Best World war two warships?

[jonsidneyb]

Is it possible that the best cannot always be measured as a one on one comparison?

For example. Lets take 3 British heavy cruisers at 6 guns each and 2 American 9 gun cruisers and lets adjust things for fun. lets make the guns equal except for number and lets make the two groups of the same weight and resources utilized to build them. I am not sure which side I would want to be on.

Even that last comparison does not come to telling the whole story and prehaps it is impossible to have the whole story and just parts of it.

War is economic, it is resources but not just resources, it is the ability to convert the resources so that is infratructure of machines and transportation. It is the ability to turn them into weapons without the country falling apart internally. It is also about man power. Conversion rates of resources. Economics is not about money as some think but about things.

One thing that helped the US get some of the nice toys later is the fact that the US had 2 oceans providing alot of protection and we had the Isles to land on and form up first. That is an important consideration. We had lots of friends and we had nothing that was stopping our production. Does it mean we did the best that we could have with what we had. hard to say but I think that is why we had some nice ships.

Was the Iowa, and Baltimore the best. I like to think so but I an not sure. Perhaps we should have built fewer bigger ships, or perhaps smaller and more ships.

It is kind of funny that as battleships got bigger and bigger so did the cruisers until we reached a point that the new cruisers were really to big for the job we needed them to do. We might not have felt this problem as we had smaller ones as well but even that is not the whole story. We had allied ships helping us. Perhaps we didn't need certain fits because our friends had them.

The point I am getting at is naval battle is only rarely a one on one affair. The best ship seems to be the one that does and fits the fleet for the missions it has.

Maybe it is not the best battleship that make the difference but the best light cruisers punishing the enemies destoryers while your inferior battleship buys time and does not have to win. The enemy destoyers yeild to your light cruiser in cooperation with your destoryers and perhaps open the board for destroyer action against the battleship. I know things didn't play out this way but there are lots of what ifs.

Maybe having the best in each class is the goal you want. Maybe sometimes you want second best in each class and a little more of them.

I have wondered about other 1 on 1 match ups as well. The Sherman cleaarly was inferior the the Panzers and Tigers and many say we should have had better tanks early in the war. Lets say we did have fewer better tanks. Would we have done better? I really don't know. We might have had a case where our tanks were slugging it out with the fine German tanks but that is not what we had. The fact that he had lots of Shermans meant that the better tanks could not interdict them all. Shermans could get to certain targets and achive objectives and support infantry because we had lots of them. Like I said I don't really know what is right.

I am just making the argument that having the bragging rights to the best ship might actually hurt your war effort.

Just think if instead of the 4 Iowa Class we instead had 6 2 turret sub-Iowa's. That could be the wrong answer but is it?

The American Heavy Cruisers would have had an advantage over a Cleveland or Brooklyn class cruiser. Maybe we needed potent destroyer killers that could after the destroyers are clear at least put fire on bigger ships to assist the larger ships and hope for killing a director or something rather than a heavier hitter.

I didn't mean to ruin the fun just some thoughts.

I didn't proof read this but typed as fast as I could and made this up as I went along so forgive how ugly this post is.

[jonsidneyb]

Senarios,

The enemy has a supported big slow bruiser mid ocean and you want to shell and island and you have a greyhound of a ship. You don't fight the big bruiser you speed around him and get to your target.

Now we change things up a bit. You have an area to protect so instead of being deployed out to sea you are close to what you must defend. Here comes the big bruiser and its target is in a fixed location and you are the in the way.

It seems to me that what is best is what meets you goals.

Another thing to think about what is best might be better examined by looking at what you already have and what the enemy already has. What is best for you to fill out your fleet and counter the enemy fleet might in no way be considered best in a one on one comparison.

[jonsidneyb]

I have thought about the German Sisters a few times. They operated so much together. If they were upgraded as planed to be 6 15inch gun ships and got upgrades and they time and resources would have allowed. I don't think I would have wanted to meet the twins on any one surface combatant.

Alone they do not match up to the top 5 but together they could be a terror with the upgrade.

I actually think that there could be and edge on the best battleships of one better than the other. The Venito, Riechieue, King George, Iowa but I wonder if that is still what is most important. I think each of those ships can hurt each other. Sinking is one thing but you can still mission kill. Those ships were all capable but perhaps not equal. I am thinking how the lessor ships do in the right might be the deciding factor.

[delcyros]

Following this line of argumentation, I think it worth noting the US american Casablanca - class escort carrier program. Each of them fielded 27 planes and they build 50 of them! Or the 23 Commencement Bay class escort carriers, each of them fielded 33 planes! The 26 laid down Essex class carriers are also worth mentioning.

[trackend]

Here Here Del the Woolworth Carriers did a heck of alot of sterling work the UK had 45, 6 built in the UK all the rest came from the States. a great work horse vessel that saved many a merchantman.

[renrich]

Understand your reasoning, Glider, and I at first was going to go with Warspite, but the fact(I think) that Washington was the only BB in WW2 that sank an enema BB all by herself swayed me. I did not give Enterprise enough ink but would anyone disagree that old CV6 was the most important, influential, greatest, best, finest, indispensable and valiant warship on any side during the whole war? Jon, I enjoyed your line of thinking. One reason I think CA25, old "Swayback Maru" saw so much action(for instance-Kormondorskis) was that by the war's midpoint, she was not a new and shiny toy and might be considered expendable so she was sent wherever any dirty job had to be done.

