TDS, Torpedo Defense System. Richelieu's was about 23 ft (7m) deep amidships, KGV's was about 13ft (4m) deep amidships.marcelo_malara wrote:Sorry, what does TDS mean?
Battleship Top Ten
I'm learning to keep out of harm's way in these debates (the "Tiornu Effect" 
), but I will make just two entries:
1) Why, may I ask, is HMS Renown not on the list of "most beautiful"? I appreciate her absence from the other categories, but I must submit that Renown was a fine-looking lady, both before and after her rebuild.
2) I question the placement of a North Carolina-class battleship ahead of Richelieu, on a list of "most powerful".
), but I will make just two entries:1) Why, may I ask, is HMS Renown not on the list of "most beautiful"? I appreciate her absence from the other categories, but I must submit that Renown was a fine-looking lady, both before and after her rebuild.
2) I question the placement of a North Carolina-class battleship ahead of Richelieu, on a list of "most powerful".
The most beautiful list can be debated till the cows come home.
Everyone has his or her opinion on which battleship was the most beautiful.
There is no right or wrong answer..................unless someone puts Fuso or Gangut at the top of the list
I do agree that Richelieu deserves to rank above KGV in "most powerful" battleships.
Nelson class MUST be included in most powerful as I dont think anyone could seriously argue against their inclusion.
Everyone has his or her opinion on which battleship was the most beautiful.
There is no right or wrong answer..................unless someone puts Fuso or Gangut at the top of the list
I do agree that Richelieu deserves to rank above KGV in "most powerful" battleships.
Nelson class MUST be included in most powerful as I dont think anyone could seriously argue against their inclusion.
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst
its depends on what you are looking... If this "top ten" include armor, guns, speed, (all technical data), and crew quality, or only the technical data.Karl Heidenreich wrote:About Richelieu. If we look at "Combined Fleet" ratings the French Dreadnought is more powerfull than Old Good Bismarck. Do someone agrees with this or shall we let them stay in their places instead of swap them?
Best regards.
If only technical data: Richelieu (may be) more powerfull than Bismarck
If including crew quality: Bismarck is on top. We know about the Officer, commander and chief quality of germans officer in WWII, and we know also the french commander quality in this war
So Karl, i suggest to let The Bismarck and the Richelieu to their place in your list
Best regards
-
Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Gary:
RNfanDan:
About the "Tiornu Effect". Haven´t you heard about the "Foeth Sindrome". One of these days we´ll need a lawyer every time we post something here.
And regarding "North Carolina" on top "Richelieu", a simple question: why?
Best regards!
Those changes are already made, take a look to the last list posted, all´s fixed.do agree that Richelieu deserves to rank above KGV in "most powerful" battleships.
Nelson class MUST be included in most powerful as I dont think anyone could seriously argue against their inclusion.
RNfanDan:
With which BB we swap Renown in "most beautiful"? Because you´re quite right about that: Repulse or Renown were very beautiful ships. Your call...I'm learning to keep out of harm's way in these debates (the "Tiornu Effect" ), but I will make just two entries:
1) Why, may I ask, is HMS Renown not on the list of "most beautiful"? I appreciate her absence from the other categories, but I must submit that Renown was a fine-looking lady, both before and after her rebuild.
2) I question the placement of a North Carolina-class battleship ahead of Richelieu, on a list of "most powerful".
About the "Tiornu Effect". Haven´t you heard about the "Foeth Sindrome". One of these days we´ll need a lawyer every time we post something here.
And regarding "North Carolina" on top "Richelieu", a simple question: why?
Best regards!
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
"If we look at 'Combined Fleet' ratings the French Dreadnought is more powerfull than Old Good Bismarck."
Richelieu has greater firepower, better protection, and more mobility than Bismarck.
"If including crew quality: Bismarck is on top. "
Bismarck's crew was nothing special. Richelieu's crew had more preparation time.
"I question the placement of a North Carolina-class battleship ahead of Richelieu, on a list of 'most powerful'. "
Richelieu had better protection. NC had those frightening 2700-lb shells.
Richelieu has greater firepower, better protection, and more mobility than Bismarck.
