was insufficient weight available for a wider belt. The later King George V design solved the problem by using an unsloped belt; but that in turn meant accepting less protection per weight of armor. Note the absence of a splinter deck: deck armor weight was concentrated into a singlethickness for maximum effect in these weight-limited designs."
-Norman Friedman

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
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Battleship Top Ten

Post by dunmunro »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:

III. Top Ten Most Powerfull WWII BBs and BCs

1.Yamato Class
2. Iowa Class
3. South Dakota Class
4. Bismarck Class
5. Richelieu
6. North Carolina Class
7. Nelson Class
t8. Nagato Class
9. Littorio Class
10. KGV Class

There is the following argument to have the Nelsons and the KGV where they are, now with more heavy arguments:

"Nelson, King George V British variations on the heavy belt/heavy deck/liquid side protection theme. A major defect of the Nelson design was that a plunging shell could pass under the lower edge of the thick belt and through the thin torpedo bulkhead; but there was insufficient weight available for a wider belt. The later King George V design solved the problem by using an unsloped belt; but that in turn meant accepting less protection per weight of armor. Note the absence of a splinter deck: deck armor weight was concentrated into a singlethickness for maximum effect in these weight-limited designs."
-Norman Friedman

Nelson did have a shallow belt and that is a valid criticism, but so did Littoro, Bismarck and, to a lessor degree, Washington abd Richelieu. KGV can can compensate for her lack of sloped armour by maintaining a 20 to 30 degree target angle from her opponent, but there is no way to prevent a diving shell from striking under the belt, if the belt armour is too shallow.
User avatar
RNfanDan
Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: USA

Re: Battleship Top Ten

Post by RNfanDan »

II. Top Ten Most Beautifull WWII BBs and BCs

Bismarck Class
HMS Hood
Schanhorst
Yamato
HMS Warspite
Roma
HMS Repulse
Richelieu
KGV
USS Alabama

Note: I like Hood and Yamato too much, so they go up.
These are, as has been stated before, endlessly debatable. For the purposes of clarity and to avoid needless controversy, let me opine that numbering these choices is a foolish undertaking. Just having the list of ten is plenty enough, no need to rank them because even what is regarded as a certain numerical ranking one day, might be considered as deserving a different ranking (or off the list, altogether) sometime later on.

My only two problems with the list as it stands above, are the exclusion of HMS Renown and the inclusion of HMS Warspite. I'll address the inclusion of Warspite, first:

* Much as I am a fan of Warspite, and her amazing service career, fame and honors, it is hard for me to envision her as one of the ten most beautiful, simply on the grounds that to place her there, is to deny a space for a more beautiful ship. One of the greatest of all time? DEFINITELY :clap: ....but one of the best-looking? :think: hmmmmmmmmmmm.....nope. Consider this--if Warspite belongs in the top ten of beautiful warships, then certainly her sister ship Queen Elizabeth must be there, as well; not that QE belongs there, either but she certainly looks equally good, if not a bit better. By the way, attempting to resolve the issue by listing the entire QE class is not a good choice, since by WW2 the individual ships of that class were dissimilar enough that no single one can fully represent all five.

* Historically, it is no secret that most battlecruisers were highly attractive ships, especially compared to most of the thick, squat tubby battleships that populated world navies in the early 20th century. Even today, the word smacks of glamor, prestige, and implied power and is a term still in use, especially among sci-fi and fantasy modelers and gamers. In Japan, the term has even been blended with the iconic name Yamato, precisely in that same genre. Battlecruisers were the rock stars of naval ships, for years--thanks in no small part to their looks. So, it seems to me rather obvious that if two of the remaining three WW2 battlecruisers made the list, HMS Renown (reconstructed) ought to be there, and I cannot be alone in regarding her as better looking than Warspite.

So, having droned on too much already, here's my modified list (BUT NOT NUMERICALLY ORDERED!)

*Repulse
*Scharnhorst
*Yamato class
*Richelieu class
*Renown
*Bismarck class
*Roma
*Hood
*Iowa class
*Dunkerque class

And just in case one of these capital ships/classes is unable to maintain its lofty status, I reserve two "top-tens in waiting".

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

Re: Battleship Top Ten

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

RNfanDan:

I believe you`re right about the numbering. As an engineer I always think in lists and priorities so please forgive me, it was foolish indeed. Let`s have it without any (for the Most Beautiful anyway) specific order.

Your statement that battlecruisers were often very beautiful is also true, they`re are. What do you think of the Alaska Class.

Best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
miro777
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Battleship Top Ten

Post by miro777 »

bonjour people....
this would be my personal top tens...

II. The Six Most Beautiful WWII Battleships & Battlecruisers (descending order):
1. Scharnhorst Class
2. Hood Class
3. Bismarck Class
4. Littorio Class
5. Repulse Class
6. South Dakota Class

The ugliest Battleship of all time:
1. HMS Rodney and HMS Nelson

Quite frankly I have to say that the British Rodney class is an really ugly ship...
the arrangment of the the three main turrents being set up all in front...just doesnt do any good to the beauty of the ship...

The Scharnhorst was just the most beautiful ship of the war...with Hood being very close behind her...
The Bismarck has "klasse" just like the ships following her...

Karl, if had included Heavy Cruisers...
i would add HMS Exceter, Admiral Hipper Class, and two Japanese HC Classes...(unfortunatly I forgot their names, but they build really beautiful ships)

adios
Die See ruft....
Post Reply