Your Favourite Warship of World War II

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Your Favourite Warship of World War II

Post by RF » Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:35 pm

What other ship could it be? Well, its just unfortunate about the name..... I remember a few years ago at a pub quiz in England one punter was asked the question:

What type of warship was the USS Enterprise?

Answer: ''Starship''

I'm afraid its just the Gene Roddenberry elevation of its status.......
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Your Favourite Warship of World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:39 pm

In reality USS Enterprise NCC-1701 is a Deep Space Heavy Cruiser of the Constitution Class.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Your Favourite Warship of World War II

Post by RF » Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:11 am

But the real USS Enterprise was a US Navy warship as opposed to being a starship. The question posed at the quiz I think did make the distinction clear......
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Your Favourite Warship of World War II

Post by paul.mercer » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:23 pm

Gentlemen,
Presumably this question is about actual ships rather than hypothetical possibilities.
My favorite would be Warspite on account of her battle history.

madmike
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:53 pm

Re: Your Favourite Warship of World War II

Post by madmike » Sat Oct 30, 2010 1:01 pm

Fav warship of WWII,,,,,,,,,,,,,well lets have a look....no to bloody hard.lol OK OK ill give alist by class
CV......Enterprise........Ark Royal
BB...........Bismarck------Iowa
BC...........Hood--------Scharnhorst class
C..........Hipper class........County class........ Houston
DD.........Tribal class........fletcher class
Yeh i know its more than one ship,,but to be honest,to me these were all great ships of their time.yes some are not the very best,BUT ALL PROVED THEMSELVES....there is so much said and written about these ships,oh this one was better than that one,because blah blah blah! BUT it doesnt matter how good the ship is...........IT IS THE CREW THAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART,without well trained sailors to man the ships and fight them,ALL those ships are just floating lumps of metal.

Oh and surfsup how about HMAS AustralisII..county(kent sub-class)Heavy cruiser,,,as far as i know she took 5 or 6 kamikaze hits in 7 days AND still made it back.not bad for WHAT some people call a sub-standard heavy cruiser class.
You dont win wars by dying for your country.....But by making the other sonofabitch die for his. Gen George S Patton US ARMY

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Your Favourite War Ship of the 2nd World War

Post by paul.mercer » Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:13 pm

Darren43 wrote:Warspite. Gotta love that fat old girl, she never gave up, even busted her tow on the way to the breakers.
Agreed, Warspite proved herself in both wars, what a pity she was not saved from the breakers and preserved for all time.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Your Favourite Warship of World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:05 pm

I agree with Paul and is curious because last Sunday in a scale model exposition some of us were talking in how the British saved Belfast and let Warspite or KGV to die an humillianting death.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: Your Favourite Warship of World War II

Post by neil hilton » Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:19 pm

My favourite ships of ww2? In no particular order.
HMS Warspite, no other ship comes close to her record. Been there done that!
HMS Malaya, my dads ship, torpedoed but still made it home.
Dido class CLs, sheer good looks.
Takao class CAs, fine big cruisers.
Fletcher/Gearing class DDs, with the twin 5" mounts, serious firepower for a tin can.
North Carolina class BBs, good design for a treaty battleship emphasising firepower and speed.
Fiji class CLs, big high tech light cruisers.
Soldato class DDs, much under-rated design IMO equal to contemporary vessels.
Deutschland class CAs, I just like the idea of having 11" guns on a cruiser hull.
La Fantasque class DDs, speedy and good firepower.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Your Favourite Warship of World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:27 pm

North Carolina class BBs, good design for a treaty battleship emphasising firepower and speed.
I agree: of the "new" three battleship classes the US produced he North Carolina was the most succesfull one. It was USS Washington the one that "saved" the humilliated South Dakota. The external sloped armor of North Cal also make her better to absorb torpedo attack and, in a way, she served as a "base" for the USS Montana that departed from the South Dak and Iowa armoring schemes.

Regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Your Favourite Warship of World War II

Post by Bgile » Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:39 pm

North Carolina:

The best torpedo defense system of the three classes.
Everything else equal or inferior to following classes.

South Dakota:

Better protection against diving shells.
Greater belt incline to protect against more powerful shells.
Thicker armor than North Carolina in places.

