Best World war two warships?

[delcyros]

Yes Renrich, the goold old Sail is my terra incognito, without doubt (it´s getting better in ancient times again).

I think the only modern BB, which probably would have problems in such a situation is the french BB Richelieu, assuming it would have been avaiable. Richelieu is an excellent ship but not designed for close range slugfests.
Her guns, while beeing extremely powerful, suffered from inacceptable dispersion patterns at ~10.000 yards (in excess of 10%!!!) and from a questionably low rate of fire of around 1.33 round per minute. Another fault of her guns was that they were prone to jamming in rapid firing mode. Her belt covered less than advisable for buoyancy reserve and there were no splinterproof plating at the extensive ship ends. One hit may knock out half of her firepower, even if the hit doesn´t penetrate (shock effect and plugs of armour, but at the ranges in question, she may suffer penetrations). Her power supply by 42 wasn´t up to the tasks and she had an easy to distinguish appearence.
The excellent speed of Richelieu doesn´t play a part in the confined waters of Savo nor would the excellent deck protection play a role in flat trajectory engagements.

[renrich]

Ahhh, del it is always good to hear your objective, critical and thorough analysis of warship details. If one will go back to my original post on this subject I made the criteria I am using deliberately to justify my sentimental choices, primarily good old CA25, my favorite uncle's cruiser. I make no pretense that Washington was superior to Iowa or Bismarck or whatever. But she was there and she was the only BB on any side to sink another capital ship by her lonesome so I reckon the American taxpayer got good value out of that expenditure. Also, as good a Texan as I am, the Texas could not have done what Washington did because she could not have been in that location at that time because she was at least 10 knots slower if her old reciprocating engines had been able to get across the Pacific without breaking down and her guns could not maintain the rate of fire that Washington did and probaly couldn't hit anything because the guns were worn out.

[Lucky13]

Originally Posted by jonsidneyb

Instead of being my long winded self.

I guess I should ask a question instead.

What battleships do you think would not have been able to handle this situation that Washington was in?

USS Maryland BB-46?

[renrich]

The problem with Maryland would have been that she would have had to steam with the SD to get to the area of the battle. The SD steamed at 26 kts(as did Washington) to get to the area(they needed to hurry) and Maryland was designed for 21 but I doubt she could achieve that in 1942, certainly not sustain it. Then at the last when Washington was executing "the get the heck out of here" Maryland would have been some 8 to 10 knots slower which would have kept her in range of the torps longer.

[royal744]

Originally Posted by carpenoctem1689

1.)Aircraft carriers, well i always loved Lexington, Akagi and shinano. Shinano had the brilliant idea of being moved from one yard to another, before completion, with US submarines patrolling everywhere....brilliant right? I like lexington, because she was fast, could carry many aircraft (ninety?) and had some decent damage control. The decks were too thin though, and made out of wood if i remember correctly. Akagi is a close contender, but im gonna go american on this one.

I prefer the English carriers. They had steel decks that didn't burn clear through.

[T4.H]

The old question.

What is better?
Armoured flight deck or hangar deck?

advantage: small bombs and kamikaze couldn't penetrate the flight deck.
But even when a kamikaze didn't get through it...
One ship was permanently maimed (HMS Formidable) after one hit on the flight deck!

Armoured flight deck has one realy big disadvantage!
If you have to exchange the elevators, because they are too small for the new jet fighters (after war), you get in big trouble.
You have to cut out a big part of the thick flight deck.

some disadvatages of the british carriers:
short live of the boilers (HMS Indomitable)
the not real good underwater protection
I'm not sure, but I think, íf they had to be repaired or refit, they have to stay in harbour for realy long time.

[Glider]

As to the old questionthe armoured flight deck is best. I don't know where you got your info about the Formidable being permanently maimed from one hit on the flight deck. As far as I am aware she was hit by two 2000lb bombs in the Med and survived plus a number of kamikaze hits in the pacific. She was seriously damaged when a sliver of the armoured flight deck penetrated the boiler rooms, but thats a lot better than a bomb penetrating the boiler rooms.