"If including crew quality: Bismarck is on top. "
Bismarck's crew was nothing special. Richelieu's crew had more preparation time.
"I question the placement of a North Carolina-class battleship ahead of Richelieu, on a list of 'most powerful'. "
Richelieu had better protection. NC had those frightening 2700-lb shells.
When i spoke about the crew, i wanted to say that it is very important to have good officer and commander. It is VERY important (french people know it very well)Tiornu wrote:""If including crew quality: Bismarck is on top. "
Bismarck's crew was nothing special. Richelieu's crew had more preparation time.
.Bismarck staff, in my opinion, was top. It is for this reason that i think Bismarck was better.
Concerning the preparation time, it depends when an eventual fight would have been... If in 1941, Richelieu top speed = 14 knots, only three guns of 380 available, french sailor on holiday in Senegal, and german crew are in heavy training !
If it is in 1945, so i don't know...
Regards
"Bismarck staff, in my opinion, was top."
Why? There's no evidence for this. Timothy Mulligan has argued that Bismarck's crew was less capable than Eugen's. Apart from the Bismarck myth, what indication is there that Bismarck's personnel were notably gifted? I have never heard anything negative about Richelieu's command staff. Have you?
"If in 1941, Richelieu top speed = 14 knots, only three guns of 380 available, french sailor on holiday in Senegal, and german crew are in heavy training !"
Hee! Iowa doesn't look so powerful any more. She can't even float on her own.
Why? There's no evidence for this. Timothy Mulligan has argued that Bismarck's crew was less capable than Eugen's. Apart from the Bismarck myth, what indication is there that Bismarck's personnel were notably gifted? I have never heard anything negative about Richelieu's command staff. Have you?
"If in 1941, Richelieu top speed = 14 knots, only three guns of 380 available, french sailor on holiday in Senegal, and german crew are in heavy training !"
Hee! Iowa doesn't look so powerful any more. She can't even float on her own.
Ok The quality of the Bismarck staff should be the theme of another topic.
For the Richelieu one, there is nothing of particular. But i spoke of french naval commander in general. As the other (Land, air) french officer in WWII, they had a lack of "offensive spirit". The only one who wasn't in this case, was gensoul, who, day and night, was dreaming to make peanuts of the Regia marina. He is the only one who took the iniative, like the raid against italian harbour in 1940. The other commanders, have not this "fighting spirit" who make so powerfull guys like sommerville, churchill, and a lot of english and german officer, or simply, the french generals of WWI.
After, as you said, it is possible that the bismarck staff was not so pefect as that i said
The quality of the Bismarck staff should be the theme of another topic.For the Richelieu one, there is nothing of particular. But i spoke of french naval commander in general. As the other (Land, air) french officer in WWII, they had a lack of "offensive spirit". The only one who wasn't in this case, was gensoul, who, day and night, was dreaming to make peanuts of the Regia marina. He is the only one who took the iniative, like the raid against italian harbour in 1940. The other commanders, have not this "fighting spirit" who make so powerfull guys like sommerville, churchill, and a lot of english and german officer, or simply, the french generals of WWI.
After, as you said, it is possible that the bismarck staff was not so pefect as that i said
Why not have a list of the most important ships during WWII based on number of operations, what ship or class served their countries best, or changed the warhistory to their countries favor. Ships like Bismarck,Tirpitz, and Yamato were impressive ships but they achieved more or less nothing! The list over the most beautiful ship is of course personal and of no use! Best Regards!
-
marcelo_malara
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1848
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
- Location: buenos aires
I wouldn't change much with the lists, but perhaps nominate the following:
For most beautiful ships: I'd give a nod to the Iowa class to at least make the top ten. Even if you may not agree based on a side-on view comparison, take a look at one of them from the air (hint: Google Earth *hee hee*
). Something about the hull form that makes it look like it slices through the water, instead of plowing it out of its way.
For most famous ships: some ships that I think might be worthy of consideration would be USS South Dakota, USS Washington, USS Massachusetts (I apologize for the pro-U.S. slant to this!), and HMS Rodney. I want to include an IJN ship in this list, but am unsure as to which one would be more famous outside of Yamato (Hiei or Kirishima maybe? ). Unfortunately, at last check it seems the most famous list has 11 entries in it already, so I recommend dropping Tirpitz and Royal Oak and replacing with Rodney (purely my opinion, of course).
