Best World war two warships?

[parsifal]

There are two things that make the Kiwis unique....their skirts and their desire for sheep.....

[renrich]

Absolutely he wore the skirt on the bridge of New Zealand at Jutland. The Maoris had bestowed the skirt on him and it was supposed to, I think, bring luck or protect the wearer and New Zealand came through almost unscathed, the only BC on either side to do so.

[voldemort]

Carrier: Essex class CV
Battleship: Yamato class (Yamato and Musashi)
Battle Cruiser: Scharnhorst
Heavy Cruiser: Norfolk
Light Cruiser: HMS Belfast
Destroyers: Fletcher Class USN Destroyers
Submarines: Type XXI U-Boote (even not in numbers)
MTB/Patrol: S-Boote (late types)

[Amsel]

I like your choices.

[vikingBerserker]

Pretty dead on IMHO

[tomo pauk]

Germans would argue that Scharnhorst class ships are batteships, not battlecruisers. Sorry for nitpicking

[parsifal]

Some sources I have read (particularly Frame) rate the Scharnhorst as the worst Battlecruisers fieded by any nation.

For example, the Japanese Kirishima Class were originally rated as Battleships, but after their final refits were rated as Battlecruisers. With thei 8 14 inch guns I think they would have easily overpowered the Scharnhorsts with their nine 11" guns. On the other the hand the Scharnhorsts were superior in sped and endurance, and were simply a more modern design

The Scharnhorsts were the lightest armed capital ships of any navy at that time 9unless one includes heavy cruisers). They were capable ships, with exceptionally high speed, and for their size were relatively well protected. But like all warship design they were a series of compromises, and suffered badly in that development process from political intervention

I would even go so far as to argue the French Dunkerque class were superior, and wouild definately rate the Hood as superior, notwithstanding its lack of refit

[Glider]

The Dunkerque and the Scharnhorst are and will always be an interesting match. The Schornhorst has the better protection but the Dunkerque has the better weapons. The unknown question would be if the 13in guns would be enough to seriously compromise the german armour.

My guess and it is only a guess is that the Scharnhorst would have the advantage as she was without doubt able to take damage. French ships had a reputation for being fragile.

What is certain is that if yu replace the 9 x 11in with 6 x 15in any questions go away.

[Vincenzo]

afaik no battlecruiser there are after WWI, also the old BC, as Hood and Kongo, are no more considered BC but BB.
the concept of BC, a ship with around same weapon of a BB and around the speed of cruiser was passed when the new BB get high speed.

[tomo pauk]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Some sources I have read (particularly Frame) rate the Scharnhorst as the worst Battlecruisers fieded by any nation.


I would even go so far as to argue the French Dunkerque class were superior, and wouild definately rate the Hood as superior, notwithstanding its lack of refit

The crews of 4 RN battlecruisers that experienced wholesale explosions & hull breaks would bitterly argue against rating Scharnhorst as a worst Battlecruiser.

[tomo pauk]

Originally Posted by Vincenzo

afaik no battlecruiser there are after WWI, also the old BC, as Hood and Kongo, are no more considered BC but BB.
the concept of BC, a ship with around same weapon of a BB and around the speed of cruiser was passed when the new BB get high speed.

Agree.

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by tomo pauk

The crews of 4 RN battlecruisers that experienced wholesale explosions & hull breaks would bitterly argue against rating Scharnhorst as a worst Battlecruiser.

What four British Battlecruisers were sunk in WWII???? considering thaqt they only fielded three for the whole war


The four BCs lost at Jutland were lost a much from Beatty's stupidity as anything to do with the design faults....but the issue is the title of the thread....best warships of WWII, not of all time

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by Vincenzo

afaik no battlecruiser there are after WWI, also the old BC, as Hood and Kongo, are no more considered BC but BB.
the concept of BC, a ship with around same weapon of a BB and around the speed of cruiser was passed when the new BB get high speed.

Well according to both Janes and Conways, Hood was rated as a Battlecreuiser for her entire career.

The Kongo Class were rated as BCs when built, but after reconstruction in the thirties were re-rated as fast Battleships. That much is true, but their design, protection, displacement all put them in the class of Battlecruiser. Their displacement is perhaps the best indication of what they were....they displaced a maximum of 31000 tons deep displacement, to the Scharnhorsts 38900. . It seems ilogical to rate the Scharnhorst as a Battlecruiser at nearly 40000 tons, when the Japanese ships are lighter but still rated as a Battleship

What the Battlecruiser description suggests to me for the Scharnhorst was that despite their relatively massive size they were still weak and unsatisfactory ships. What the label "fast battleships" for the Kongos suggests to me is that despite their obvious weaknesses as Battlecruisers, they could be half considered as Battleships because of their firepower, and overall design excellence. Thats notwithstanding their lossess to the US BBs in November 1942....

[Glider]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Well according to both Janes and Conways, Hood was rated as a Battlecreuiser for her entire career.

The Kongo Class were rated as BCs when built, but after reconstruction in the thirties were re-rated as fast Battleships. That much is true, but their design, protection, displacement all put them in the class of Battlecruiser. Their displacement is perhaps the best indication of what they were....they displaced a maximum of 31000 tons deep displacement, to the Scharnhorsts 38900. . It seems ilogical to rate the Scharnhorst as a Battlecruiser at nearly 40000 tons, when the Japanese ships are lighter but still rated as a Battleship

What the Battlecruiser description suggests to me for the Scharnhorst was that despite their relatively massive size they were still weak and unsatisfactory ships. What the label "fast battleships" for the Kongos suggests to me is that despite their obvious weaknesses as Battlecruisers, they could be half considered as Battleships because of their firepower, and overall design excellence. Thats notwithstanding their lossess to the US BBs in November 1942....

I don't know why the Japanese re rated the Kongo's as fast battleships as the changes they had were similar to those made to the Renown. Modern engines, weight saving that was allocated to better protection to air attack and AA defence. However the Renown remained a Battle cruiser, one that I would prefer to the Kongo.

The Schornhorst has as far as I know never been called weak or unsatisfactory. True 6 x 15in would be better than 9 x 11in and that was being changed but that was the only problem.

[Juha]

I agree with Glider on Renown, it was very useful ship for RN having respectable firepower in 6 * 15in and good heavy AA with 20*4.5in and enough speed to operate with fleet carriers, but still somewhat lacking in protection.

On Voldemort's list
I partly agree but
BB: Iowa class, they had speed to operate with fleet carriers and excellent AA, also the 16in/L50 was excellent 16in gun.
BC: Scharnhorst was not a bad design but it had a number of serious flaws: weak main armament, main armour deck was too low down because of the class was heavier than was designed, in fact at full load the main armoured deck was below waterline, also there was a discontinue over boiler rooms because of boilers were bigger than was thought and so the main armoured deck was heightened over boiler rooms but the vertical part of that was only 80mm thick and that proved to be a fatal weakness in Scharnhorst’s case, a 14in shell from DOY hit there and penetrated and did massive damage in No 1 boiler room and doomed the ship in the Battle of North Cape. Also the general weakness of horizontal protection was shown when they were hit by level bombers. And torpedo protection, while effective at mid-ship was too weak at ends as shown when HMS Acasta hit Scharnhorst with a torpedo in 1940.

CA: I prefer Baltimore class
CL: I have nothing against Belfast but maybe Clevelands were better

A/S vessel: Loch class frigates because of their 2 Squids

Juha