Best World war two warships?

[pbfoot]

my nautical knowledge is limited but how come the corvette isn't on any list it was the mainstay of the North Atlantic convoys and probably did more valuable service then all the battleships combined the depth charge caused more havoc against the biggest threat posed by the axis the U boat then all the big guns

[carpenoctem1689]

Fine, lets include the corvette. They did do alot of good work, something more expensive ships couldnt have done as economically. For the sake of it, throw in escort carriers too.

[Nonskimmer]

Ah, the corvette. Not a bad go for a hastily converted whaler, eh?

[carpenoctem1689]

Not at all. They could really dish it out to those U-boats. Some guns and depth charges, and alot of corverttes equals one damn fine escort. A real nice innovation haha, alot like those CAM merchant men, an innovative idea to solve a problem. Then againt he british werent short on innovation, ever hear of Habbakuk?

[pbfoot]

wasn't HABBABUKUK that the ice sawdust aircraft carrier and in reference to to the yamatos radar it was pretty cheesy it could detecT a large warship at 35 kms and had no PPI(radar screen most of us can relate to)

[carpenoctem1689]

Yes, Habbakukk was the giant sawdust carrier, designed for multiengined aircraft really. The Yamatos did have the radar though. While it wasnt as advanced as American radar, by any stretch, the optical sights on a clear day (which was often the case in the pacific) would give the Yamato a damn fine chance.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Nonskimmer

Ah, the corvette. Not a bad go for a hastily converted whaler, eh?

the weapon of choice for the RCN those guys were pretty tough sailors everyone I ever met that served on one of them was unique and as side note how come every little town or y river gets a ship named after it in Canada with one of the worlds most powerful river alls we get a 4 stack destoyer

[carpenoctem1689]

Scharnhorst V.S the Hood, who would you take?
for me, i like the hood, only, and only because she had the 15in. guns while the Scharnhorst had 11in. guns, suitable for commerce raiding, but not gunfights i would think. If Scharnhorst was able to trade out the 11in. guns for 15in. guns as intended, then my vote would be Scharnhorst all the way.

[Nonskimmer]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

...and as side note how come every little town or y river gets a ship named after it in Canada with one of the worlds most powerful river alls we get a 4 stack destoyer

Ah, I wouldn't feel too bad. Our last aircraft carrier (HMCS Bonaventure) was named after a bird sanctuary in Québec.

[carpenoctem1689]

Wow, what a prestigous name lol. After a bird sanctuary. Not to be a bother, but do you have any links to the information about the modern canadian navy?

[Nonskimmer]

Unfortunately, Canada's modern Navy isn't much of a navy. We went from the third largest navy (some sources will say fourth. Wrong.) in the world during WWII to...this:

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_home/index_e.asp

[carpenoctem1689]

Wow, seems like a somewhat modern, (by that i mean not completely outclassed) but very small naval force. Can you tell canada is confident its allies will always come to the rescue?

[Nonskimmer]

Cheap government coupled with an ignorant, complacent public. A bad combination indeed.

[carpenoctem1689]

Yeah, but I mean, without an enormous military budget, canada can better apply that money. Canada is a country with alot of allies, and few direct enemies. They dont need an enormous navy, but it wouldnt hurt to add some more defensive, and maybe a little blue water capability to their credit.

[Nonskimmer]

I agree completely.