Iowa:

Fastest battleship ever built by anyone.
Better engineering plant subdivision than in previous classes.
Thicker armor than South Dakota in places.
More powerful 16"/50 cal guns.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Your Favourite Warship of World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:42 pm

Bgile:

You have forgotten the tens of posts in which, refering to respected authors, it has been clear that South Dak and Iowa presented serious flaws. In the South Dak issues we must add the II Guadalcanal combat performance AND the seagoing problems that her own commanding officer (well, USS Massachussets) reported.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Your Favourite Warship of World War II

Post by Bgile » Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:07 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Bgile:

You have forgotten the tens of posts in which, refering to respected authors, it has been clear that South Dak and Iowa presented serious flaws. In the South Dak issues we must add the II Guadalcanal combat performance AND the seagoing problems that her own commanding officer (well, USS Massachussets) reported.
I haven't forgotten anything. I have some of the same books you have, and also Friedman's "US Battleships". Of all the many posts you have made, the only valid criticism of the following classes is the TDS one. How could there be? In every other way the following classes are design improvements. Maybe you can tell me which of the above statements I made are untrue. I think you will have a hard time finding one.

The experience pointed to by the XO of Massachusettes (NOT the CO) is one statistically insignificant report and there is no indication that other ships wouldn't have had the same problem in the same conditions. What makes you think North Carolina would have been better in those particular conditions?

As I (and others) have pointed out many times, the electrical problem experienced by South Dakota has nothing to do with the design of the ship. It was a mistake by a crewmember, and it was followed by another mistake by another crewmember.

By the way, you keep referring to Garzke & Dulin. They begin their chapter on the South Dakota class as follows:

"The four South Dakota class ships, the BEST OF ALL THOSE DESIGNED UNDER THE LIMITATIONS OF THE WASHINGTON TREATY, shared a common ancestry with the two North Carolina class ships, the first American battleships of the post-treaty era."

You must be reading a different Garzke & Dulin than I am.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Your Favourite Warship of World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:36 pm

Bgile,

I have, also, Friedman on US Battleships and Garzke and Dullin on US Battleships. Remember that when the term "Treaty Battleships" is used it refers to seriously limited ships (35K tons max.) which had to fight with ships that weren't treaty limited, as Bismarck or Yamato. Those that werent' limited by the Treaties had better armor and armor distribution (space arrayed), more beam, more turrets (guns distributed in similar batteties in front and aft), etc.

You are also forgetting that the South Dakota Class had vulnerable circuitry which was one of the reasons why she failed so miserably at II Guadalcanal. The points on the problems of the South Dakota have been mentioned several times before so I think it is not necesary to bring them forth now.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Your Favourite Warship of World War II

Post by Bgile » Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:44 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Bgile,

I have, also, Friedman on US Battleships and Garzke and Dullin on US Battleships. Remember that when the term "Treaty Battleships" is used it refers to seriously limited ships (35K tons max.) which had to fight with ships that weren't treaty limited, as Bismarck or Yamato. Those that werent' limited by the Treaties had better armor and armor distribution (space arrayed), more beam, more turrets (guns distributed in similar batteties in front and aft), etc.

You are also forgetting that the South Dakota Class had vulnerable circuitry which was one of the reasons why she failed so miserably at II Guadalcanal. The points on the problems of the South Dakota have been mentioned several times before so I think it is not necesary to bring them forth now.
They were mostly wrong, which is why I keep bringing them up. South Dakota's problems were due to a damage control error and had little to do with the design of the ship.

Why do you think South Dakota had "vulnerable circuitry"? Any battleship can suffer electrical failure if someone makes a mistake.

Presumably you think three turrets are fine in KGV, Scharnhorst, North Carolina, Yamato, Renown, etc but not in South Dakota and Iowa. Three turrets are superior in some respects to four. More guns and more efficient distribution of armor, for example. If you only have to armor three turrets and three barbettes instead of four, you get more armor weight to put somewhere else on a given displacement. We can go round and round on this, but there are advantages to either scheme.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Your Favourite Warship of World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:58 pm

Bgile:
South Dakota's problems were due to a damage control error and had little to do with the design of the ship.
Wrong: the cabling was exposed which is why it was damaged, in the first place. This flaw is one of the myths attributed to Bismarck's design, which wasn't, but present in the South Dak. Friedman refers to this in his US Battleship book and I quote it some three or four months ago.

Presumably you think three turrets are fine in KGV, Scharnhorst, North Carolina, Yamato, Renown, etc but not in South Dakota and Iowa. Three turrets are superior in some respects to four. More guns and more efficient distribution of armor, for example. If you only have to armor three turrets and three barbettes instead of four, you get more armor weight to put somewhere else on a given displacement. We can go round and round on this, but there are advantages to either scheme.
Aside from South Dakota I regard Scharnhorst as one of the worst battleships ever produced, even being German. Yamato did have three turrets for the same reason as Iowa or South Dak: the design for a four turret batteship killer as Yamato called for 80+K tons and a draft that no Japanese port could take, so they shortened the citadel with the three turrets (Garzke and Dullin). However those turrets were so heavily armoured that there is no issue in them being hit by lesser (16" or less) shells.
According to both: Friedman and Raven the naval artillery experts prefered the two twin turret front and aft for several reasons that have been refered in this forum in numerous ocassions.

Regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Post Reply