Best World war two warships?

[JugBR]

submarines !

[AVRoe]

"Liberty ship" was the name given to the EC2 type ship designed for "Emergency" construction by the United States Maritime Commission in World War II. Liberty ships were nicknamed "ugly ducklings" by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.The Liberty was 441 feet long and 56 feet wide. Her three-cylinder, reciprocating steam engine, fed by two oil-burning boilers produced 2,500 hp and a speed of 11 knots. Her 5 holds could carry over 9,000 tons of cargo, plus airplanes, tanks, and locomotives lashed to its deck. A Liberty could carry 2,840 jeeps, 440 tanks, or 230 million rounds of rifle ammunition.Libertys carried a crew of about 44 and 12 to 25 Naval Armed Guard. Some were armed with:

One 3 inch bow gun
One 4or 5 inch stern gun
Two 37 mm bow guns
Six 20 mm machine guns
The ability to build merchant shipping at a rate faster than it was lost, while maintaining a steady stream of supplies to the front was one of the keys to winning the war.

[Big Rock]

Hard not to acknowledge the substantial role the Essex class carriers played in winning the Pacific role. So too the Illustrious class in the Atlantic.

[trackend]

Cant dispute the brilliance of the Liberty ships but then in many ways that sum's up the USA's incredible industrial out put during WW2 even Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto recognised that the axis forces could not hope to compete on the scale of logistics that would pour out of the factories once war was directly engaged with the USA.
Having said that the liberty ship was not IMO a war vessel but a merchantman. If that is not the case you could then argue that the queens where warships transporting troops. 811000 for RMS Queen Elizabeth & 800000 for RMS Queen Mary and averaging 12000-15000 troops per trip.

[Danielmellbin]

BB: Yamato Class
BC: Scharnhorst Class
CA: Prinz Eugen (Late Hipper Class)
CV: Essex Class
CL: Edinburgh Class
DD: Don't know enough about aaall the different classes
SS: Type XXI

[namvet68]

1. RN Littorio Class BB
2. Graf Spee
3. RN Zara Class curisers
4. Essex Class Carriers
5. Fletcher Class

[Radarman60]

Hi,
I have Aerial Photos of the Aircraft carrier Graf Zepplin that Germany built and she sitting in dockside getting fitted for aircraft. The Photos I have were never published by anybody and they include the Battleship Tirpitz,ADMIRAL SCHEER,LUTZOW PRINCE EUGEN AND HIPPER ALONG WITH THE LIGHT CRUISER NURNBERG,LEIPZIG. AND OTHER CRUISERS OF THE FLEET. These photos were taken by the R.A.F. in 1943-44 Norway, Denmark, and Baltic coast. Does anyone else have such photos of these ships?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Radarman60

Hi,
I have Aerial Photos of the Aircraft carrier Graf Zepplin that Germany built and she sitting in dockside getting fitted for aircraft. The Photos I have were never published by anybody and they include the Battleship Tirpitz,ADMIRAL SCHEER,LUTZOW PRINCE EUGEN AND HIPPER ALONG WITH THE LIGHT CRUISER NURNBERG,LEIPZIG. AND OTHER CRUISERS OF THE FLEET. These photos were taken by the R.A.F. in 1943-44 Norway, Denmark, and Baltic coast. Does anyone else have such photos of these ships?

How do you have photos of the Zeppelin in Norway or Denmark or anywhere other than Germany? The GZ never left Germany. Or am I just not understanding you correctly?

[Glider]

Be interested in seeing them as I also firmly believe that she never left Germany

[delcyros]

GZ stayed on the Baltic coast so Radarman is basically correct.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I did not think it ever left port, except when the Russian's tried to tow it back to Russia.

[renrich]

The CAs built by the Germans for WW2 were largely failures. They had major engine problems. Could not compare to the later war US CAs.

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by renrich

The CAs built by the Germans for WW2 were largely failures. They had major engine problems. Could not compare to the later war US CAs.

BIG Call Richard!!! I think the Bostons were better, for the record when all of the elements are taken into account, but the Hipper/Eugen Class were very capable ships (and therefore it seems a little harsh to me to describe them as failures (perhaps they were failures, but not because of design issues, rather in their original specs as short ranged "treaty cruisers" but this was the fashion at the time of their construction...its even arguable whether they were in fact that short ranged, as Del will tell you).

One has to be very careful when talking "up" the US designs. They were very much the compromise......the 1940 expansion plans were drawn up with treaty limits stil in place, and to speed construction and output, the American simply ordered repeats of the same designs in subsequent fiscal years leading to 1944, rather than update the designs, which were urgently needed (there were a few exceptions to this. One effect of this shortcut to numbers was the increasing topweight of the American cruisers, which particulalry manifested itself in the Clevelands, but was also a much smaller problem in the Bostons. The main part of the fighting was done by the older "treaty" cruisers of the USN, except for the 1945 battles against the kamikazes....so the bostons were never really tested in a hotly contested battle. The german cruisers fought several quite hard battles and these cruisers fared up quite well


My opinion is they (the hippers) WERE a bit short ranged, but the only serious engine failure I am aware of was the Eugens last cruise as she was taken back to the US as war booty. I would think she was in a poor state by then , plus there is evidence to suggest that the inexperience of the American crews operating her on thet cuise may have been a factor

[renrich]

Quote from "Fighting Ships of WW2" by J N Westwood. "But in contriving ultra-sophisticated machinery, the designers neglected one or two simple matters. In 1941, for example, when the Eugen was operating in warm Atlantic waters, it was discovered that her condensers could not convert her exhaust steam fast enough into boiler feedwater." "Thus the Eugen did very little for the german war effort. Her sister ships did even less. Part of their trouble was unreliable machinery and part was their comparatively short range." I have read of these machinery problems in other references so I would argue that the german CAs would not match the American CAs or for that matter the IJN or British CAs for their contributions to the war effort.

[delcyros]

Renrich, do You blame machinery as the prime reason for the low war record of the three CA´s? Have you checked about Hippers atlantic cruise in 1940?
Or is it rather possible that the strategic decision after sinking of Bismarck in may 1941 may have been responsible for that no german surface ship broke out into the Atltantic in 41 and 42?

I am no great fan of the design, either but PRINZ EUGEN in 1945 state does not generally compare unfavourably with US CA´s, even in electronic equipment (a fairly large ECM suite, AR-shells), FC and basic radar technology (The only KM ship to receive FuG Berlin-0 centimetric sets). It was also subject to a series of very tough Il-2 and RAF air attacks in 1945 druing it´s part in the baltic rescue operations when operating under soviet VVS air superiority umbrella and with help of light forced performed well in this difficult tactical environment. A failure looks different to me.