Battleship Top Ten

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Maybe USS Arizona, for instance??? :think:

I believe the masts (pre rebuild) were somewhat cool and sui generis...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Surely Bismarck is number one, otherwise why do we have this website.....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
paul mercer
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Tavistock, West Devon

Post by paul mercer »

Think you are all right in some respects!
Scharnhorst, Gneisneau and PE the most beautiful, Bismarck/Tirpitz for sheer awsomeness, but a close up head on view of a QE class like Warspite punching her way through the sea, for the most pugnacious look!
The later British ships like KGV are undoubtably powerful, but with their twin funnels they always appear a little 'bitty' and old fashioned.
I have to say I never found the Japanese or US ships particularly attractive to look at.
That's my piece anyway!
User avatar
Admiral-scheer
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:43 am
Location: Ottawa,Canada

Post by Admiral-scheer »

Its a shame that we can't place the Hippers in the list because their were cruisers.

I think Gneisenau should replace Sharnhorst in the "Most Beautiful BB"

But in my opinon I think the other nine ships are out of the Bismarck's league in Beauty (except: for Littorio, Yamato and Richelieu).

I do agree with Mercer that the Two funnel stack is very ugly.

American BB's would look nice if their were not so tightly armed.

Oh and one more thing: can someone explain to me how Yamato ranks higher then Iowa?
BlueMax1
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:42 am
Location: West Houston

Post by BlueMax1 »

Hey Karl,

Don't forget about the USS Alabama. Great lines, 16 inch mains, stacked secondary, excellent gunnery and just a good battlewagon package. South Dakota Class

Image

Steve :cool:
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

Admiral-scheer wrote:
I think Gneisenau should replace Sharnhorst in the "Most Beautiful BB"
Gneisenau had a mainmast positioned to the back of the funnel, Scharnhorst had its mainmast set further back which I feel does give better athestic quality.
''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

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Hey BlueMax1:

wonderfull photo, no doubt. The problem is that it is Top Ten and Now there are a lot of inputs here. And I´m not judge, can someone can come up with a proposal about the list: this is a democracy after all...

:D
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Laurenz
Member
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:57 am
Location: mainz germany

Top 10

Post by Laurenz »

I do not understand sometimes forumcomrades's taste.
i like Bismarcks or Tirpitz' design.
For me its not lousy :-)
L.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

It is not such a matter of taste or design, but of effectiveness in combat missions that count.

So which ships do you take to war today? The current naval design ships, with their rather ugly, top heavy design, or WW2 ships that simply look attractive?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Laurenz
Member
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:57 am
Location: mainz germany

Dear RF,

Post by Laurenz »

i understand this, ok.
if do you search the cheapest way to sink Malta by doing a naval attack (excliding nuclear weapons), you should take a battleship. Shells are cheaper than rockets :-)
But if we discuss WWII's battleships only, then i ask myselfe how you can decide it? We have not so many battleship combats in this history.
There is no combat between Iowa and Yamato :-)
There is only Bismarck which sunks Hood and made 4 hits on PoW and recieved 3 hits by PoW.
Kind regards,
L.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Dear RF,

Post by lwd »

Laurenz wrote:...
But if we discuss WWII's battleships only, then i ask myselfe how you can decide it? We have not so many battleship combats in this history.
There is no combat between Iowa and Yamato :-)
There is only Bismarck which sunks Hood and made 4 hits on PoW and recieved 3 hits by PoW.
...
There are few more.
Bismark vs Rodney and KGV
The twins vs Repulse
Sharnhorst vs Duke of York.
Kirishima vs SoDak and Washington
if you want a bit of a stretch Mass vs Jean Bart
Yamashiro vs the US battle line
Warpite vs Giulio Cesare
The British vs the Vichy at Oran and Mers-el-Kébir

I may have missed some....
Then there are engaments with BBs vs other ships that give an idea of what their performance vs each other may have been like.
User avatar
Admiral-scheer
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:43 am
Location: Ottawa,Canada

Post by Admiral-scheer »

RF wrote: Gneisenau had a mainmast positioned to the back of the funnel, Scharnhorst had its mainmast set further back which I feel does give better athestic quality.
Funny,because I think by placing the mainmast at the back of the funnel gives it more beauty then Scharnhorst.
Best regards
User avatar
_Derfflinger_
Supporter
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:01 pm
Location: Missouri, USA

Post by _Derfflinger_ »

Agree. I like the mainmast placement on Gneisenau better for looks, though operationally, the KM planned to move it back as on Scharnhorst.

I also think Gneisenau's Atlantic bow is the better looking of the two. Scharnhorst's was a bit more stark, with more pronounced anchor kluse openings.

Nonetheless, they were both pretty good looking BB's!

Derf
User avatar
Terje Langoy
Supporter
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Bergen, Norway

Post by Terje Langoy »

Hello, everybody.

In my opinion, the Gneisenau rank very high because of several things. First of all, (quite an insignificant thing, really) she had a nice Coat of Arms. Unlike the less "colourful" CoA's of Scharnhorst and Lützow, her CoA had swords, laurels and the Prussian eagle. Although this is just details, it's still part of a complete impression. Further, the bow seems to be percepted as beautiful by many, and in my eyes there never was another bow that pretty in the KM or in any other navy at the time being. The mast position is one of the things I love by the Gneisenau. It makes her silhouette more concentrated. Her open hangar deck looks better than the hangar deck aboard Scharnhorst right up until Cerberus, when both ships received the ugliest hangars I've ever seen. Good storage and practical use, I do not doubt, but the hangars are the ugliest boxes of steel ever placed aboard a warship. Her silhouette is quite distinct and simple in a manner. If I were to put a word on it, I'd say the silhouette is kind of triangular, raising from the forward turrets until it peaks in the mainmast and then dropping dramatically towards the aft turret. Scharnhorst's mainmast break up this triangle.

Having mentioned the aesthetical aspects, the operational history of the Gneisenau also contribute to my impression of the ship. The encounter with Renown, for instance. Although most refer to this engagement as the Twins vs Renown, I feel that Gneisenau was the ship in action here, giving and receiving hits. During the sinking of the Glorious, she again proved the warrior in her, sailing up in the wake of Scharnhorst and passing her while pressing all available speed and power out of her hull. Pushing it to the limit..! The message from Admiral Marschall also contributes to the impression of mine, telling Scharnhorst to stop wasting ammunition. I haven't read that Gneisenau had a poor hit ratio (although she perhaps wasted ammo too?) and I undeniably get the impression that Gneisenau was a better shot than the Scharnhorst. A better figthing ship which appears more reliable both in artillery and machinery. It all contributes to the impression.

Finally, the last thing that really settles the score for me is the idea of the Gneisenau with 15' guns. What a ship that would have been..! Handsome, powerful and fast. She would definitely turn a head or two! Sad thing is that the doctine of avoiding unfavourable battle would restrain her potential even further having these guns aboard. Just to to speak in favour of the Scharnhorst, to make sure no one will jump to the conclusion of thinking I don't like the Scharnhorst, I regard them both as very handsome ships. But for me, Gneisenau have something more to her, (distinction and reliability, perhaps?) just as Scharnhorst may have the same "little extra" for others. Some things I don't like with any of the them are the secondary single mounts and also the turret catapult.

Very best regards
User avatar
_Derfflinger_
Supporter
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:01 pm
Location: Missouri, USA

Post by _Derfflinger_ »

Terje - Good comments!

Derf
Post Reply