[renrich]

Along the line of your thinking, jon, when the Scheers first were built, all the world's navies went into a tizzy because they could outrun almost all the warships that could outgun them and could outgun the ships that were faster(kind of like the USS Constitution and her sisters) so it was thought that the Germans had created an almost unbeatable candidate for the guerre de course(did I spell that right?) It was later found, however, that, rather than create ships to match or outclass the Scheers the antidote was a number of smaller, faster cruisers. del, I was ruminating a while back upon the dilemma that Langsdorf faced when he concentrated his main batteries on Exeter. That left only 4-5.9s (assuming the CLs stayed on one beam, which they did) to deal with 16-6 inchers. That was not good odds. Wondering if a twin 5.9 superimposed over each 11 inch turret and two twin 5.9s amidships on the centerline able to fire on either beam would not have been helpful.

[Jank]

Concerning the U.S.S. Washington's action against the Japanese battleship Kirishima. (The Washington was the only US battleship to defeat another capital ship in WWII.)

Third Battle of Savo

[renrich]

Jank, thank you for your reference. I did not endeavor to look it up but I don't believe the South Dakota got off a salvo before she was hit and all her circuit breakers popped or something. Strangely enough when the SD went back to the states for repairs ,she got all the accolades for the victory and the ship that did all the damage was unmentioned. Kind of like in the first reports of the Battle of Midway, the AAF B17s were at first credited for the sinking of the IJN carriers.

[Jank]

"Strangely enough when the SD went back to the states for repairs ,she got all the accolades for the victory and the ship that did all the damage was unmentioned."

Yes.

I did not know that the South Dakota didn't get get a shot off before she got walloped.

[mkloby]

Hey Rich - you have some old Janes - is there any mention in them about a supposed Chichibu class cruiser armed with six 12" guns, up to 15,000 tons? I've read that Janes included them - of course they didn't actually exist. Anything?

[jonsidneyb]

SD's faulty circuit breaker. I have sometimes wondered if this was a problem specific to this ship or if the whole class had a weakness here. It would be really scary if mulitiple classes had this problem but was not talked about. Obviously this is not a problem that affected the entire US navy, we had ship pounded to oblivion but the lights didn't go out at first contact. I wonder how SD would have done not for this fault. Perhaps SD recieved a very specific unlikely hit that would have turned out the lights on other ships. I don't think this is the case because I think I have read that SD had this as an ongoing problem.

I think no matter what ship you are on you are in big trouble if all of your power goes out at first contact. What might even be the best ship of its type the world has ever seen is nothing but a floating target when that happens.

I think if Washington had not been there and SD did not have its failure that SD would have defeated Krishma but would have taken some damage from Krishma and would likely have take alot of topside damage from Krishmas friends since she was the focus of attention.

[renrich]

Nice going, Matt, I never paid much attention before, but my 1942 "Janes" mentions 4 ships building, one called Titibu but described as about 12000 to 15000 tons, 6 inch armor, 6- 12 inch guns, speed 30 kts. The exactitude of information is not guaranteed. Was in your vicinity last week at Port Mansfield. We flew up the beach about 30 miles upon leaving Sunday. Vfr but cloud layer though broken was low. Was hoping I did not get to meet you in an air to air. Martini time!

[renrich]

Jank, I read your whole reference after I posted and it did state that the SD never was in action during the part of the battle when the Kirishima was sunk. Interesting that the Kongo, Kirishima's sister, was built in Britain. They were handsome ships but of course not as well armed or armored as Washington or SD.

[jonsidneyb]

Battleship Washington:

I am a flag waving American and like to think we had the best stuff but I also want to always be a realist.

I see people give Washington a boost because she sank Kirishma. Well that is what you do in war, you fight the enemy but does she get too many points for this even though she did what she was supposed to do.

Kirishma was caught unaware by the Washington as she was pounding SD. I think this was partly Kirishmas fault for not responding to Washington but at the same time maybe Krishma was acting in the best way she knew in the circumstances. Perhaps she didn't realize that SD was having a circuit breaker problem and she was thinking she had to remove this threat before she could deal with another.

In any case if Washington did manage to approach the Japanese without being seen I doubt it was because Washington was stealtier than many other capital ships of the era. Well maybe harder to spot then some of the tallest masted ships but I think the tallest ships were the Japanese as well.

What if we substitute any 16 inch gun ship that was properly functioning into Washintons spot would it have made a differece. Not that I can see. If we substituted a 15 inch gun fully functioning ship of the era would it have made much difference in the outcome. I am thinking it wouldn't. I also think if we put any 14 inch gun ship of the era they would have killed of Krishma also. She had her attention on SD and was caught flat footed by Washington. She was a lesser ship but was also unprepared to face a new threat.

This is not to take anything away from Washington. I just think the way she handled Krishma does not prove or disprove what capablity Washington had.

This was not a one on one fight. Everyone was targeting SD. SD might not have been fighting back but thier turrets were trained on her. Washinton gained alot by not having turrets of various sizes trained on her.

If we substitute: Nelson, George, Venneto, Riechleu, Bismarck, I am convined the results would have been the same and Krishma is a lesser ship. I think any of the big gun battle cruisers could have taken her down just as well. You only need armor if you get hit. Washington did take any real hits. I think anything with 14 inch guns and up would have killed Krishma that day if they were in Washingtons position.