Bismarck/Tirpitz
King George V class
Iowa class
Yamato class
Littorio class
The range the Brits pounded her at is exactly the reason why she took so much punnishment. Her main belt was so low that the battleships shells were merely mauling the unarmored upperworks, not really effecting the protected portion of the hull. The armor around the turrets was flawed, look at all those angles on the turrets! It took one shell to knock out both forward turrets on Biz, presumedly HMS Rodneys 16 shells did this. Its unknown just why but its presumed a ricocheting shot hit both B turret barbette and then A turret. Some of the more damaging hits were from a longer range, like the two hits on the CT, a third slicing into the deck just forward of it like a knive wound.Originally Posted by BMF12
Overall her TDS was intact but it too had some serious flaws that British torps really couldn't exploit at their running depth and explosive power rating.
Either way she would have sunk from progressive flooding, just too much damage and two few crew left to patch it up let alone get her back home.
Iowa's certainly are at the top but I tend to class them above the standard "treaty Battleship" anyway. Ditto with Yamato. British G'3's and Lion class would have been impressive, while the initial German H class design would have been equally impressive.
The Yamatos were much better served with the AA suite that replaced the wing 6-inch turrets though.
Room perhaps, but main battery was more than sufficient to deal with anything from light cruiser on up, and the numerous 5-inch battery would have turned any destroyer into a floating butcher shop.
And then there is another very compelling reason....
And there it is
Of note the 5"/38 twin were supposeldy one of the best variations of the 5" guns used for seconday armament aboard USN vessels at this time. The Iowa class carried the very same 5"/38 twins that were first used on the North Carolina class BB's. The Iowa's originally carried 10 sets of twin 5"/38's (5 sets on each side). After their refit this number was reduced to six 5"/38 twins (three sets on each side) in order to make room for both the Harpoons and the Tomahawk missle systems. Seasoned gunners onboard could in effect put anywhere from 11 to 22 shells per twin mount in the air per minute.
Last edited by Dreadnought; 19 Dec 06, at 18:53.
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
I've read that in several publications. NavWeaps.com says "This was unquestionably the finest Dual Purpose gun of World War II."
A huge factor in it's stunning success was undoubtably it's comfortably long warm-up period before the war (introduced in 1934 with a few teething problems that were ironed out).
Of course, the Mark 37 FCS needs to mentioned as well.
I'll bet between the WII Vets and from then on of all walks that used those guns that there are a bunch of guys that have distorted fingers from the powder cartridge loading mechanism. That dam thing snaps closed so fast that you really have to watch where your fingers are thus they are broken. We were taught to use a closed fist at the top of the cartridge and "punch" it in place before the mechanism slams the brass butterflys shut. Thus keeping your fingers for another few rounds.
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
Iowa-class BBs are undoubtedly the most advanced on all levels, but I voted for the Yamato-class. You really just have to love the humongous beam and the beautiful superstructure.
The proximity fuse also helped out.
Did the axis ever have something like that?
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
I'm rather fond of their raked stack
It certainly did.
Don't know about the Axis but somehow I doubt it.
The Axis powers sure had some serious technological advances, but they never seemed to be of the mass-production type that could help win the war.
Germany's jet and rocket aircraft and advanced subs, Japan's sen taka high-speed subs among other things.
I thought about the strategic significance of the class, rather than tactical effectiveness.
By that criterion, I chose the Tirpitz as the most successful dreadnought of WWII.
After all, one of the main purposes of a battleship is to be part of a "fleet-in-being."
Few battleships ever better represented an effective fleet-in-being than the Tirpitz.
How many enemy capital ships did the Tirpitz tie down full time during 1942-44? I think that the British never had fewer than five battleships and battlecruisers ready to meet a sortie by the Tirpitz.
That represents a pretty decent return-on-investment for the Germans, plus it served as a fine contribution on behalf of their allies in the Pacific and the Mediterranean.
I can't think of any capital ship in WWII that comes close in terms of the amount of enemy fighting power negated by its presence.
That is that is the question isn't it? If we're talking a one on one engagement, the Tirpitz is completely outclassed by the Iowas. The Iowas were 3 knots faster, had larger guns with better velocity and range, 9 guns to 8, and had a much better computerized fire control system. Tirpitz probably wouldn't have lasted much longer than the Hood.
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.
The Yamato and Musashi were VERY impressive LOOKING ships. But were not really used to their full potential. The Japanese stategy near the end of the war really was mass suicided as they ordered Yamato to ground herself on Saipan and act as a shore battery against the American ships.
A one-on-one engagement between an Iowa and a Yamato has been argued for many years, since about 1945 I believe. However, almost everyone agrees that if the Iowa opened fire FIRST and at NIGHT with her superior targeting radar, the Japanese ship would be hurting pretty bad.
Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.
Not important, though Yamato was ordered to run aground at Okinawa, not Saipan.
By this time, aren't battleships really for show only anyway?
I know I'm going to get a lot of flame from this opinion, though... I'm bracing myself for them right now
Of course, in a duel the Bismarcks and KGV's were outclassed by the Iowas or Yamatos.
I was pointing out a different and important criterion--impact on the course of the war.
The Iowa class dreadnoughts didn't have much impact on the course of the war. Their presence didn't change Japanese deployments or intentions.
Likewise, I don't believe that the Yamato class ever really altered American war plans.
As for deciding which was better, it's hard to say as neither class ever fought any other battleships. Looking at the limited history of dreadnought battles, I find that protection is very important. So I would give the edge to the Yamatos.
Can you imagine what would have happened if the Yamato actually reached Okinawa and grounded herself to become a shore battery? That would have invited the entire battle line of the Pacific Fleet to open up on her, IF they can even get there before the airplanes. A moored (grounded) battleship unable to manuever is little more than a death trap for her crew and a minor nuisance to her enemies.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
What would happen if Yamato actually made her way to Okinawa? Easy. Look at Jean Bart at the Battle of Casablanca. Like gunnut said, a grounded ship would have no chance, but even gunnut gave the grounded ship too much credit, I think. I don't think Nimitz would've sent the entire battle line. I think a squadron of Hellcats would be able to do the job.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: