Best World war two warships?

[parsifal]

I have nominated the best Allied, the best Axis, and then the best overall
CV
Allied: Essex
Axis: Zuikaku
Overall: Essex
CVL
Allied: Colossus
Axis: Zuiho
Overall: Colossus
CVE
Allied: Attacker
Axis: Taiyo
Overall: Attacker
BB
Allied: Iowa
Axis: Yamato
Overall: Yamato
BC
Allied Hood
Axis: Scharnhorst
Overall Hood
CA/CS (Pocket Battleship)
Allied: Boston
Axis: Nachi
Overall Boston
CL
Allied Brooklyn
Axis: Abruzzi
Overall Brooklyn
CLAA/DDAA
Allied Atlanta
Axis Akitsuki
Overall Akitsuki
DD
Allied Gearing
Axis Shimakaze
Overall Shimakaze
TB
Allied Le Fier
Axis Matsu
Overall Matsu
MTB
Allied MTB 511 (93 ft Vosper type)
Axis: S-100 (114 ft type)
Overall S 100
Submarine
Allied Gato
Axis Type XXI
Overall Type XXI

[starling]

do not forget the hunt class destroyrs,that helped out during d-day.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by renrich

Prinz Eugen was a heavy cruiser so could not be a sister ship to Bismarck, a battleship. Bismarck's sister ship was Tirpitz. Perhaps you meant she was Bismarck's consort.

Good catch. I am surprised I did not catch that. The only sister ship the Bismarck had was the Tirpitz.

I am sure though is talking about escort.

[renrich]

flyboy, are you saying that the US CLs with 5 inch guns were the best CLs? Those were built for use as AA cruisers and were really handicapped in a surface action.

[timshatz]

Parsifal, not a bad list. Good pics in there.

Not sure about the destoyer pics though. Granted, I'm partial to the Gearings (served on one) but the Shimakaze looked like an updated 30s design. Granted, it was big and fairly fast. But it looks like a wet ride.

More like an oversized torpedo boat than a fleet destroyer.

Maybe it shows a different design philosophy.

[parsifal]

Shimakaze was the sole example of her kind, and was the foreunner of the new fleet destroyer for the Japanese fleet. She was not as well protected as the gearings, lacking unitised machinery spaces, and her AA defences were also inferior. She carried 16 x 25mm AA, and the 6 x 5 in guns provided a marginal AA capacity (better than the Brit 4.7, but worse than the 5 in/38 cal US weapon). She was adequately equipped for ASW defence, being provided with 18 DCs and sonar from the start. She was also completed with radar.

Her noteworth features were her heavy armament, and her speed. On trials she made 42 knots, and in service, fully laden, her sea speed was 39 knots. Whilst other DDs had higher theoretical speeds, particuarly the French Contre Torpilleurs, none could maintai such a high speed for such an extended period of time.

The heavy armament was evident in both her guns and her torpedoes. Carrying 15 24 in torps (of the very latest kind), she was able to engage with torps out to about 18000 yds. When you consider that even battleships seldom engaged at ranges more than this (the record being 26000 aet by Warspite in 1940, with Scharnhorst also scoring a similar record against the Glorious, also in 1940) the full power of this type becomes apparent. Her 5in guns also outranged (in terms of effective range) the guns of the gearings by at least 5000 yds.

The downfall of these ships were their cost, their indifferent AA and ASW armament. By the time they arrived, the dominance of carrier aircraft had been well and truly established, and the much cheaper, and more durable Akitsukis offered a better investment for the Japanese. The Akisukis represented, in my opinion the best value for money so far as AA deence was concerned, but in terms of the traditional fleet destroyer, the Shimakaze was the "battleship" of the destroyers.

[Glider]

Its a good list. The only things I would comment on are the

TB
Allied Hunt
Axis Matsu
Overall Matsu

This was close. The Hunt has the Guns and better ASW, the Matsu the Torpedo's and the edge in speed, LAA was similar
For a fleet action then its the Matsu, for escorting the Hunt which is what they were each designed for. If its a shoot out then I gave it to the Matsu.

MTB
Allied Fairmile D
Axis: S-100 (114 ft type)
Overall Fairmile D
Again close, very close. The S100 has a clear advantage in speed but the D has the firepower. I gave it to the D as in action extream speed was little used, the approach being normally being at very slow speeds or even at rest. The key was to have sufficient speed and this I feel the Dog Boat had. When it came to action the D was almost unmatched and the S100 would have to give way.

DD
Allied Gearing
Axis Shimakaze
Overall Gearing
Again very close but the DD has to be an all round vessel with good AA protection, speed, ASW and the ability to fight with Guns and Torpedo's. The Gearing is good all round, the Shimakaze has strength and gaps and in a war where aircraft are such a threat those gaps are lethal.

[delcyros]

Originally Posted by Glider

MTB
Allied Fairmile D
Axis: S-100 (114 ft type)
Overall Fairmile D
Again close, very close. The S100 has a clear advantage in speed but the D has the firepower. I gave it to the D as in action extream speed was little used, the approach being normally being at very slow speeds or even at rest. The key was to have sufficient speed and this I feel the Dog Boat had. When it came to action the D was almost unmatched and the S100 would have to give way.

I think the key disadvantage of the D-type was it´s seakeeping ability. The D-type is a true shore combat boat, excellent for this purpose and in a 1 on 1 fight vs any S-boat better, hands down. The S-boats however, had the general advantage in better seakeeping abilities despite beeing rather glider than displacement -propelled crafts. They invested a considerable amount of efforts in establishing the -for their size- extraordinary tolerance to environmental conditions (including waterwings aft to stabilize the trim). The S-boat could engage and disengage at utmost speed without impairing it´s fighting abilities...

[Glider]

Good points. The German boats were certainly exceptional but the D Class was designed for long range missions some of them going as far as Norway so to think of them as mainly coastal boats is a little unkind.

[parsifal]

Glider

The reason i didnt pick the Hunts was because they were a bit short on endurance (or so ive read). But they were nevertheless useful ships, and as you point out had significant advantages over the Matsus in certain areas. So I could not object if the Hunts were on the list, or placed as the best available. But the Le Fiers, ton for ton are worth having a look at

I have always had a hard time finding good material on MTBs. I have one book on them. Your description of tactics is basically correct. Nearly always used at night, Tactics usually relied on stealth rather than speed, for both sides

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by delcyros

Hi Del

Parsifal, the Panzerschiffe were conforming to their treaty limits within acceptable tolerances.
standart displacement is what counts. The PB Deutschland had a std. displacement of 10.600t. and a light displacement considerably below 10.000t. The deep load was 14.290t., altough this increased after the Atlantic bow had been refitted (long after the treaty of Versailles and London expired). Follow on ships were a tad bit heavier due to refits and modifications undertaken after war broke out but thats true for all combattants (additional AAA, updated firecontroll...).

Hi del

Your figures are slightly lower than those quoted in Conways, Janes and one other reference I have for the KM. But not enough to get excited about.

Except when you say that Deutschlands Std Disp is below 10000. Conways lists it as 11700, whilst the German Warships of WWII lists it as 11700 also. My Encyclopaedia of ships lists the same displacement. Factsare the Germans exceeded treaty limits, and broke the rules. Oh, and the Treaty of versailles was repudiated by Hitler, it did not "expire". Same with the Anglo-German Naval Treaty


Any comparison has to take care of contemporary CA´s. The Exeter was a 6 x 8" CA, basically the smallest possible design with 8" and cruiser abilities.
The comparable Kent-class CA averaged with 10.400t. stdt. and 14.150t. avg. deep load, very much like PB Deutschland / Lützow.
The italian Zara class CA had a displacement of 11.870t. std. and 14.530t. deep.
The french Algerie CA was perfect 10.000t. std. and 13.900t. deep, the only modern CA to fullfill the requirements of the treaty.
The US Cleveland class light cruiser had a standart displacement of 11.800t. and a deep load of 14.183t.

The Panzerschiffe were thus conforming to their displacement limits but this was not without some notable risks in protection.

I dont believe that they were conforming. They were 1700 tons over maximum at the very least, and in the case of the Spee, at least 2200 tons over weight. That represents the potential to put a lot more effort into the defensive schemes than the ships she faced in 1939. The CLs were much less well protected, and the Exeter, also could not withstand the 11" guns in anything like a comparable state to the way Spee could withstand her broadsides

I am not saying the PBs were invulnerable, but the odds against the three British ships on that December morning were heavily weighted in favour of the Spee, at least on a theoretical level

[trackend]

Even the fastest vessels are a lot slower than shells.
A small example is, The Gremans carried out several raids across the Rhine prior to the crossing made by the allies. A number of LCA's had been brought overland from Holland for the crossing.
At night the German storm boats would make dashes across the river while the LCA's on patrol duty would turn the wick down and cruise silently along.
The phosforesant plume and noise from the outboards made them easy targets and even though the LCA's only carried a Lewis gun, 2 or 3 boats each firing 750 RPM on a stable slow moving platform would rip these much faster little boats to bits.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Glider

The reason i didnt pick the Hunts was because they were a bit short on endurance (or so ive read). But they were nevertheless useful ships, and as you point out had significant advantages over the Matsus in certain areas. So I could not object if the Hunts were on the list, or placed as the best available. But the Le Fiers, ton for ton are worth having a look at

I have always had a hard time finding good material on MTBs. I have one book on them. Your description of tactics is basically correct. Nearly always used at night, Tactics usually relied on stealth rather than speed, for both sides

The Le Fliers together with the slightly larger Le Hardi were fine ships but the problem with the Le Fliers were that they were never completed. For that reason I didn't want to include them.
The Hunt did have short legs, certainly when compared with the USN Destroyer Escorts having about a third of the range.
One small aside the Hunts were I believe the first warships fitted with stabalisers but these were often removed and the space used for extra fuel. What I don't know is how much this helped.

[fly boy]

Originally Posted by renrich

flyboy, are you saying that the US CLs with 5 inch guns were the best CLs? Those were built for use as AA cruisers and were really handicapped in a surface action.

oh then that other kind with eight inch sorry

[delcyros]

parsifal, side discussion moved to another thread.

regards,