The main problem with an armoured flight deck is the extra weight high up which sevrely limits the ability to carry large numbers of aircraft for the weight of the ship.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Glider

As to the old questionthe armoured flight deck is best. I don't know where you got your info about the Formidable being permanently maimed from one hit on the flight deck. As far as I am aware she was hit by two 2000lb bombs in the Med and survived plus a number of kamikaze hits in the pacific. She was seriously damaged when a sliver of the armoured flight deck penetrated the boiler rooms, but thats a lot better than a bomb penetrating the boiler rooms.

The main problem with an armoured flight deck is the extra weight high up which sevrely limits the ability to carry large numbers of aircraft for the weight of the ship.

I think that's up for debate. The armored box took up much room as well as prevented A/C from running below deck like in the open american hanger. What is a more valuable fleet asset - a 19,900 ton carrier such as Yorktown that carried 100 A/C, or a 23,000 ton carrier like the Illustrious that could only carry 36 A/C initially - later boosted to 56? Yorktown and Hornet both showed resilience under fire, as did the Illustrious class. The big US carriers with heavy air groups worked beautifully in the Pacific. I believe if the US pursued a class like the Illustrious it would only have served to our detriment. Perhaps a design as such was more suited to the Atlantic - any thoughts?

[Lucky13]

Armoured deck or not, I'd still pick "my" Yorktown any day....


How do they compare in anti aircraft defense the RN and USN carriers?

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Armoured deck or not, I'd still pick "my" Yorktown any day....


How do they compare in anti aircraft defense the RN and USN carriers?

The best anti aircraft defense was a fighter.

The more you carried, the safer you were.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by mkloby

I think that's up for debate. The armored box took up much room as well as prevented A/C from running below deck like in the open american hanger. What is a more valuable fleet asset - a 19,900 ton carrier such as Yorktown that carried 100 A/C, or a 23,000 ton carrier like the Illustrious that could only carry 36 A/C initially - later boosted to 56? Yorktown and Hornet both showed resilience under fire, as did the Illustrious class. The big US carriers with heavy air groups worked beautifully in the Pacific. I believe if the US pursued a class like the Illustrious it would only have served to our detriment. Perhaps a design as such was more suited to the Atlantic - any thoughts?

My last sentence agreed with you to a degree, but its worth noting that the Hornet and the Yorktown were both sunk by bombers using bombs a lot smaller than the 2000lb that hit the Formidable.

Its also worth remembering that the Midway class of carriers that came after the Essex, were also equipped with armoured decks. The USN wouldn't have made the switch unless there were some benefits.

Your comment about the Ilustrious is accurate but the Illustrious not only had an armoured deck, her hanger walls were around 4 inches thick which added a huge amount of weight to her and as a result she only had one hanger deck. This was without doubt overkill and this was reduced in later ships and capacity improved.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Glider

My last sentence agreed with you to a degree, but its worth noting that the Hornet and the Yorktown were both sunk by bombers using bombs a lot smaller than the 2000lb that hit the Formidable.

Its also worth remembering that the Midway class of carriers that came after the Essex, were also equipped with armoured decks. The USN wouldn't have made the switch unless there were some benefits.

Your comment about the Ilustrious is accurate but the Illustrious not only had an armoured deck, her hanger walls were around 4 inches thick which added a huge amount of weight to her and as a result she only had one hanger deck. This was without doubt overkill and this was reduced in later ships and capacity improved.

Good point on the weight of the bombs. Hornet was initially hit with 8 bombs, three torps, and two planes. The Americans attempted to scuttle her, hitting her with nine more torps, followed by an estimated 400 5" shells. Finally, she was abandoned and the Japanese hit her with four long lances. That is a lot of damage. After her hasty repairs after Coral Sea, Yorktown took 3 more bombs and two more torps, until finished by a sub. I agree that Implacable was an improvement (reduction in this case) over the armored box design of the Illustrious - which was just ridiculously strong. Max air group was much improved, and she carried was about 81 birds.

[Lucky13]

The Midway class I think was actually commissioned with wooden decks, they were later modernized with armoured ones...





USS Yorktown was sunk by a torpedo from I-168 a Japanese submarine.

[Glider]

Basically both countries learnt from each other. The USA adopted the armoured deck, the British realised that the hanger walls were way to heavy and reduced them and the British also adopted the US method of protecting the aviation fuel tanks.

[syscom3]

One advantage the wooden deck had over the armoured box type, was it was easier to build.

An important factor when you have to build many dozens of carriers quickly.