Now, for my "duck and cover" part of the post: I nominate Rodney to be on the list of ugliest battleships. I'm sorry, and while I agree that it has to be considered one of the most powerful, and perhaps most famous, there is something about the three turrets forward design that truly sets it apart from any other WWII-era battleship. Perhaps it is this "uniqueness" that contributes to my bias against it. I just don't find it aesthetically appealing.
** Summoner ducks and covers amid the hail of rotting tomatoes and other produce thrown in his direction. **
For most beautiful ships: I'd give a nod to the Iowa class to at least make the top ten. Even if you may not agree based on a side-on view comparison, take a look at one of them from the air (hint: Google Earth *hee hee*
). Something about the hull form that makes it look like it slices through the water, instead of plowing it out of its way.For most famous ships: some ships that I think might be worthy of consideration would be USS South Dakota, USS Washington, USS Massachusetts (I apologize for the pro-U.S. slant to this!), and HMS Rodney. I want to include an IJN ship in this list, but am unsure as to which one would be more famous outside of Yamato (Hiei or Kirishima maybe?
). Unfortunately, at last check it seems the most famous list has 11 entries in it already, so I recommend dropping Tirpitz and Royal Oak and replacing with Rodney (purely my opinion, of course).Now, for my "duck and cover" part of the post: I nominate Rodney to be on the list of ugliest battleships. I'm sorry, and while I agree that it has to be considered one of the most powerful, and perhaps most famous, there is something about the three turrets forward design that truly sets it apart from any other WWII-era battleship. Perhaps it is this "uniqueness" that contributes to my bias against it. I just don't find it aesthetically appealing.
** Summoner ducks and covers amid the hail of rotting tomatoes and other produce thrown in his direction. **
-
marcelo_malara
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1848
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
- Location: buenos aires
I have a rough mathematic estimate.
I made a formula: guns x shell weight x muzzle velocity x ship speed.
Guns and shell weight are included because they made up the broadside weight.
Muzzle velocity must be a factor because more velocity means more penetration and flater trajectory.
Ship speed is a measure of the ship ability to engage and disengage and to manouver to a good position.
Reloading time is excluded because they are all very close and at the common fighting distances shell flight time takes over.
Guns range is excluded too because all of them can fire at 25000 yards and there are not antecedents of hits beyong that, so it is an ability in excess.
Protection is excluded for now, because armour thickness is just a part of the equation, may be we find an additional formula to weight it.
Positions:
1-Iowa
2-Yamato (very close)
3-South Dakota
4-North Carolina
5-Litorio
6-Richelieu
7-Hood
8-Nagato
9-Nelson
10-Bismarck
11-KGV
I put eleven to make room for the one in discussion.
I made a formula: guns x shell weight x muzzle velocity x ship speed.
Guns and shell weight are included because they made up the broadside weight.
Muzzle velocity must be a factor because more velocity means more penetration and flater trajectory.
Ship speed is a measure of the ship ability to engage and disengage and to manouver to a good position.
Reloading time is excluded because they are all very close and at the common fighting distances shell flight time takes over.
Guns range is excluded too because all of them can fire at 25000 yards and there are not antecedents of hits beyong that, so it is an ability in excess.
Protection is excluded for now, because armour thickness is just a part of the equation, may be we find an additional formula to weight it.
Positions:
1-Iowa
2-Yamato (very close)
3-South Dakota
4-North Carolina
5-Litorio
6-Richelieu
7-Hood
8-Nagato
9-Nelson
10-Bismarck
11-KGV
I put eleven to make room for the one in discussion.
-
marcelo_malara
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1848
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
- Location: buenos aires
I agree with you 100%!!! I prefer the Gangut (sorry Gary).Now, for my "duck and cover" part of the post: I nominate Rodney to be on the list of ugliest battleships. I'm sorry, and while I agree that it has to be considered one of the most powerful, and perhaps most famous, there is something about the three turrets forward design that truly sets it apart from any other WWII-era battleship